I move—

I wish to refer to an item the deletion of which we moved in the Committee Stage. I refer to Item No. 609.04.10. I moved an amendment to delete this particular provision. The Chairman, on the advice of the Deputy Minister, ruled that the amendment was out of order. Unfortunately I did not have with me at the time the original Act and therefore I accepted the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Chairman, quite correctly, the statement by the Deputy Minister that the effect of this amendment would be to remove the rebate and therefore to increase taxation. There was a lot of laughter. I do not mind somebody taking a crack at me if I slip up and make a mistake, but when the Deputy Minister makes a statement in this House, in Committee, which in fact is incorrect then I think it is necessary to place on record …

Order! The hon. member is reflecting on the Chair.

No, Sir, I was saying that the hon. the Minister made a statement which the Chairman accepted, and I accept that in the circumstances before the Committee at the time the Chairman was completely correct. What I am attacking is that the information given by the Deputy Minister was incorrect. I assure you, Sir, that I have no intention of reflecting on the Chair because I think the Chairman acted absolutely correctly.

The hon. member may proceed.

What I want to point out is that the Bill before us has attached to it a Schedule, namely Schedule No. 6, which contains an amendment to Schedule No. 6 to the Customs and Excise Act of 1964. I have before me the Customs and Excise Act of 1964. Item No. 609.04.10 as inserted in 1965 is “Bantu beer for any purpose: Extent of rebate: Full duty”. The effect of my amendment was to remove the proposed replacement of that section in the Bill now before us and to leave the position as it stands in terms of Act 95 of 1965. If this amendment proposed to the Bill before us had been accepted, the law would have remained unchanged. In other words, there would have been a rebate on Bantu beer for any purpose, which was the object we were seeking to achieve. The Deputy Minister stated and, as I say, got a laugh out of it, that the effect of our amendment would in fact have resulted in a tax of 61 cents per gallon on Bantu beer. I rise to put the record straight and to point out that the Minister’s statement was in fact incorrect and that the smile now should be on the other side of his face.

What the hon. member said a moment ago was that the Chairman gave a wrong ruling.

No.

If that is not what the hon. member meant, why then did he rise to speak? If I may reply to what the hon. member has just said, it would be to say that the Chairman gave a ruling in the Committee before I had said anything at all, and I only rose afterwards, at the request of the hon. member for Constantia. [Interjections.] Hon. members should not laugh now to hide their difficulties. At the hon. member for Constantia’s request to the Chairman—he is present and he can tell me whether I am wrong—I explained how an amendment could be moved so that it would be in order, because the hon. member’s problem was not the result of anything I had done, but the result of the fact that the Chairman had ruled the hon. member’s amendment out of order. That is all I did, namely to help them out of their difficulty. If the hon. member had been trying this morning to put the record straight and to save face, then he made a mistake.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members have probably noticed, we are once again introducing a general measure in terms of which we are effecting a number of highly essential amendments in several laws. I am aware of the fact that some of us do not like this sort of measure and prefer the amendments of each Act to be effected by way of separate Bills instead. I also want to concede that the point of view taken by those who think that way is not entirely without its merits. However, if we were to give effect to that, it would have meant in this case that we would have had to submit at least 14 separate measures to this House, each of which would in turn have had to pass through all the customary stages. Such a procedure would be unpractical in a case such as this where the amendments are not of a drastic nature. I might as well add at once that from the nature of the case a Bill such as this one cannot be introduced at an early stage, because it is only at a very late stage of a session that one knows what provisions are to be embodied in such a measure. I know that hon. members will not blame me for the inevitable, but for the purposes of the record I thought it fit to set out the position very briefly here.

Hon. members will agree with me that a Bill of this nature can be discussed more profitably in the Committee Stage. Therefore I am not going to elaborate on its provisions, but for the information and convenience of hon. members I should like to outline briefly the background to some of the provisions.

As far as clause 7 is concerned, I may just mention that the period for which persons may be detained in terms of the relevant section often expires at night or at a time when the court is trying other cases. In such cases it is not always possible to obtain timeously a warrant for the further detention of the person concerned, the result being that he has to be released so as to avoid the subsequent risk of damages being claimed by him on the grounds of unlawful detention. What also happens in practice is that at some or other stage during the day on which their period of detention expires, the persons concerned are brought to court, where they often have to sit and wait for the cases in which they have to appear to be tried. In the meantime the hour at which they are to be released in terms of the relevant section may have arrived before a warrant for their further detention could be obtained. The amendment that is being envisaged will leave sufficient time for bringing to trial the case of the person or persons concerned on the day in question, or to obtain a warrant for their further detention.

As section 186 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act reads at present, a magistrate may pass sentence upon an accused who has been convicted by, another magistrate, but he may not commit him for trial to a regional court or convert the case into a preliminary hearing, even if according to law and in view of his record a sentence which may only be imposed by a regional court or the Supreme Court has to be passed upon the accused. There appears to be no reason why the magistrate who has to pass sentence upon the accused may not be granted the same powers as those the magistrate by whom the accused was convicted would have had if he had been present. The transfer of magistrates often necessitates steps to be taken in terms of section 186 (4), and the obstacles we are experiencing in regard to the application thereof do not further the administration of justice, nor are they in the interests of the accused.

The amendment we are seeking to effect in clause 10 has a rather interesting history. As you may appreciate, identifying an accused person, particularly in cases of robbery, is of the utmost importance because robbery usually takes place within a few moments and under circumstances which make exacting demands on the power of observation of the witness, who is more often than not the person who has been robbed. It is in such cases, therefore, that identification parades are often indispensable for identifying the suspected person. However, in recent years it has been happening to an ever-increasing extent that robbers—who, incidentally, are among the most hardened criminals imaginable—are applying all sorts of techniques to prevent identification at identification parades. To-day it is no longer an uncommon phenomenon to see a robber covering his face with his jacket or another garment or even a blanket when the complainant is asked to indicate whether the person who robbed him is present at an identification parade. Others again lie down facing the ground or disguise themselves by using some means or other by which their features are concealed or made unrecognizable. In cases where a woman is the complainant, they even adopt a threatening attitude to her or the; distort then-features into a vicious or cruel grimace with the obvious purpose of frightening the complainant. And let me add that this technique is not without effect, and that the police have been experiencing a great many problems because women have gradually become more disinclined to point out their attackers at identification parades. It goes without saying that we cannot allow the administration of justice to be frustrated in the way I have just outlined to you, and that is why we now want to grant the police the necessary power in this particular regard. I may just add that the powers we are now seeking to grant the police do, of course, not imply that the rules which have so far been applicable to the holding of identification parades are now going to be thrown overboard. On the contrary, the value of any evidence in regard to an identification parade will still, as before, depend on what measures are taken so as to ensure an unprejudiced and just identification of the suspect. But it will now at least be possible to prevent a person from covering his face or attiring himself in clothes making a mockery out of identifications. Nor should we feel concerned about the fact that by exposing his features for inspection an accused will now be compelled, as it were, to give evidence against himself by implication. After all, for a long time already it has been the accepted practice here that the evidence an accused gives against himself by exposing his feature I in a court or at an identification parade admissible. Wigmore has a rather great deal of interesting things to say about this topic in his monumental work on the law of evidence, and those of us who are interested in this matter may safely consult his work once again to see what he has to say about it.

All the lawyers amongst us are probably aware that in cases where a collision between two vehicles can be blamed on the negligence of both drivers, it is not possible to charge them jointly for negligent driving because each of them has in fact committed a separate offence comprising various actions. The fact nevertheless remains that the evidence at the trial of both those persons is to a large extent the same, and that the trial of one of them is a virtual repetition of the trial of the other. A similar situation also arises sometimes in the case of train accidents, where the negligence of the driver or of the signalman, or of both, may be the cause of the accident. However, in Rex v. Meyer, 1948 (3) S.A. 145 and other cases it was ruled that section 328 of the Criminal Procedure Act could not be applied for effecting the joint trial of the parties concerned in such cases. As the relevant section reads at present, this can only be applied in a limited number of cases, in cases of immorality, for instance. In addition to that this gives rise to uncertainty, as it is not always clear what cases are affected by that. Consequently an attempt is now being made to state clearly to what cases the relevant provisions are applicable. The proposed amendment does not affect the rule that two or more accused are not to be tried jointly if such a joint trial will prejudice the trial of the one or the other. In all these circumstances I think that we shall be serving the interests of the administration of justice if we eliminated the existing obstacles, especially where, as in this case, nobody can be prejudiced by doing so.

I do not think that the provisions of clause 13 are obscure in meaning to hon. members, but I just want to explain briefly that although we have been doing without them up to now, it is conceivable that in time of war on our native soil or even owing to the acts of saboteurs and terrorists, it may become impossible to publish the Gazette, because the available printing facilities may have been damaged or destroyed. If such a situation were to befall us overnight, we shall not even be able to promulgate a state of emergency in the customary manner. The administration of affairs of state may, as hon. members will appreciate, be prejudiced seriously if the Gazette cannot be published. It is not in the least our intention to make use of the powers requested as long as the Gazette can still be published. Promulgation by way of publication in the Gazette is not only customary, but also happens to be the most satisfactory and, in normal circumstances, the easiest way of doing so. However, I think that we should be prepared for contingencies, although I do not expect us to find ourselves in a position to-day or tomorrow where we shall no longer be able to have the Gazette published.

As hon. members know, a parent of a child under the age of 18 years may in certain circumstances, in terms of section 60 of the Children’s Act, 1960, be deprived of his parental powers in regard to his child. These parental powers include, inter alia, the power to grant consent to the marriage or adoption of the child. The question that arises, however, is whether a parent who has been deprived of his parental powers may be granted those powers again when the child reaches the age of 18 years. In terms of the Children’s Act of 1937 such a thing could not happen, nor should it be allowed in terms of the existing Act, since it would cause confusion. Therefore it is now being proposed to amend the definition of “child” in such a way that for the purposes of section 60 of the Act it may also include a person who is over the age of 18 but under the age of 21.

It will be remembered that during November last year the hon. the Deputy Minister for South-West Africa Affairs said in a public statement that the question of the supply of intoxicating liquor to the native population groups of South-West Africa would be reconsidered by the Government. As hon. members know, it has always been our policy to administer South-West Africa in the spirit of those provisions of the Mandate that relate to the furtherance of the welfare and well-being of the inhabitants of the Territory. Nor are hon. members unfamiliar with the fact that when the Mandate came into being, to withhold liquor from the native section of the population of the Territory was regarded as a protective measure. However, time marches on and the respective population groups in the Territory have also developed, just as population groups elsewhere. For a considerable period of time representations have therefore been received from the authorities and representatives of the respective native population groups of the Territory for intoxicating liquor to be made available to the groups in question. This matter was investigated fully and the evidence on liquor-running that was received from the respective population groups was considered carefully. For the information of this House mention may be made of the fact that in assessing this matter the Government, as is its practice in considering matters relating to South-West Africa, also allowed itself to be guided by the interests of the respective population groups, and that in the light of all these circumstances it is satisfied that the time is ripe for the provisions relating to the supply of liquor to the native population groups of South-West Africa to be relaxed. Accordingly provision is being made in clause 22 of this Bill for the provision of liquor to the said groups, subject, of course, to such control as may be deemed necessary. By doing that the position relating to the supply of liquor to the native population groups in the Territory is therefore being brought into line with that in other former mandated territories where the prohibition on the supply of liquor lapsed during the post-war period.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to draw attention to clause 6. I do not want to repeat everything that was said about this particular provision in the past. Nor do I believe that we shall be serving any useful purpose by conducting once again a lengthy debate on these particular provisions. We all know that this concerns the detention of one man, namely Robert Sobukwe, and in this regard I just want to say that I have given careful consideration to this whole matter, including all representations I received in this regard, and that I also paid a private visit to the person concerned and recently granted an interview to his wife. However, I am convinced that at this stage it is not in the public interest that he should be released. Therefore I have no option and I must necessarily request the extension of the validity of the provisions in terms of which he is being detained. However, I want to mention here that I have decided to relax the conditions in terms of which Sobukwe is being detained so that, subject to the necessary precautionary measures, it will be possible for his wife and children to live with him twice a year for continuous periods of 14 days at a time at the place where he is being detained; this concession is over and above the visits they can pay him at present.

He and his family have already intimated that they are particularly appreciative of this exceptional concession, and they have already thanked me for it. This shows that we are not adopting an unfeeling or indifferent attitude as regards the detention of this man, and that we are trying to alleviate his plight as far as it is possible for us to do so. Unfortunately i cannot go any further at this stage than I have done.

As the hon. the Minister has rightly said in introducing this measure, it consists of a number of clauses affecting various other Acts. It covers a field ranging from the regulations which may be promulgated under the Commissions Act to amendments to the Suppression of Communism Act, the Rents Act and the Criminal Procedure Act. It also deals with a lot of other matters and it ends up with a provision for permitting the sale of alcohol to the natives living in South-West Africa. Sir, these measures are unobjectionable to us, except for one clause and that is clause 6, with which the hon. the Minister has also dealt. In the Committee Stage we will raise certain questions in regard to some of the other matters, including the question of the supply of liquor to the natives in South-West Africa, but we have no objection in principle to any of the other clauses. We regard this measure as consisting of a lot of different Bills and we are prepared to pass the Second Reading, but in the Committee Stage we will oppose clause 6. Clause 6, as the Minister has said, was first introduced in 1963, and because it is so drastic the then Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister, accepted an amendment to make it lapse after a year as he agreed with us that we did not want a measure of this nature on our Statute Book permanently. The next year the Prime Minister, the then Minister of Justice. said that like us he too objected to the principle embodied in the clause, but felt that it was necessary to pass this legislation again. I mention this, Sir, to emphasize the fact that the Minister who introduced the original measure objected to it as much as we did but he said it had to remain on the Statute Book because he felt it was necessary. Our objection at the time was that it only dealt with one man. The hon. the Minister himself has now admitted that it deals with one man only. This clause has become known as the Sobukwe clause. The position, of course, is that in terms of this particular clause, any person under certain circumstances, not only Sobukwe, can be detained in a prison or elsewhere after he has served the term of imprisonment to which he was sentenced for the commission of a crime. The man concerned here is Sobukwe. It may be quite true that he is unrepentant and that he has not changed his ideology. But that his ideology is anathema to the majority of us is no reason for depriving him of his liberty —unless he takes active steps to put his ideology into effect, thereby transgressing our laws. We cannot lock up people merely because they believe in the ideals of, for instance, Nazism or Communism, although we can take action against them if they tend to further the aims of Nazism or Communism by unlawful means. So, if Sobukwe takes active steps to further an unlawful objective then he must be dealt with. But there are, in fact, numerous laws under which we can deal with Sobukwe. He is in this peculiar position that he is a Bantu and that we have numerous laws dealing with detention of Bantu—deportation for instance, or in other ways—besides all the laws we have passed since 1963, laws entitling the police to detain people suspected of committing crimes of the nature of the crimes it is suspected Sobukwe will commit. There are other laws, such as house arrest—as a matter of fact, there is a whole list of them and I do not think it is necessary for me to go through them now. All these laws enable the Minister to take action against a person whom he suspects may be a threat to the maintenance of law and order.

The point I want to make is that this particular provision, as it is now on our Statute Book, does not apply only to Sobukwe, but to everybody. At the same time it is true that the only person against whom it is being applied is Sobukwe and as far as he is concerned there are many other laws under which he may be dealt with by virtue of the fact that he is a Bantu. After all our talk of having broken Poqo. the A.N.C., the communists, etc., we look ridiculous having a law of this nature on our Statute Book just to deal with one man. I am sure that if he intends taking active steps to further the aims of Communism, or to commit any other unlawful act, our security police will soon be on his track in which case he can be dealt with under the many other provisions available to the authorities. The mere fact that it is necessary, after this provision has been on the Statute Book for four years, to detain only one man is sufficient proof that a provision of this nature is not really necessary for the security of the State and the maintenance of law and order. The man Sobukwe is not important—it is the presence of a provision of this nature on our Statute Book which matters, especially in view of the fact that Sobukwe, as I have said, can be dealt with under numerous other laws. The Minister himself has admitted that this provision affects only one man at the moment. Therefore, I want to ask whether it is not possible for us to deal with him in some other manner. Some time ago we saw that he made a request to the authorities for an exit permit. However, I think that request was refused. I do not know whether Sobukwe still wants an exit permit but I submit that if he does want it the Government should grant it to him and let him get out of the country. Our experience of others who have been granted exit permits has been that they have not really been a danger to us after they have left the country but have instead become an embarrassment to their host and to those people who have accorded them friendship. Can the hon. the Minister give us any information in this regard and say why it is not possible to deal with Sobukwe in this manner?

The Minister has announced that he is going to grant Sobukwe more privileges, especially in respect of visits by his family. I am very glad to hear that because I made representations to the Minister on these lines. So I hope his wife will be able to take advantage of these extended privileges. But because of the fact that here are other laws under which we feel Sobukwe can be dealt with if he intends committing a breach of the peace or breaking the laws in any way, we are opposed to keeping a measure of this nature on our Statute Book— an obnoxious measure, as was agreed by the then Minister of Justice, now the Prime Minister, when he originally introduced it. Under the circumstances, we shall oppose this clause in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I move as an amendment—

The hon. the Minister said that there really was no point in rehashing all the old arguments about clause 6 of this Bill, a clause which is really the only important clause of this Bill, a point of view also held by the hon. member for Transkei. But its very presence in this Bill makes it impossible for me to support this Bill at its Second Reading. It was for a similar reason that I opposed a similar measure last year and during the two Sessions before that. The Opposition, of course, at that stage also voted against the Second Reading.

That was the Suppression of Communism Act.

Yes, but this also is an amendment of the Suppression of Communism Act. If the hon. member for Transkei would look at his own speech of 1965 he would see that he then said that there was nothing important in the measure then introduced except for the Sobukwe clause. He added that because he was the watchdog for the jurisprudence of this country he could not accept the measure. However, I am not interested in the Opposition—I have given them up! One never knows what they are up to in matters of this nature. Year after year they have taken up the attitude that there was nothing offensive in these measures except for this particular clause. I have here the Hansard of 1965. The hon. member can read his Leader’s words there on the 1965 measure. As a matter of fact, the Opposition supported my amendment when the Third Reading of the measure was proposed, to the effect that it be read a third time “this day six months”. At the Second Reading, however, they did not support a similar amendment of mine although they voted against the Bill being read a second time because of this particular offensive clause. As has been said, this particular provision at present is being applied only to one man, namely Robert Sobukwe. But that is not the really important issue. It does not matter whether it applies to only one, or to 10 or to 15 men. As a matter of fact, it can apply to any number of men as long as the hon. the Minister can decide to detain in gaol any man who has already served the sentence imposed upon him by the courts. May I remind the House that Sobukwe was in fact sentenced to only three years’ imprisonment—that is all. Moreover, when the judge at the time passed sentence, he himself commented that he thought the sentence was a severe one. What is more, this sentence, which the judge himself admitted was severe, was not imposed for violence, not for sabotage, not for any crime against the State—he was sentenced for incitement against the pass laws. Hon. members may have forgotten that, but that was the crime for which Sobukwe was sent to gaol.

That is all he was charged with.

“That is all he was charged with,” says the hon. member behind my back, an hon. member who is, I understand, a member of the Bar. Can the hon. member tell me which laws give effect to his private opinion about the guilt of a man on charges on which that man has not been found guilty by a court of law? What law is there to say that a man is guilty of a crime of which the hon. member thinks he should have been charged? Never have I heard such an argument in all my life. The fact of the matter is that Sobukwe was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for incitement against the pass laws.

What was the effect of that incitement? Poqo, P.A.C. …

When Sobukwe was the leader of the P.A.C., this organization did not, in fact, preach violence. Three years later the P.A.C. turned into Poqo and thereby became a violent organization. By that time Sobukwe had been in gaol for three years and unless our prison security is very poor indeed I see no possibility that Sobukwe could have been the leading light in transforming the P.A.C. into Poqo, into a violent organization. In any event, Sobukwe has been detained since then for another four years—four more years in gaol and by the time the proposal of the hon. the Minister with which we are dealing now has transpired he will have served five years over and above the sentence duly imposed upon him by the courts of law.

Like other hon. members I have also spoken to Sobukwe quite recently. Let me say at once that the conditions under which he is being held are certainly far better than those under which any normal prisoner is held. Sobukwe is in his own compound and has two blocks for his own use: Sleeping quarters and an ablution block. Moreover, he has books, a radio and record-player available to him. But to me none of this is really relevant. The cardinal point is that Sobukwe is being held prisoner, and as such is deprived of his liberty. To me it does not matter even if he were living in one of our best hotels—the fact remains that he is a prisoner and as such deprived of his liberty. Two years ago Sobukwe offered to accept an exit permit and was prepared to give an undertaking that he would not engage in any further political activity. However, at that time the Government refused to accept his word and, accordingly, his request was refused. I do not know whether he is of the same mind to-day—I doubt whether he is. But nothing of this is relevant. I do not know what hon. members think will happen to a man who is being kept in what is, virtually, solitary confinement, year after year. He has the occasional visitor, but by virtue of the geographical position of Robben Island it is difficult for people to get to him, particularly so for his wife and family, who live on the Witwatersrand.

The Minister has said that he is prepared to grant special concessions to allow his wife and family to be with him for 14 days a time twice a year. That, of course, is a great improvement, an improvement for which, I have no doubt, Sobukwe has already expressed his gratitude. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister said so. But this. Sir. is not the same as leading a normal family life, as being at liberty after having served a sentence. It is merely a concession and does not compensate for his loss of liberty. I have asked the hon. the Minister, and I now ask him again to consider it, to arrange for Sobukwe’s wife to have railway concessions to come and visit Sobukwe. [Interjections.] Apparently hon. members do not find it unusual that a man should still be kept in gaol four years after he has served his sentence. His wife lives on the Witwatersrand and has to earn a living for herself and her family. Financially it is very difficult for her to manage this long trip to Cape Town.

I should also like to point out to those hon. members creating such a fuss on the back benches behind me that the previous Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister, actually went so far as to say that he would consider granting such concessions very seriously. He was not aghast at the thought of the S.A. Railways making a concession available to Mrs. Sobukwe twice a year to enable her and her family to visit Sobukwe. He was perfectly prepared to consider the matter, but before he was able to take the matter any further, the House rose and shortly thereafter he relinquished the portfolio of Justice. So, I do ask the present Minister of Justice to reconsider this matter, very seriously. I may say that this man needs visitors. After all, he is virtually being held in solitary confinement. The commandant does visit him occasionally and he has a warder standing outside his compound. Apart from that, he is alone for the major part of his time. He told me himself that he was beginning to feel very strongly that having nobody at all to converse with was definitely beginning to affect him mentally. It is not, I presume, the hon. the Minister’s intention to keep him there for the rest of his life. As it is, his position has to be reviewed annually. But I hope one of these days the hon. the Minister will decide that in terms of common justice this man should be released as the courts decreed he should be released after he had served his three years in gaol.

Why do you say he is living in a compound? Isn’t it a flat?

I wonder whether the hon. member who is so cynical about this would care to take up permanent residence in such a “flat”, overlooking the ocean and with a fine view of the mountains! Perhaps he will enjoy it. I happen to be concerned now with the principles of common justice, principles which I believe are being violated by this measure. That is why I intend moving a similar amendment to the one I moved during previous years. I do not want to go any further, except to say one thing, something which it is necessary should be said. Of course, I would not have believed it, but from previous debates we have had in this House, especially the more recent debates, apparently it is necessary for me to say it. And that is that if one opposes this amendment of the Suppression of Communism Act, as I have opposed previous amendments of the Suppression of Communism Act, for example the house arrest clause, the 90-day clause, the 180-day clause in the Bills that contain those provisions, it does not mean that one is in favour of Communism. It does not mean that one is in favour of sabotage and it does not mean that one is in favour of terrorism. It appears to be very necessary to say all these things. So I wish to place on record …

For whose benefit?

I say these things for the benefit of common justice and for the benefit of the principles involved. [Interjections.] And it should not be necessary for me to tell the hon. the Minister of Justice, who himself is a legal man, that there are certain very important principles contained in all these measures as far as I am concerned. I therefore wish to place on record that one is not in favour of any of these crimes of sabotage and terrorism if one opposes Bills of this nature … [Interjections.]

Order!

… anymore, I might say, that one is in favour of criminals and crime if one pleads for penal reform and improvements in prison conditions. I read a very interesting letter or interview given to one of the Government newspapers not long ago, by an anonymous police officer who had the impertinence to suggest that I was in favour of crime because I had pleaded for improvements in prison conditions. As I have said, as far as I am concerned, I shall go on pleading for improvements in our prison conditions. I am not remotely touched by any of these insinuations or any of these accusations. I simply place on record that I am opposed to any acts of this nature, particularly the one we are considering to-day, because I consider it contains a vital principle which abrogates common justice as we know it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few remarks with regard to clause 6. Under ordinary circumstances no one in this House is in favour of detaining a person after he has served his sentence. I wish to make it clear that we are not re-enacting this provision in order to detain Sobukwe because he committed a crime many years ago. This re-enactment must not be viewed in that light at all. We are re-enacting this provision because we consider it to be in the interests of the safety of the State. Unfortunately new factors have arisen during the last year which constitute a danger to the State. We have the massing of terrorists on our borders who are fully armed with modern and dangerous weapons. These terrorists have no regard at all for human life. They are infiltrating our borders and so constitute a real danger to the safety of the State. In these circumstances we have the position that the hon. the Minister of Justice has come to this House with a request to extend the period of detention. The hon. member for Transkei pointed out that we have different laws under which we could detain Sobukwe in other ways. But we could not detain him in other ways so as to avoid an escape from this country. This is a possibility we must consider and I think the hon. the Minister together with the Cabinet must have considered this position that Sobukwe could escape and furthermore that he was a potential leader of the terrorists beyond our borders. And because we have the duty of safeguarding the safety of the State we must take regard of this consideration by the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet. We must also take into consideration that they have more information at their disposal than can be disclosed to this House, which is also in the interests of the State. We on this side of the House and also hon. members on the other side have no alternative but to consent to this extension after the serious request by the hon. the Minister of Justice and after the Cabinet as a whole had considered the matter. I also want to point out that the hon. the Prime Minister admitted to the House that he also does not wish to keep a prisoner in detention who has served his sentence. I think it should also be recorded that this person is given special treatment, he is allowed special facilities and that he is not treated like an ordinary convicted prisoner.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Omaruru perhaps reinforces the case that the hon. member for Transkei made, inasmuch as he confirms that the principle which is contained in the Sobukwe clause—the so-called Sobukwe clause—is a principle of which no one is in favour. It is a principle. Sir, of which the hon. the Prime Minister, when he was the Minister of Justice, expressed himself to be against, and in respect of which he expressed himself to be in agreement with us in principle. He said that he had his troubles with the man himself and therefore had to retain him for one more year. But one wonders just what has happened here. Since Sobukwe went into gaol—round about 1960—we have had an enormous number of new offences created. An enormous number was placed on the Statute Book. We had the Riotous Assemblies Act and especially offences under the Suppression of Communism Act. There were all sorts of new offences which were not offences before this man was committed to gaol. We had offences relating to sabotage and offences relating to terrorism. There is no field that one can think of where a person with subversive intentions could not be dealt with. The whole field is covered by a wide variety of laws, a number of which provide for minimum penalties. There is the position in so far as dealing with them in terms of the law is concerned. More than that, we have since 1960 passed more laws to deal with the question of containing a person if he is suspected of being a potential troublemaker or a potential agitator. We have had house arrests which were not there before. We have the powers to confine people to various areas under the Suppression of Communism Act; the question of having to report to the Police; provisions relating to the interrogation of persons; the provisions relating to the prohibition of meetings; the prohibition of one person from meeting another and from attending a gathering, etc. All this fantastic number of new powers were placed in the hands of the Executive to contain the movement of a person and in the second place, as I have indicated, there are a large number of new crimes. One is therefore surprised, to say the very least, that with all these powers, with all the experience that we have gained, with all these new offences, it is not possible to contain a person like Sobukwe, or any single person at all. The question is not Sobukwe, the question as far as we are concerned is the principle of this thing, namely that this clause should still be necessary. I think that the hon. member for Transkei has made the position very clear that we are against it. Now, the hon. member for Houghton—I am afraid I must just deal with her shortly …

Just be a little less pompous this time.

A little less pompous! Pompous is not the word for the hon. member for Houghton. Perhaps the word that comes to mind I should not use. The hon. member for Houghton is now trying to run for the third time this lame horse. This lame horse is that “according to the procedure, I can move this day six months, therefore I am against this provision and the United Party is being wishy-washy and is not against the provision.” The hon. member for Transkei has made it very clear just where we stand about this provision. And what matters is how you stand in relation to the provision and not whether you may get something out in the Press which indicates that you, Helen Suzman, fought it whereas you, the United Party, did not fight it at that stage.

Surely you can do better than that.

That is the object of the operation. [Interjections.]

Order!

Stop being personal and get on with your speech.

Without being personal I am indicating what the object of the hon. member’s amendment is. The hon. member talked about 1965. In 1965 the Sobukwe clause was placed for renewal in a Bill to amend the Suppression of Communism Act. At the Second Reading we were opposed to that Bill.

Because of that clause.

Because of that clause and because of other clauses as we indicated clearly at the time. At the Committee Stage a number of the objectionable clauses were removed and we voted against the Sobukwe clause. When it came to the Third Reading there were two clauses in the Bill that we were still against. But this was a Bill amending the Suppression of Communism Act, which we were opposed to in the first place. That was because of the arbitrary nature of the provision as it armed the Executive with so many arbitrary powers. Here the provision is put in—and it is for the Government to decide—in a General Law Amendment Bill. It is a General Law Amendment Bill which contains 22 principles, which is in effect something like 17 Bills. It could all have been put into 17 different Bills. And what we have to decide here is the question as to what the principle of the Bill is. Are we for or against the principle of the Bill? What is the principle of the Bill? We are in fact against one provision and we are not against any of the other provisions. How can the hon. member say that this is the principle of the Bill? I am quite sure that the people in South-West Africa might regard the principle of this Bill as being that provision, namely clause 22, which provides that the native inhabitants in South-West Africa may now have liquor. I am quite sure, Sir, that they would regard that as the principle of the Bill. By the same token I am sure that those persons concerned with commissions would regard the provision that regulations may be made giving a commission the status of a court and that their proceedings may be sub judice, as a principle. This does not matter. What matters is how one feels about the various provisions. Our position is very clear. So far as all the other provisions are concerned, the other principles, we have no objection. As far as clause 6 is concerned, we have objections. In the right place in the proper manner we will indicate our objection and we will do what we can to have it erased from the Statute Book.

Mr.Speaker. I want to ask the hon. the Opposition and also the hon. member for Houghton whether they think I am detaining Robert Sobukwe for a further year because I find it pleasant. Do they think that after his wife visited me and pleaded with me I am nevertheless detaining him because I find it pleasant? I am not doing it for that reason. I am doing it because I have a duty to this country. That is why I am detaining Robert Sobukwe. That is the only reason why he is being detained. I do not want to go into details now and say where he fits into the picture or will fit into the picture, but I want to make it clear that to release Robert Sobukwe from Robben Island at this stage—under all the powers that hon. members said I had—would be folly. It would be folly to release him at this stage. I am not going into further details. I just want to reply to one point. The hon. member for Transkei asked me what the position was in respect of Sobukwe’s request for an exit permit. The fact of the matter is that he has at no time applied for such a permit. He has not yet applied for a one-way permit. His wife did in fact ask, in a letter she wrote to the hon. the Prime Minister—a letter which was made public—whether the Government would consider letting him out on a one-way permit. But he has not yet indicated that he is prepared to leave the country on a one-way permit.

Two years ago he said so.

Two years ago he did, yes, but he has not applied for it recently. He has not indicated that, and I also want to say here and now that even if he did indicate that at the present time, I think it would be very unwise to let him go.

This is a case of prevention being better than cure. We are detaining Robert Sobukwe on Robben Island because he cannot escape from there. We are trying to detain him under the best possible conditions. We do not regard him as a prisoner; we regard and treat him as a detainee. As I have just made known, we have made a further concession to him as regards his wife and his children. We do so to make things more pleasant and better for him where he is being detained. But to release him at this stage is out of the question; I simply cannot do that.

There is one more point which has not been dealt with. The hon. member for Houghton asked that the Government should consider enabling his wife to visit him at Government expense. I did not know that the hon. the present Prime Minister had said at one stage that he would consider that. If he did say so, I am also prepared and willing to consider it without committing myself at this stage.

I ask hon. members please to see the matter in this light: I am not detaining Robert Sobukwe for the fun of it. I have paid a special visit to him. I asked all the officials to leave and he and I were alone in his room, he on one chair and I on another. We had a very interesting talk, which it is not necessary for me to repeat here. I have every reason not to feel very pleased about having to detain the man, but my duty to the country and to the people of South Africa is more than that to Robert Sobukwe and his family.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr.Speaker, I move—

Although the Transkei Constitution Amendment Bill, of which I am now moving the Second Reading, may appear long and perhaps complex to hon. members, it actually contains only four basic matters. In the first place it contains the change in the basis and the number of constituencies for the election of the 45 ordinary members of the Legislative Assembly. In the second place it contains a change in the way chiefs are represented on the Legislative Assembly. I should like hon. members to note in particular that it merely relates to the way they are to be represented in the Assembly and not to the grand total of paramount chiefs and chiefs serving on the Legislative Assembly; their number remains at 64. In the third place it contains a clearer definition and more detailed provision in respect of sub-chiefs, as well as provision for the appointment of acting paramount chiefs, chiefs and sub-chiefs, in order to maintain the position which has always applied. Finally it relates to the transfer of movable property to the Government of the Transkei.

The third and fourth points, which I want to deal with first, are merely an extension of the existing legislation, and there is not much to be said about them. In 1956 provision was made in the Bantu Administration Act for paramount chiefs and sub-chiefs and acting appointments in these capacities. Since then appointments are made and have also been made in the Transkei, even after self-government was granted, but from a legal opinion it now appears that section 45 of the Transkei Constitution Act and the definition of chief and headmen in section 73 do not go far enough and must therefore be amended, as indicated in clauses 5 and 8 of the Bill. This is purely technical and no new principles are involved. The provisions must accordingly be inserted with retrospective force to 30th May, 1963, the date on which the Constitution Act was promulgated, in order to provide for the validity of appointments since that date, i.e. 30th May, 1963.

The proposed amendments to clauses 6 and 7, which relate to the transfer of movable property, come under the same category. This is a technical point, because although it was accepted that the authorization in section 59 of the Constitution Act with regard to the transfer of property also included movable property, it now appears from a legal opinion that this is not the case. At the time the section was of course fully debated, and it is in fact unnecessary to debate this provision again, because everybody, also hon. members on the opposite side, was under the impression at the time that section 50 included movable property, as the section was then discussed here on that basis.

Permit me first to draw all attention to clause 3, which relates to the change in the constituencies and which is actually the basic point in this measure. At present the nine regional authority areas are the constituencies for the election of the 45 elected members of the Legislative Assembly. There are therefore nine constituencies. The constituencies comprise the Bantu areas in 26 districts. The number of members for each constituency is determined in proportion to the number of registered voters, which varies from slightly less than 170,000 in the largest, which has eight members, to 37,600 in the smallest, which has two members. In the largest constituency, for example, the voters have to vote for eight members at every general election. Perhaps you will recall that at the first general election 33 candidates were nominated in that constituency—that is, in the Qaukeni constituency —and you may appreciate what confusion such a large number of candidates could cause in such a large constituency. If one vacancy arises in the constituency, a by-election for a possible electorate of almost 170,000 has to be arranged. I think the correct number of voters in that constituency is 163,000. In terms of the proposed amendment before you at the moment, there will be no delimitation and the number of members to a constituency will be proportionate to the total number of registered voters in the various new constituencies. This is the same principle as the existing one, only with a smaller entity per constituency.

Sound reasons may be advanced for the proposed amendment. It appears that the new system will be easier to operate and more practical. At a by-election only one single district will be involved, whereas in terms of the existing system up to five districts may be involved in such a by-election if only one member has to be elected. By-elections will also be cheaper on the more restricted district basis than they have been until now on the larger regional basis. General elections should cost the same as under the present system, but it will not be possible to avoid the cost of re-registration, which is to be defrayed by the Transkei Government.

The Legislative Assembly of the Transkei requested unanimously that the size of the constituencies should be reduced by taking the districts as a basis. This was a resolution adopted on a motion by the Chief Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition of the Transkei. It was adopted unanimously. The basis will be as now proposed in the new section 26. which is contained in clause 3. I do not think anybody in this hon. House could have any material objection to this request.

As regards the paramount chief and chiefs in the Legislative Assembly, we all know the history, namely provision was made in the Constitution Act at the time for the four paramount chiefs and a total of 60 chiefs in the various regions, as set out in section 23 of the Constitution Act. This is also clearly apparent from clause I of the Bill hon. members have before them. As it should be in the case of all forms of government, the Transkeian system is not static. It is a developing system which will constantly enter new phases, and the system must and will be adapted continually to changing circumstances. Here we now have the position that since 1963 one additional paramount chieftainship has been added, which brings the number of paramount chiefs to five, and 17 new chieftainships have been created, which bring the number of chiefs to 77.

The paramount chiefs are automatically members of the Legislative Assembly, of course, and as a result of the increase of one, the number of chiefs in the Legislative Assembly decreased by one. At the moment there are therefore 59 chiefs, from a total of 77, who have a seat. Only these 59 have a seat. As the Constitution Act provides at present, those 59 chiefs have an indisputable perpetual seat in that they need not be re-elected for membership of the new Assembly upon the termination of the life of a legislative assembly, but become members of the new Assembly automatically. This means that the chiefs of additional chieftainships do not get a seat. The Transkei Legislative Assembly does not want this state of affairs, because there has been a unanimous request from both the Government side and the Opposition that the position should be changed in order that chiefs should also serve only for the life of a Legislative Assembly, which is normally five years, and that the fixed number, which is at present 59, should then be elected from and by the total number of chiefs. In this way all the chiefs will be given an opportunity to serve on the Legislative Assembly or to qualify for serving on it.

The request also goes further. Chiefs are in fact distributed over the districts in the various regional authority areas. This distribution is not even, and the chiefs in a district where there is a majority in numbers may collude to keep chiefs in another district of the same region out of the Legislative Assembly, and in this way minority groups may be prevented from being represented on the Legislative Assembly through their chiefs. It has also been requested unanimously that the position in this regard should be confirmed as it was when the Constitution Act as drawn up, and this is done by the following three steps.

Firstly, the number of chiefs to represent each region on the Legislative Assembly shall now be determined in accordance with the number in each district in a region as it was in 1963, except, of course, in the case of Emigrant Tembuland, which now gets one chief less as a result of the creation of the paramount chieftainship. The numbers are clearly specified in clause 1 of the Bill, namely the proposed new section 23 of the Constitution Act. and there is no need for me to go into that in detail.

Secondly, section 25 of the Constitution Act is augmented in terms of the proposals in clause 2 of the Bill, to make it clear that chiefs have to be re-elected upon the termination of the life of a Legislative Assembly, it in a particular district there are more chiefs than the number which can and may serve on the Legislative Assembly in respect of that district.

Thirdly, the election of the chiefs will then in the first place be made by the chiefs in that particular district, and it is only if they cannot come to agreement that the election will be entrusted to a meeting of the paramount chief, if there is one, and all the other chiefs in the region in which the district concerned is situated. This procedure is clearly described in the proposed new section of the Constitution Act.

Hon. members will also notice that the same method of election has to be followed if a vacancy arises in the representation of chiefs and also if there is a decrease in the representation of chiefs as a result of the creation of a paramount chieftainship.

As I have said, these proposals on changes in the constituencies and the election of chiefs were called for unanimously by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. Here we now have a very good example of fusion of the old and the new, in that the Bantu are still eager to retain the traditional but want to adapt it to modern circumstances and developments.

Clause 4 of the Bill relates to the change in the constituencies to which I referred and adapts the requirements imposed on a candidate to the proposed change.

Clause 9 is self-explanatory. The existing Legislative Assembly’s life terminates only next year, and the amendments which are now introduced should therefore be prevented from terminating the membership of members or the normal life of the Assembly.

We have no objection to the principles contained in this Bill and we Agree that the amendments are necessary, especially in regard to the new electoral divisions, because we have the ridiculous position at the moment where they have had to vote for as many as eight members of the Assembly in one electoral division. With illiterate voters, as we have there, they come there with a list of eight members for whom they want to vote. They hand this list to an official and the official will then say that he will make the crosses for them, and often they are suspicious that the official does not make the crosses in the right position, and others cannot remember for whom they had to vote out of the eight because there are so many candidates standing. The whole position was rather ridiculous. I am glad that this amendment is being made to make it much easier for the voters, but I am not quite sure about one thing. If an elected member dies before the next general election for the Assembly, how will it be decided which electoral division will be affected?

This new basis of the constituency will be applicable for the first time only in the next general election.

I can see that clauses 5 and 8 are deemed to have come into operation on 30th May, 1963, but I see no reference here to holding over the provisions of clause 3. But perhaps the Minister can reply to this in the Committee Stage. The only thing that was worrying me is how it is to be decided for which electoral division there will be a vacancy. But the Minister obviously has the answer. If an elected member dies before the next general election, how will it be decided for which electoral division there is a vacancy, because they represented nine or ten electoral divisions in the past? I should like certainty on that.

This Bill before us is an example of cooperation between the Transkeian Legislative Assembly and this Parliament. In terms of the Transkei Constitution Act the constitution has to be amended by our Parliament, and we are doing it now at the request of that Assembly. The Minister has told us that a resolution was accepted by the Opposition as well as the Government side. I should like the Minister to tell us also whether there have been other requests from that Assembly for amendments which this Government possibly has not been prepared to entertain. The Minister says there have not been any at this stage, but we can conceive that difficulties might arise.

Is that under discussion now?

Luckily for the Minister it is not. We have no objections to this Bill.

With regard to the last point, the Transkei did not put any other request to us, but I should like to correct the hon. member. I think he is confusing a request for the handing over of more functions to the Transkei Government with an amendment to the Constitution. But that cannot be discussed now. That leaves only the other question put by the hon. member, namely what the position will be if an elected member dies now. The position will be that a by-election will be held on the old basis. We cannot apply the new system to a by-election which may come in two or three months’ time. This new system cannot be applied unless the Transkei has had a general re-registration of all voters and prospective voters. I indicated that in my speech.

But where does the Bill say that?

That is an administrative step which is necessary, and they make provision for the re-registration. It applies automatically that if a member dies and must be replaced by a new member to be elected, in that case the by-election cannot be held in terms of this Bill and the alteration we are making here to-day, but will still be on the old basis.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Clause 3:

We have listened to the explanation the hon. the Minister gave to the hon. member for Transkei on this clause. The Minister said that if an elected member died, the by-election would be held on the old basis and not under clause 3 of this Bill. But I have difficulty in following how it can be done on the old basis when one has amended the existing section which provided that there would be nine regional authority areas in the Transkei. That is now changed and the new provision is that there will be 26 electoral divisions for the election of the 45 members. It therefore seems to me that you no longer have the nine regional authority areas and therefore there is no basis on which to have a by-election on the old basis; that the only provision is the new one, and that this may be a problem the Minister will have to look at. Perhaps he feels that he has given the answer, but it does not seem to me to be correct in terms of this section as it will now be amended. If the Minister cannot give us the answer, I would be glad if he would look into it.

The hon. member for Pinelands will see that clause 9 reads as follows—

The interpretation is that in terms of that provision the old system will still hold good for a by-election which becomes necessary before the next General Election.

The words “the composition of the existing Assembly” cover the position?

Yes, that is the present nine regional authority areas.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

I take it that it is not necessary for me to make a long speech to-day in defence of my Budget. It is neither customary nor necessary and consequently it is not my intention to do so. But I nevertheless want to avail myself of this opportunity to make a few observations in the hope that they may be of interest to hon. members.

In the first place I want to refer to the financial results for the financial year 1966-’67. In my Budget speech I furnished provisional figures for the financial year 1966-’67. Final figures are not available as yet, but according to the latest information revenue from customs and excise will be approximately R3.5 million more than I anticipated at that time. The other figures have not changed much, and consequently I anticipate that the surplus on Revenue Account will be approximately R35 million instead of R31.5 million as announced in the Budget speech. On Loan Account our estimate remains essentially unchanged, namely a credit balance of R34.5 million on 31st March.

In the second place I want to mention that in April we entered into an agreement with a group of European banks under the leadership of the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas for a recurrent credit of $13 million for a period of three years. Every credit will be for a period of 90 days and the rate of interest will be ½ per cent higher than the rate for loans between banks on the date concerned. There is a raising fee of ¼ per cent on undrawn amounts. We have not drawn on this credit as yet.

In the third place I want to refer to a drawing of rands by the International Monetary Fund. As hon. members know, the International Monetary Fund is a co-operative institution. Each member is expected to make his currency available to be drawn by other members when they need it for balance of payment reasons. Until recently, only the money of the large industrial countries was drawn, but the present trend is also to use the currency of the smaller countries which are in a reasonably strong position. We recently agreed to the equivalent of $10 million in South African rands being used for a drawing on the fund by New Zealand. This is the first time that the South African rand has been used in such a transaction. Our own drawing powers on the fund are increased accordingly, in other words, if we need it, we can draw this amount on the fund over and above the amount we can normally expect to borrow from the fund.

I know the hon. The Minister will forgive me if I do not follow him immediately on financial matters, save to tender him my congratulations that he should be Minister of Finance on the first occasion when the International Monetary Fund seeks to rely on the South African rand for a drawing of this kind. It is a sign of international and financial maturity which perhaps is long overdue as regards South Africa. It comes, of course, as no surprise and I think it is a very satisfactory development. It is no surprise either to find that the income which the hon. gentleman is expecting from customs and excise is going to be higher than he anticipated. At long last we have persuaded him to relax import control and it is not surprising that he is now reaping some of the benefits of paying attention to what is advocated by the Opposition in matters of this kind.

Sir, with those preliminary remarks I want to embark on a somewhat different discussion and say that I believe that this Appropriation debate is taking place at one of the most critical moments, internationally, in our time. I believe that had it not been for the speedy success of Israeli arms, the struggle in the Middle East might have taken on most dangerous proportions and might have developed into a crisis of so dangerous a kind that it could have threatened to involve the whole world in war once more. I think that even in spite of the speedy end to military operations, the war in the Middle East has nevertheless thrown the whole international position once more into the melting pot. I think it has convinced even the most optimistic that the United Nations Organization has failed as an instrument for maintaining world peace. I think its inability to discharge its major function must distress us all and fill mankind with foreboding as to what the future is in that regard. We in South Africa, who have often been the butt of attacks in the United Nations, have the right now to ask the world leaders to have another look at that organization, to ask themselves why it has failed, to ask themselves why it has disappointed the high hones of its founders, amongst them South Africa whose leader at that time, Field Marshal Smuts, played a most important role at the San Francisco Conference when the United Nation’s Charter was written and when it came into existence. I know, Sir, that it has become a popular cry to-day that the U.N. is failing because small, young and inexperienced nations have been given too much say in that organization, and that they have used it as a platform to air their grievances and to press importunate demands. I think that there is truth in that reproach, but I do not think it is the whole truth. I wonder whether we should not look into the matter a little more deeply. Is it not possible that the real cause of the failure of the United Nations Organization must be sought in the fact that the Western powers, the older and the more experienced powers with the needed knowledge and authority, have failed to give that strong and decisive leadership which the world was entitled to expect from them? Is it not true to say that those great powers have failed in discharging the responsibility which they have to teach and guide the new nations, some of which they themselves have helped to create, so that they could play a more constructive and a more worthy part in world affairs?

Sir. I believe that South Africa’s interest and concern in these matters is very real indeed, not only because we are founder-members of that organization, but also because the crisis in the Middle East has once more emphasized and underlined two things, firstly the importance of the Cape route whenever Suez is threatened and, secondly, the strategic importance of South Africa amongst the comity of nations when the peace of the world is disturbed. Sir, peace is vitally important to South Africa. It is vitally important to us because we cannot escape the consequences of war, almost in any part of the globe. That is why I believe that we have a duty and a right to speak up, to express our thoughts on how international relations and organizations should be re-constituted in the interests of world peace. I believe that we have a part to play in helping to bring about such a re-constitution and I feel that that should include a reform of the United Nations Organization so that it will have a chance to play the role for which it was originally designed. Sir, it is here that I believe South Africa should speak up very firmly because we South Africans have a fine tradition and we are heirs to a great tradition in respect of this matter, heirs to men who have made a very great contribution in their lifetime in the fashioning of world affairs. One need only recall the influence that the late General Botha had at Versailles; one need only recall the influence that General Hertzog had at the time of the Falfour Declaration when the dominions received sovereign independence both in fact and in law. One need only recall the part played by the late Dr. Malan at the time of the emancipation of India and one need only recall the role played by Field Marshal Smuts as a revered member of the highest councils of the free nations of the world. I believe that when the League of Nations celebrated its 21st birthday, the council of the League of Nations adjourned in order to send a cable of congratulations to General Smuts as one of the founders of that organization. Sir, those men had the ear of the world at a time when South Africa was far less strong, both militarily and economically, than it is at the present time. I want to say that we of the Opposition would like to see the Prime Minister of South Africa, whether he comes from that side of the House or from this side of the House … [Laughter.] Sir, the triumphs of a small nation like Israel over the vast numbers of its enemies, seem to have struck fear into the hearts of the Government party with its vast majority. I think they are beginning to fear that the walls of Jericho may be shaken, and I can quite understand that fear. Sir, I would like, and I am sure all members of the Opposition would like to see the Prime Minister in a position in which he can give leadership not only to his own country but also guidance to the world in matters of this kind. I know I can say at once that any Prime Minister who proves himself qualified to do that would have the support of both sides of the House in so far as foreign affairs are concerned, no matter what our internal differences might be.

Sir, there have been encouraging signs; there have been signs that the present Prime Minister is aware of how important it is that South Africa should establish friendly relations with neighbouring states on which active co-operation can be built in the future. I think he has shown signs too that he appreciates how important it is to go even further in establishing a favourable image of South Africa internationally.

That has always been the aim of our party.

Sir, if that has always been the aim of the Nationalist Party, may I say that they have concealed it remarkably well up to now. I think the hon. the Prime Minister has taken steps, steps entirely in line with United Party policy …

Which so far has been well concealed!

Sir, this nervousness on the other side to-day is rather amusing. The hon. the Prime Minister has taken steps entirely in line with United Party policy to make closer contact with neighbouring States. He has given signs that he is willing to be realistic in seeking to improve our relations with our friends in the West. Sir, we are grateful for that, in all genuineness, but I think that events in the last week in the Middle East are creating and have created new opportunities for South Africa. I have no doubt whatsoever that as a result of what has happened, there is going to be a new appreciation of the distribution of power in the world that must lead to a re-thinking, and, more concretely, to re-alignments amongst the nations of the world. I believe it is already apparent that fresh attempts must be made to ensure more settled conditions in the world, and I think this emphasizes the necessity for the hon. the Prime Minister to continue on the course which he has entered, somewhat timidly, with more courage and more zeal perhaps than in the past. The Prime Minister himself and members of his Cabinet have not been slow to condemn the United Nations Organization but I have been surprised to find that there have been no constructive suggestions and no positive suggestions as to the reform of that organization. Surely this is a time when the hon. the Prime Minister should devote the energies of South Africa to a complete revision of the United Nations’ Charter and the organization as such. Although some of its specialist agencies have done good work and although it has on occasions had success in containing local conflicts, and in preventing them from flaring up into world conflagrations, things for which we are grateful, there is not the slightest doubt that as a peace-keeping force and as a mirror of world opinion, it has been a dismal failure. I think that depending upon one’s point of view, the Organization has evoked sometimes anger, sometimes frustration, sometimes dismay, sometimes sardonic amusement but never confidence in its ability to maintain world peace, which should be its major role. Sir, its continued failure may lead to a major disaster for mankind. I think there is no doubt that there is need for an organization of some kind; the question is what sort of organization? I believe it should be our function, and I believe that we would have the support of all responsible people in South Africa for that purpose, to suggest to the leading nations of the world that the time has come to convene a new constitutional conference for the United Nations Organization, a second San Francisco conference. Let us ask the major and mature nations of the world at that conference to accept the responsibility that history has entrusted to them and to lead the nations of the world into a new and reformed and more effective world body to take the place of the failure which is the United Nations Organization. Let them in that organization see to it that voting power is related to responsibility and get away from this utterly impractical proposition of “one State one vote”. We have the ridiculous situation that something like a 100 members of the Organization supply something like 2 per cent of its annual income. I believe that the major powers, after the experience that they have had with the League of Nations and with the present United Nations Organization, will not find it beyond their powers to devise a world organization which would be better equipped to achieve what I believe is the most fervent desire of us all, the most fervent desire of mankind, namely peace amongst the peoples of the world.

Who can doubt that a reformed world organization with the responsible nations of the world firmly in control will have very different ideas about what constitutes threats to world peace from those which are current at the United Nations Organization at the present time. Can you imagine a responsible world body with the western nations of the world firmly in the saddle for one moment suggesting that South Africa is a danger to world peace? Can you imagine a reformed world organization seeing a danger to world peace in our administration of South-West Africa? Is not really the answer to these problems a reformed world organization and is not an organization of that kind, appreciating its proper responsibilities, the answer to the sort of threats that have been made against us? I believe that a very big responsibility rests upon the hon. the Prime Minister at this time. I believe that it should be the duty of South Africa, that it should be its function to give a lead in this regard at the present time. I believe that out of this conflagration in the Middle East may come some good and may come the possibility of creating something lasting and something on a firm foundation which could play a real role in maintaining world peace and not be the ridiculous debating chamber that the present organization has developed into. That is a lesson in the international sphere which gives food for thought as a result of this Middle East conflagration.

But I believe that there are other lessons to be learnt which are of application in the domestic sphere and which can be applied to South Africa. I would say that the first of those lessons is that those nations which rely on international organizations and even upon the guarantees of others to preserve their security in the present state of the world are building on shifting sands. I would say, secondly, that while good friends are indispensable in this dangerous world, military preparedness is the only safe shield behind which any nation can shelter. The third lesson is that a nation truly united and giving status and respect to all the citizens of which it is constituted, can bring to a crisis a united effort surpassing the power of the sum of the individuals constituting that nation. I think there are two more lessons. The fourth is that in these days of modern and sophisticated weapons highly educated troops, whether they be regular soldiers or not, are capable of an efficiency in warfare far in excess of that of the illiterate and semi-illiterate and far in excess of what illiterate and semi-illiterate nations can hope to muster. I think the fifth and the last lesson perhaps is that the military strength of a nation to-day cannot be divorced from and is in fact based on the quality of its scientists and its technologists and the strength of its economy.

When did you find that out?

There seem to be some very intelligent remarks coming from that side of the House at the present time. For a side of non-fighting men they seem to know an awful lot about it.

Back to the old style.

The hon. member says “Back to the old style”, and we have got the usual interjection coming from the usual place with the usual stupidity. It has been shown that a thousand educated men controlling the resources of an enlightened nation are more than a match for tens of thousands who have to reply upon the gifts of others which they can neither manage nor comprehend.

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a chance to state his case.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you that it does not worry me if hon. gentlemen want to reveal their real character. It is against this background that I want to examine the record and achievements of the present Government in South Africa, and to facilitate that examination I want to draw attention to the fact that all the lessons to which I have referred relate to the security, the happiness and the prosperity of our people in the Republic at the present time. We on this side of the House in common with many responsible people in South Africa are not convinced that Government policies advance the greatest possible security of our people. Because economic strength plays such a big part in achieving security we feel strongly that the fantasy of separate development into separate states should not be allowed to limit our economic growth and our economic strength. The teeming millions of the Arab world, even when united, were no match for 2½ million Israelis. And I believe it will be a most irresponsible act if this Government were to continue to fail to appreciate fully that our security is dependent vitally upon the strength of our economy and on maintaining our country as one economic unit, as opposed to dividing it up into a series of unities each of which may be weak in itself. I believe that we have to create a union, a national unity for our diverse population groups. I think it has been shown that a nation which is truly united is capable of tremendous effort and I believe that the strongest nations are those whose people are in fact most united and I think that the job of creating a love for one’s country, which makes one willing to sacrifice everything in its defence, is the prime function of the Government. I believe that this Government cannot undertake that task while it is dreaming about creating an exclusive white state which it itself admits will probably be smaller and poorer than the Republic at the present time.

Perhaps safer.

The hon. member says “safer”. It might be safer, if you could divorce economic strength from military strength. But of course you cannot. You cannot divorce economic strength from military strength, and there is not the slightest doubt that at the moment South Africa’s security is inevitably bound up with finding the right answer to the problem of co-operating in one state on harmonious terms with our non-white people here in the Republic. And I do not believe the Government has the answer. I believe it is turning its back on reality. They think that by creating fictitious forms of separation they can wipe out the non-white people from the picture in South Africa from a defence point of view. I think we should have new ideas, new ideas based on the certain conviction that they are right ideas for the time in which we live. Separation, as this Government envisages it. might have been possible in the time of Lord Glenelg a hundred years ago when they decided to separate South Africa from London with very little appreciation of the problems with which we were faced. Separation in a territorial sense I do not believe can measure up to the pressures of the 20th century.

Like the creation of Israel?

Does the hon. member want the same troubles here that Israel has had in the last 19 years? Three major wars in 19 years. Would he like to see that? [Interjections.]

Order! I have appealed to hon. members to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a chance to state his case. I do so once again.

We believe that the problems deriving from the multiracial nature of South Africa and from the many cultures that abound here can only be solved by introducing federal elements into our constitution. A federal concept recognizes …

Is that a new idea?

It is the same idea. But since the Prime Minister has been saying, not only here but in the Other Place, that he does not know what the United Party policy is, I thought we might have a little instruction for him this morning within the closing days of the Session, so that in the recess it will not be possible for him to go round any more saying that he does not know what the United Party policy is.

He will still have difficulty in understanding it.

It will take some time. The federal concept recognizes not only that there are separate areas which different racial groups occupy but also that there are racial groups who do not occupy specific areas but retain their identity as a group, although geographically dispersed in the country. And they have to be given a place and a function in our State resting on their recognition as constituents of a federal South Africa. We believe that in this way we can make all the peoples of South Africa feel that they belong to one South African state. All the peoples owe loyalty to one South African state, and all the peoples of the Republic feel the at South Africa is entitled to claim everything they have in defence of our way of life. Let us make no mistake. South Africa is a multi-racial state. Eighty per cent of our labou” forces is non-white and the number of non-Whites employed in certain sectors of our economy, like manufacturing industry and the Government service, are growing every day. The Government seems to shut its eyes to this fact and refuses to admit it. We realize that South Africa is made up of 3½ million Whites charged with the responsibility of leading 14 million non-Whites, just as the major western powers of the world are charged with the responsibility of leading the emergent nations of the world. We believe that we have to arrange our affairs in such a manner that all of us will find it possible to live in one state on the basis of the leadership of the most civilized group, and that group happens to be the white group in South Africa. And we believe that that leadership should be maintained, but all others should be made to feel that they have a place and a part to play in the land of their birth, their one fatherland.

Like the Federation of Nigeria?

Every time the hon. member interjects, he tends to show his ignorance even further. The Federation of Nigeria was purely a geographic federation, as he ought to know, but does not know. He knows very well that the introduction of federal elements into a constitution does not mean a geographical federation of the Nigerian kind. But perhaps we will teach him in time. We all believe that there should be a large measure of self-government for the Bantu in the reserves. We also know that the Bantu in the reserves are too poor to make the creation of economically viable states possible. We also know that they are spread over South Africa to such an extent that it is going to be impossible for them all to find homes in the reserves even in the distant future. That is why we accept that we have to live together in South Africa while we accept that it is the task of statemanship in South Africa to make living together both peaceful and productive in the interests of all the peoples who live in the Republic of South Africa at the present time.

We do not believe that we can limit cur relationship to them, on the one hand to the master relationship, as opposed to a soulless labour unit on the other. We believe that the urban Bantu, who supply the labour for our industries and businesses, have to be treated like human beings and have to be given the opportunity of a decent family life.

Are you suggesting that we are not treating them as human beings?

The hon. the Prime Minister must not be so quick in getting upset. He knows very well that they are not enjoying a normal family life.

Are you suggesting that they are not being treated as human beings?

If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to put that gloss on it, he can. It will be to his disadvantage, not to mine. Let me tell him straightaway that normal human existence means normal family life. It is time he realizes it if he does not know it yet. I do not believe that we have any right to continue to regard them as a sort of faceless proletariat with no roots and no rights in the area where they work and spend most of their lives. I wish I could get the Government to see the justice and the inevitability of such a policy. Because we believe that the attitude they are taking up at the moment is giving us no answer, whereas the approach we have is an answer to the problem of living together. But what the hon. the Prime Minister is doing with the present policy he is following, is that he is endangering the safety of the Republic of South Africa and lessening its security and its power of resistance in a dangerous world. They are going to make it. impossible for us in South Africa to play our historical role of being the catalyst, which will make co-operation in the southern part of Africa possible so that all our peoples can prosper. I do not think we can do what the Government wants to do, namely to fix our sights on the little white enclave at the southern portion of Africa, waiting coyly for approaches of friendship by surrounding black states, whether we created them ourselves or not.

Will you tell us something more about your present concept.

I shall send the booklet on it to the hon. gentleman. It is getting so old, it is hallowed with age.

No, the new concept, the one that has not been printed yet.

The new concept was printed some years ago. The hon. gentleman is not keeping up to date. I think he has such difficulty in keeping up to date with the changes in modern aircraft and transport that he has not been giving enough attention to the constitution of our party. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is not “with it”.

Is it a racial policy or is it a new territorial concept?

To reply to the hon. the Minister: He knows very well that we have always stated that our concept has both a geographical content and a racial content.

You have not always said it. [Interjections.]

We always said so. I said it in this House for the last nine or ten years, and the hon. the Minister knows so well that I have said that I believe the reserves should be developed to carry the maximum possible number of Bantu and that there should be a federal relationship with them. But I have never believed what hon. members on that side of the House believe, namely that one can solve the problem of the urban Bantu by saying that one is creating separate Bantu states. I have never believed either that one can solve the problem of the Bantu settled in our rural areas, permanently, generation after generation, by creating separate Bantu states.

Will the Blacks in the reserves be represented in this House?

Is it so difficult for the hon. the Prime Minister to understand? In the last debate we had in this House I said that all the Blacks in South Africa, in the reserves and out of the reserves, would have eight white representatives in the House. That is what I told the hon. the Prime Minister. He knows it. So I want him to think a little further to-day. I want him to be bold and think of the future of South Africa. I think that he must recognize that our strategic boundaries stretch as far north as Beira on the one side and the White highlands of Angola on the other. I believe that our policies must be such that all who live within those boundaries will not only seek the friendship of our Republic, but will find that association with us will be as much to their advantage as to ours and that eventually they will be prepared to assist in the defence of our interests as though they were their own. I believe that, as a basis for such a plan, we must devise political entities which will give us unity in diversity and maximum autonomy for the constituent elements, kept together by the protective association of close bonds between the various members. I do not believe that that can be better fulfilled than by the policy we have outlined, namely of introducing federal elements into our constitutional life, because I believe that only in such a way will we solve our internal problems and at the same time ensure our external security as well. I believe that only in that way will we bind all our peoples together with a common love, loyalty and patriotism, will we be strong enough to resist the onslaught of any enemy which may march against South Africa.

It is a pity that this Government is incapable of achieving that real national unity. It cannot even achieve that real national unity amongst the Whites in South Africa, because it is so riddled in its ranks with extremists, (“verkramptes”), that they are not seeking real national unity. They are only seeking cooperation on one-sided terms. They regard Afrikaner exclusiveness as more important than South Africanism. When people take up that attitude towards their fellow white South Africans, what hope have they of getting the loyalty and devotion for one South Africa from the non-White peoples as well. They have already admitted defeat when they tell one that they are encouraging those people to give their first loyalty to separate non-White states not yet created in the Republic. We on this side of the House have a vision for the future of white South Africa, and that is a new nation here in which both languages are accepted as part of the heritage of each South African and in which the history, traditions and culture of both the great sections of our white population will not only be accepted, but will be a source of pride and inspiration to every citizen in South Africa. We will judge the quality of citizenship by the dedication of people to South Africa and our South African problems. I believe that we can fashion the future of our non-White people in such a way that they will also have an overriding and common loyalty to one South Africa in which everybody is fairly and justly treated, but in which also, I believe, white leadership should be retained.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, certainly.

I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he regards the non-Whites as part of the people (“volk”) of South Africa?

The word “volk”, unfortunately, has several meanings in South Africa. We speak about the “Afrikanervolk” as a distinctive people. If the hon. member means as part of the “people” of South Africa, of course they are part of the people of South Africa. What is more, the Nationalist Party made them part of the nation of South Africa. It gave them South African citizenship under the 1948 Citizenship Act specifically. I think that is the answer to the hon. member’s question.

I believe that the white community of South Africa to-day have great opportunities to give imaginative and constructive leadership to the people under our guidance and care, leadership which will earn rich rewards for the white community in higher standards of living, but also greater security for White and non-White within the Republic of South Africa. As I indicated earlier, military strength is based on economic strength and on greater prosperity for all our people. I believe that prosperity in South Africa to-day is bound up with two fundamental factors: Firstly increasing the productivity of industry, and secondly, controlling inflation.

If we deal, firstly with the question of increasing the productivity of our labour force, particularly in industry, I think we can get our ideas straight as to what we should do about controlling inflation. I believe that we are not going to grow as fast as we should and I do not believe that we are going to have greater wealth and progress as long as we are tied to a Government which sees our development mainly in terms of the skills of only million people of an entire population of over 17 million. I know that is an unpleasant fact to swallow, when for many years the Government has been hypnotized into believing that such a course is possible. Of course it is impossible. But I shall go further and say that, if we continue in that belief, we will not only fail to solve the problem of healthy economic growth, but we will also fail to solve the problem of containing inflation and reducing the rise in the cost of living, which is such a headache to the Government at the present time and to most of our people. I believe that I could give hundreds of examples to show that. I want to give only three. The first is a statement by Mr. Kuschke, the managing director of the Industrial Development Corporation, which is as near the Government as makes no matter. Here is what he said last year—

I want to emphasize the warning that this shortage is clearly irrevocably increasing our cost structure.

Then there was a warning on the 6th June of this year, only a few days ago, as published in the Star—

I think that drives my point home very fully.

But there is one other quotation I would like to draw to the attention of the House, namely the report of the 1961 Education Panel, consisting of 22 of South Africa’s most eminent educationalists and industrialists, entitled “Education and the South African Economy”. It starts from the premise that economic growth rests on three foundations, one of which is education and training. It draws up a programme for the next 15 years to ensure that education will play its part. But it emphasizes four facts. The first is that even drawing on all races to the greatest possible extent, it would be very difficult to provide enough educated people to fill the jobs which will exist by 1980. The second is that the Whites will have to surrender more administrative, technical and professional jobs for non-Whites, because there will not be enough trained Whites to go round. Thirdly, it points out that if these jobs cannot be filled, there will be less wealth available for everyone. Then it makes the final point that they do not believe, and they are the experts, that the need for more and more skilled people can be reduced by means of automation and the use of computers. That is vitally important, because we have heard so much of a reduction in labour that is going to be brought about by automation and computers. But these experts do not believe that. They say that the demand for skilled labour and technical people is going to go on growing and that there are signs even at the moment that we are not going to have enough people to fill all those jobs. So these experts prove my case against the Government up to the hilt.

But I want to draw attention to yet another facet of that problem, namely, that in spite of the rapid breakdown of the so-called traditional colour bar in many of our industries, the fact remains that our non-Whites, particularly the Bantu, in the training they are receiving are acquiring that training surreptitiously and not as of right. They are acquiring it by permit with a sword always being held over their heads—the threat that they may be prevented from continuing to do the type of work they are allowed at present by virtue of permits and by virtue of the relaxation of job reservation determinations by the Government. I want to say that if the conditions under which our non-Whites work continue unchanged for any length of time, the vast bulk of South Africa’s labour force is going to be in the position where it will be trained only sporadically and haphazardly for the jobs they are doing. Furthermore, they are going to be employed under conditions of impermanence and insecurity, conditions which are grossly unsuited to the demands of a modern labour force and of a modern industrial state, entirely unrealistic in relation to the demands of an increasingly sophisticated labour force. I believe we are going to be forced into a position, if these policies are continued, where the South African economy is going to be based on one of the most inefficient and potentially unstable labour forces in the world. This is going to be a result of these policies. The first essential for greater growth is that our labour force, consisting of all races, must be used more productively. That means training also for the non-White section of our labour force, because if we do not pull our non-White labour a rung or two up on the ladder, the gap below is going to become so large that we may slip off it ourselves into a void where we cease to be productive ourselves. The result of that may be that the standards of living of the Whites may decline, as well as their educational standards, because they will be held back to fill the gap between the standard reached by the non-White labour force and the standard of work being done by the White labour force at the present time. We believe that in causing our labour to be better trained, to be more productive, we will be making the largest single contribution towards the advancement of our standards and our security. We appreciate fully that the standard of life of the European worker must be maintained. Guarantees must be introduced to set at rest their fears that any such development is going to lower their standard of living.

What should be the nature of such guarantees?

The guarantees you give the people …

I have asked an intelligent question and I expect an intelligent reply from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

At the moment, of course, there are no guarantees whatever. The hon. the Minister knows that job reservation affects only some 2 per cent of our labour force. The hon. the Minister knows that in the Department which he himself is administering, as a result of consultation between organized labour and himself and the Government as employers, he has succeeded in making available a large number of jobs to non-Whites, jobs which before had been reserved for Whites. We want to give a more stable guarantee than that. We say that we will ensure not only consultation between organized labour and organized employers’ organizations but also guarantee the rate for the job. And when we say that we shall guarantee the “rate for the job” we do not mean the minimum rate but the rate generally paid at the present time. You see. Sir, that hon. gentleman is to-day employing non-Europeans to do European work in many cases at a lower wage than that paid to the European worker. We, there again, want to ensure that no non-European worker will ever do work, previously done by a European, at a lower rate than that earned by the European himself. That, we believe, is the biggest protection that the European can have in South Africa at the present moment. This is something which he certainly does not have at the present time. We also believe that agreement between organized labour and organized management is another vital guarantee, subject, of course, to the rate for the job.

I also believe that greater resources must be mobilized for the education of our people and that to this end a higher proportion of the national income shall probably have to be devoted to educational objectives. That is an investment not only for the individual but also for the growth of our economy and the prestige of the Republic. The increase in population and the complexity of modern life make the continual raising of our educational standards of prime importance to South Africa. To enable the white race to retain and deserve its present position of leadership it is essential that our youth should be educated academically, scientifically and technically, to the highest possible degree. Therefore we should like to see special provision being made, provision which must include special schools for the unusually gifted children. We believe still far too many white children leave school, for economic and other reasons, before reaching the high standards of which they are capable and who as a result receive no education, vocational or otherwise, after leaving school. We believe it should be our aim to ensure that by the end of the next decade at least half of our children at school by then should complete 12 years of schooling and that of the white school-going population at least one quarter will receive further education after leaving school, either at the university, at technical colleges, or in vocational training schools. We realize that this is going to mean better paid teachers, more schools, more facilities for post-school education and training, changes in curricula, the greater use of modern aids—such as audio-visual aids and closed circuit television. I hope this does not shock the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs too much. There should also be a continuous attempt to fit the type of schooling to the needs and capacities of the individual concerned. We believe there must be a greater incentive for individual excellence by way of scholarships, rewards and assistance to parents. We also believe that we shall have to take another look at our universities in order to restore them to their primary function as centres of learning and research and that we depart from this trend of making them large institutes for examination and the conferment of degrees, a trend which seems to be developing at the present time in many universities. This, in turn, will require further efforts, not only to retain our present teaching staff, but also to provide facilities whereby we shall not only encourage a larger number of our own people to join the teaching profession but also enable us to recruit successfully people overseas in order to make up the shortages we have at the present time.

I know that there are people who believe that the responsibility for ensuring sufficient skilled labour lies primarily with the employer in industry and manufacture. But what hope have these employers of training labour satisfactorily while this Government specifically prohibits the establishment of vocational training schools for Bantu in the areas where these are most needed, i.e. in and around the industrial complex of Johannesburg? Furthermore, what hope have these employers of training their labour while being faced with job reservation determinations prohibiting him from using these people for more skilled work, even though they may use them only temporarily under exemption permits granted by the determination itself? When people talk to me about employers being responsible for the training of their labour, I wonder whether this Government is helping or hindering the education and training of labour. If you look at what has been happening over the past few years one can only come to one conclusion, namely that this Government is hindering instead of helping that process. But there are still countless other examples. Other speakers can deal with that. I have, I think, established a case that in this regard the Government is not doing what it should to assist in the training of our labour force in South Africa.

When I said that our security was dependent on the strength of our economy I indicated that that in turn depended not only on productivity but also on controlling inflation. I suppose the best and simplest definition of inflation is “too much money chasing too few goods and too few services”. The result has been a rapid increase in the prices of those goods and services which are in short supply. As a matter of fact, that has probably been the main cause of inflation in South Africa over the last four years. And I think we are entitled to ask how and why this came about. What, in fact, created too much money in South Africa and what prevented a supply of goods and services of all kinds being available so as to keep prices down? There are various reasons for this which have been debated in this House from time to time. I do not think I will be wrong if I summarized the main reasons in the following terms: Firstly, that owing to the Government’s decision to prohibit the repatriation of foreign capital invested in South Africa at the time of Sharpeville, a great deal of money was locked up here and that by taking that measure, almost a panic measure, the Government prohibited not only the flight of funk capital from South Africa but also the no mal outflow of capital to be expected in any healthy economy. Secondly: Low interest rates arising from the abundance of money made borrowing easy and possibly too cheap. That must be coupled with the fact that investors for some years have been slow to invest and that there was a great leeway to make up. And, of course, private enterprise was no doubt encouraged by the Government to invest. We have heard the cry “spend for posterity!” The Government also applied import control in 1962 and encouraged replacement industries through fear that we would not be able to get supplies from the outside world. As a result the borrowing from banks and from other national institutions increased considerably by 1965 while the price of money was kept artificially low because the Government pegged interest rates on the 20th March, 1965. This meant more cheap and easy money and more investments. I believe the most important factor of all the factors which have helped to create inflation was the increase in the expenditure of the Government and other official bodies, especially over the last six or seven years. If one compares the Government’s budget expenditure on revenue and loan accounts in 1960-’61 with that in 1966-’67 one finds an increase of 98 per cent over a period of six years. Clearly the Government has been spending a great deal of money in competition with private investors with this difference, i.e. that whilst the private investor has been spending his money on the production of capital goods, the money spent by the Government on the whole has been on things like buildings, roads, and things of that kind— in short, unproductive things, not producing consumer goods.

And on defence for the safety of the State.

Yes, and on defence. This, however, is also unproductive. The hon. gentleman should know it. However, nobody is arguing about that, but even without taking into consideration defence expenditure, the expenditure of this Government has been too rapid. It has increased too rapidly. But not only that. This Government whenever it wanted funds has been continually been putting its hands in the till of the Reserve Bank, through borrowings from the Reserve Bank instead of out of real savings by the people of South Africa. What has the result been? The result of inflation always is a rapid rise in prices. What do we find here? Between 1956 and 1961 prices rose by 10.6 per cent—an average of 2.1 per cent per annum. Between 1961 and 1967. however, there was a rise of 15.9 per cent—3.2 per cent per annum. We find the most rapid increase between 1963 and March of this year—an increase of nearly 4 per cent per annum. The worst period has been the last two years, when there has been a rise of 4½ per cent per annum. This is shown by the consumer price index for all items. It is almost twice the rate which is regarded as being consistent with a healthy economic development in any country. And what has the Government’s reactions been? Bearing in mind that inflation is a condition where too much money is chasing too few goods, what steps did this Government take to control inflation? It concentrated on reducing the supply of money, more than on increasing the supply of goods, whilst either could have solved the problem. However, the Government concentrated on decreasing the supply of money rather than taking the positive step of increasing the supply of goods. It tried to reduce spending by the public by increasing taxation, wherein I include the loan levy, by more than R200 million in the last two budgets alone. This was done excessively at the expense of the small man. But it has done more. It has been taking money away by means of loan levies temporarily for use by the Government without indicating when these loan levies will be repaid. And I wonder when the time is going to be ripe within the next seven years. Only recently the Government decided to relax import control, but it certainly has not done enough to reduce its own expenditure or concentrating more on productive expenditure. In fact, many of the things the Government has done bears the imprint of “too little, too late”. For instance, it relaxed import control much later than it should have done.

What do you have in mind when you talk about productive expenditure?

Expenditure producing consumer goods, increasing the national wealth.

I mean productive expenditure on the Government’s side?

There is very little it can do, except about things that might be productive, things like irrigation schemes and matters of that kind, schemes which can give a tremendous fillip to the national economy. We have had to wait 18 years for the Government to come to its senses about the Orange River scheme and if this had not been so we might have had a very different picture in South Africa to-day. But that is only one example. There is still the Berg River scheme here in the Western Province, a scheme which has been lying “braak” for heaven knows how long. There is also the Sand River scheme in the Hex River Valley, a scheme which, although started in 1946, is not yet completed. One wonders when they are going to get on with the job. There are still many other examples I can refer to.

As I was saying, there are other remedies for inflation. The Government, as I have said, did too little too late when it decided to relax import control when it did and curbed lending by the banks. We know how they allowed the banks to run wild for a while. What could have been done was to produce more goods more efficiently, and to come to grips with the rising cost of living. We have shown that we must have an adequate supply of trained people if we want to produce more goods. I believe the right course still is to emphasize more the necessity for an increase in the supply of goods and services rather than reducing the amount of money in circulation. Both methods are of course necessary but I think the emphasis should be on increasing production. That can be done, firstly, by relaxing import control even further and by avoiding over-hasty decisions on the establishment of import replacement industries, a factor which very often forces up costs and have no prospects, as far as we can see, of competing in world markets at any time in future. Secondly: We have to increase the supply of labour through greater emphasis on immigration, by greater employment of pensioners and by the avoidance of unreasonable interference with the supply of labour. In this regard I should like the hon. the Prime Minister to take particular notice of what is happening under the Department of Bantu Administration and Development here in the Western Cape. A third thing which could be done is to encourage established factories to increase output instead of emphasizing movement away to border areas which means new investment output and often very long delays in reaching the productive stage and higher cost to the consuming public. I also believe we could have encouraged the more efficient production of goods by the introduction of incentive bonus schemes throughout industry. We could have achieved that object by better training and better use of our labour resources and while a large proportion of our labour force consists of Bantu it is interesting to note what is going on in the field of Bantu education at the present time.

Here we have a picture of a great many people getting a little education and also a picture of thousands of children clamouring for education but never getting to school at all. We find that one in five leave after the first year and that 75 per cent leave school before Std. VI. Only about three per cent ever reach high school. The pupil/teacher ratio we find to be 53 to 1 and many of these teachers do not even have a matriculation standard. In primary schools one finds that children can go to school only on alternate days or in double shifts. There are even cases of several children sharing one desk and text books. How are we going to get a more efficient labour force unless more attention is paid to the education of the labour we have to use? Look at what is being done in Japan. Look how she has built up her productivity by means of tremendous education schemes amongst her people. Also, we could have encouraged more efficient production by higher depreciation allowances for the most up to date labour-saving machinery and by the provision also of adequate up to date statistics to assist private enterprise and the Government to plan more effectively. There would also have to be measures to curb excessive spending. With that I agree. That can be achieved, firstly, by a tighter control over hire-purchase restrictions and on easy bank advances—something which deserves the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance —by the maintenance of high interest rates to encourage savings and limit borrowings even for investment by industry, and by the encouragement of big business to invest some of its surplus money in educational training schemes—something for which we have been asking for so long but which nevertheless does not seem to be actively encouraged by the Government.

But even more important than these is the necessity of strict measures to curb wasteful, unproductive and excessively large long-term expenditure. This, I believe, can be done first of all by demanding greater efficiency from Government Departments. In this connection I was interested to read in one of the papers which periodically supports the hon. the Prime Minister, an article calling particularly for an end to maladministration of Government Departments, saying that it is the Prime Minister’s main task in the recess to give his attention to stream-lining the Civil Service and to make it more efficient.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Before the adjournment I was dealing with the question of containing inflation and indicated that while the Government had emphasized restricting the supply of money available, inflation could also be combated by making more goods and services available. I indicated that I believed that could be done in various ways and I outlined some of the manners in which more efficient production could take place. I reached the stage where I said that even more important than these would be strict measures to control excessively long-term unproductive and wasteful expenditure. I believe that this could be done in three ways, firstly by demanding proof of greater efficiency in Government Departments, which I thought could be achieved by insisting that organization and method reports on the various Departments be tabled in Parliament. I also believe that a Select Committee to determine priorities in Government expenditure and to determine manpower priorities in the Public Service might perform a useful function. Then I think there should be a re-assessment of the value for money aspect in respect of money invested in the border areas and hasty ideological development in the placement of industries with a view very largely to carrying out the ideological objective of ultimate independence for the Bantu areas. I want to say that I make no bones about the fact that I should like to see the Government’s Economic Advisory Council preparing two estimates of South Africa’s economic progress. One estimate should be in regard to the development of the Bantustans towards freedom and the removal of the black workers in the white areas as the main objective; and the other should be in regard to the maximum development of South Africa and the maximum improvement in the standard of living. Those should be the two main targets. I feel that if the Government is sincere in its objectives in regard to the Bantu areas, then it is only right that it should give the white people of South Africa a choice of this kind based on economic findings of its own Economic Advisory Council. If that were done and the Prime Minister brought those estimates to Parliament, particularly if they were drawn in such a way that the public would understand the reasoning, I would like to see them left to a free vote in this House, to see what the result would be. I believe there is not the slightest doubt that we are paying a far bigger price than is realized for many of the ideological concepts of the Government.

Then I believe, lastly, that we could contain inflation further by reducing various Government costs and charges, many of them due to the incompetence of this Government. I believe that South Africa is a fortunate country in that it is endowed with natural resources and human material of a very high standard indeed. For that to be developed to the maximum advantage of all our people will require proper and realistic planning on the facts as they are and not as the Government would like to see them. We could be a rich country, far richer than we are to-day, if we had a more efficient Government, one which paid attention to economics rather than to ideological pipe-dreams. Not only could we be richer, but militarily we could be very much stronger if we had a Government which was prepared to look the facts in the face and not to distort its thinking with narrow sectional and ideological ideas. I do not believe that we give the lead in international affairs which is our right and of which we are capable. I have made certain suggestions in that respect and I do not propose to debate them any further. In the field of domestic policy I am satisfied that much more could be done to strengthen our economy if certain suggestions I put before the House to-day were followed. I believe that not only could we strengthen our economy, but we could raise the living standards of all our people and provide an even firmer base for those measures which will secure the safety and inviolability of the future of the Republic. I want to say that prosperity has always been a base upon which security could be built, because happiness is most easily attained where people are secure and where they have high living standards, but at the same time have a real sense of function in striving for great ideals. I do not believe that this Government is offering the people of South Africa the ideals of which they are worth, and accordingly I want to move—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition divided his speech into two parts. The first dealt with foreign affairs and the second with domestic matters. As usual the hon. the Leader covered a wide field, and he will naturally realize that time will not allow me to deal with all the aspects that he dealt with. However, I do want to deal with those aspects which fall within the scope of my position.

I want to say at once that as regards the hon. the Leader’s summing up of the foreign position, I want to compliment him on making a reasonably good summary, as one would expect from the Leader of an Opposition, of the speeches that I made at Potchefstroom and Vryheid. I want to tell him in all honesty that I have no fault whatsoever to find with it. Nor, for that reason, will it be necessary for me to say much in that regard. But I shall nevertheless, as I go along, deal with certain aspects thereof.

Unfortunately the hon. the Leader spoilt that part of his speech by once again raising the cry, which one has heard quite often from the United Party this Session, that it is their policy which we are carrying out.

Trying to carry out.

I have been saying for a long time that the Opposition has no function. It is only that they have never wanted to admit it. With this argument, of course, they are specifically admitting that they have no function whatsoever. It is not only the hon. the Leader who thinks so; the general public also think so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put me very much in mind of a competition that was organized years ago for an essay on elephants. Various people wrote essays on elephants and then somebody produced a pamphlet to which he gave the title “Bigger and better elephants”. What else does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s speech amount to but that everything that we are doing—so he says, and so he wants to make the country believe—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will do better. [Interjections.] Sir, I readily agree with that; not even the hon. member for Yeoville would go so far as to say that they can do everything better. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party did after all have an opportunity, a long time ago, admittedly, but was his party not rejected precisely as a result of the clumsiness with which it conducted the administration of the State? Sir, surely that has become part of history; we need not even argue about it. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did have the opportunity from time to time of stating his viewpoint and his policy, and time and again he was rejected to an ever-increasing extent by the electorate.

Mr. Speaker, let us first deal with foreign affairs. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly pointed out here that the United Nations had failed. He could simply have pointed out that the National Party Government had over the years—specifically Mr. Eric Louw, when he appeared at the United Nations, and my colleague, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, after him—adopted the attitude that the United Nations would fail if it did not change its ways, and what the National Party Government has been warning against all these years has now come to pass. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will also concede that in those years the National Party Government did not receive much assistance from hon. members on the opposite side. At the moment I am not discussing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s present attitude; I shall return to that later on.

One of our basic problems was the very fact that we did not receive much assistance from them. Sir, there are two things which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not say to-day which I am very glad about and for which I thank him. The first is that he did not, as he used to do in the past, say that these conditions had arisen as a result of the policy of the Government. I am pleased that he has changed his attitude as far as that is concerned. The second thing I am glad about is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not say again—and you will remember, Sir, that he said so consistently in the past; in fact, he never let an opportunity for saying so go by—that if he came into power, the picture would be changed overnight. I am glad he did not say that to-day. The hon the Leader of the Opposition will know that many of our past difficulties—and I am not saying this because I want to rake up the past; I want to enter upon a new dispensation together with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—were due to the fact that South Africa did not speak with one accord in regard to these matters. I am glad that we have now reached the stage where we are in fact able to speak with one accord in this regard. While the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now reproached us with not making any constructive contribution in respect of the constitution of the United Nations, he will remember that we specifically warned that the United Nations was going to land in this fix in which it now finds itself because it applied double standards. From time to time we on this side had a very great deal to say about those matters. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will recall how we pointed out that there would have to be stronger leadership from the great nations, particularly the Western nations, leadership which has not been forthcoming from them.

The basic difficulty that developed with the United Nations over the years was that it drifted further and further away from its original aims, that it began to fall, to an ever-increasing extent, into the hands of professional world agitators, if I may put it like that, who moved all the resolutions in the General Assembly, and all that the independent, responsible and developed nations could do was to move amendments so as to water down those resolutions or effect changes in them, instead of taking a stand and saying to those nations, who cannot rule their own countries but who want to rule the world, “so far and no further”. That is what we have been pleading for all these years. And now that I have again said over the week-end, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also did here to-day, that we believe that there will be a reappraisal, one would like to express the hope and the expectation that that reappraisal will include proper guidance to the representatives of the underdeveloped nations as to how to act in a world assembly. Once that is achieved, we will have achieved a great deal in that regard. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said quite rightly that one of the real reasons for the failure of the United Nations was the fact that no leadership was provided by the major countries; that is correct. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will recall that the National Party Government has on many occasions issued warnings in regard to this very aspect, and the reproach that was leveled at us from the other side was that we should not tilt at the larger nations. I am glad that there has been a change in this situation. I want, once more, to associate myself with the idea of a reformation expressed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want, once more, to express the view here which I have expressed on numerous previous occasions, i.e. that one of the basic deficiencies in the United Nations, as I see it, is that majority decisions are being taken by the representatives of small, inexperienced, underdeveloped nations, while the United Nations Organization can serve a very useful purpose. One does not close one’s eyes to the useful purpose it can serve. I believe that it will not fail in its function but will succeed if it were to deprive the General Assembly of its voting rights altogether, that is, if it were to remain merely a forum for discussion, if it were to remain merely a place where people could exchange ideas and where the representatives of the various nations could meet to discuss matters of common interest, where opposing viewpoints could be put, and where dangers could be pointed out, etc., and if resolutions, which recently have more and more displayed a tendency towards world government, were done away with altogether.

In addition the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. as he has so often done in the past, made oblique reference to our in actual fact being an outcast in the world, whereas in the time of the United Party Government we were in high repute in the world. In that regard he again mentioned the name of the late General Smuts.

And the names of the late General Hertzog and the late Dr. Malan.

Well, we are making progress if the hon. member for Yeoville quotes Dr. Malan as an authority.

My Leader did that.

Sir, has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ever made an analysis of our problems at the World Organization? After all, our problems at the World Organization did not originate under the National Party regime. Our problems at the World Organization arose shortly after its establishment when General Smuts was present there in person and when the majority of the members was not made up of the underdeveloped nations who are there at present, but when our friends were in power in the World Organization. After all, our difficulties there began when there were only three black representatives from Africa sitting in the World Organization. In fact, our difficulties began with India when we were still part of the Commonwealth of Nations. Not even General Smuts, when he was at the height of his glory, was able to ward off the attacks made by India in the World Organization. He was unable to do that. In spite of all the work he had done for the British Empire, in spite of the fact that he was a world figure, which he in fact was, he was unable to ward off those attacks against South Africa. It would profit the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to go and reread the history of the period from 1946-’8. I said on a former occasion—and it must now be repeated here merely for the sake of the record—that before the National Party took over the government in South Africa, the same attacks were being made on South Africa under the government of General Smuts, but immediately after the National Party Government took over it suited the Opposition of that time and its newspapers to proclaim to the world that the bad name which South Africa then had was attributable to the policy of the National Party Government. They did that although it was a matter which went back a long way and had originated at a time when General Smuts was at the height of his power.

The hon. the Leader said that there were encouraging signs that better relations had developed. That is correct. The hon. the Leader will also recall that I had held out the prospect of these better relations last year already, just after I had assumed this office. The hon. the Leader will recall that the hon. member for Constantia asked me the question, “How would you do it?”. He will also recall that my reply was:

“By doing it.” That is precisely what we have done. I can tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I have been able to do so because the foundations which would enable me to do so had been correctly laid by my worthy predecessor. I have been able to do so because I merely had to take up where he had left off.

Let us consider the facts for a moment. I want to make the claim that, apart from the embargo placed on the supply of arms to South Africa—and we all know the history of that and why it came about—the Republic under this National Party régime has never enjoyed such good foreign relations as it is enjoying at present. What were the facts? The facts were that in the hon. members’ time we only had relations with Britain; we had few if any relations with any other country in the world. We paid visits to Britain, but few visitors from Britain came here to South Africa. I am referring to government visits. But since the National Party came into power, since we established the Republic to which we had aspired, we abandoned the policy which the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side followed of having all one’s eggs in one basket. We sought to establish relations as widely as possible. We have been doing so particularly in recent years. Just think of the number of visits we have had from high-ranking government representatives from other countries. We have had visits this year; in the recess we shall be paid visits by very eminent government representatives from various parts of the globe. If one considers not only our political relations but also our trade relations and all kinds of other relations, one is fully justified in saying that, apart from the embargo on the supply of arms. South Africa’s relations have never before been as good as they are at this very moment. I believe that in view of the events outlined by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and which my hon. colleagues and I have been discussing during the past few days, relations can only improve, and must, in fact, improve.

The hon. the Leader concluded his remarks on that aspect of the foreign relations by saying that no constructive suggestions had been put forward by us. I have already dealt with that. We have put forward suggestions over the years. We have been doing so again recently, and we shall do so again in the future. I want to repeat here what I said at Beaufort West, and that is that the time will come, if no reappraisal is made, if things are simply allowed to continue in the old vein, when we shall make a very careful examination of the balance sheet of the advantages and disadvantages attaching to our membership of the United Nations. That time will definitely come. But I hope that it will not become necessary, because an international organization can fulfil a useful function. I hope that it will not become necessary for us, but that in fact all of us, just as in the case of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and myself, will see that there has been a reappraisal.

In his survey of domestic affairs the hon. the Leader first of all made the point that those who put their trust in international organizations. have found that they built on sand. That is true, and it has always been the viewpoint of this side over the years. To tell the truth, there was a time in our political history—and one need only look up Hansard to see this—when that was in fact one of the most important things which distinguished this side of the House from that side. The hon. the Leader said we must be militarily strong. He is aware of the fact that this Government has over the years left no stone unturned in keeping South Africa as strong as possible in the military sphere, considering its small size, its means and its problems as a result of the arms embargo. He referred to the need for trained persons. This topic was debated when the measure of my colleague the Minister of Defence was before Parliament—I need not refer to it again. He pointed out that use should be made of the services of science. These are not matters that one discusses every day, but the hon. the Leader is aware that there is very close co-operation between the scientific sphere and the military authorities here in South Africa, which has already been of great benefit to South Africa and will also be of great benefit in future.

Then the hon. the Leader referred to national unity. He took as his slogan: Security, happiness and prosperity. Then he immediately went on to refer to the “fantasy” of separate development. I agree with the hon. the Leader that South Africa, and any other country, needs security, happiness and prosperity. I am quite prepared to compare the security, the happiness and the prosperity which our people are at present enjoying with that which they had under the United Party régime. I am quite prepared to do that. What is more, we need not argue about the matter. After all, that is what everyone is seeking, whether he be a National Party supporter or a United Party supporter, namely security, happiness and prosperity. How are our people seeking these things? Our people are all seeking them. What is more, periodically they get an opportunity of expressing their opinions on those matters. Then they must choose between the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and my party. As responsible voters our people have, from time to time, exercised their choice. Therefore we need not try and hoodwink them. We need not try and tell them this, that or the other thing, because at every election they make their choice. Only last year our people once again pronounced their judgment. On that occasion too the hon. the Leader came forward with his “blueprint”. It is not a new idea. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Leader does not come forward with many new ideas. This was an idea which was put forward throughout that election. Our people had it in front of them. They rejected the hon. the Leader more decisively than ever before. I shall tell him why they rejected him. They rejected the hon. the Leader and his party because year in and year out he had blown both hot and cold. The reason why they rejected the hon. Opposition is that our people have never known where they stand with the Opposition. They do not know even now. I want to give you an example of that. Sir. My colleague the Minister of Transport put a question very politely to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in respect of his federation. He received a cutting reply. But what are the facts? The facts do not tally with the cutting reply furnished by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Is it not a fact that we have already had three different kinds of federation from the Opposition side? There was the race federation. There was the territorial federation. Do hon. members remember the standpoint of the hon. member for Yeoville? At one stage he came forward with an economic federation in terms of which people’s voting power was to be determined according to the revenue produced by them. There were three kinds of federation therefore, an economic federation, a race federation and a territorial federation. I am not talking now about the small federation of the hon. member for Hillbrow. He still has his own idea of federations, but that is beside the point at the moment. The hon. the Leader refers so easily to his policy. Then he merely states that it is well-known and that it has been published in book form. It has been published in book form and then the argument, as far as he is concerned, is closed. [Interjection.] No, it is not the sixpence policy. This one was a trifle more expensive and came at a later stage. The hon. the Minister of Transport asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether it was a race federation or whether it was a territorial federation. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made great play of the racial aspect of the federation being merely of subsidiary importance. The main thing was the territorial federation. Then he referred once more to his booklet. But what is stated in the booklet? This is what is stated in the booklet.

Where did you get hold of the booklet?

It is not so easy to get hold of the booklet. But let me say at once that I would also hide it away if it were mine. To-day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated very clearly that the racial aspect was of subsidiary importance. He wants to make the people outside believe that according to his policy the territorial aspect is the main aspect.

When did he say that?

If the hon. member had not been asleep while his Leader was speaking, he would have heard him say so just before lunch, because it is stated in the booklet. On page 10 of the booklet we read the following (translation)—

That is not what the hon. the Leader told us before lunch. Or does the policy vary before and after lunch? There is a very good reason for this. The reason why the hon. the Leader gave out before lunch that the main accent did not fall on the racial aspect but on the territorial aspect is that he knows that if there is one thing that neither National Party supporter nor United Party supporter wants to have anything to do with then it is his race federation, then it is a federation in which the main accent falls on the racial aspect.

I also put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the respresentation in this Parliament. I put this question deliberately because I just wanted to take a pressure reading on this occasion. I wanted to see how high the pressure is to-day. The last exchange between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I ended with a discussion on the topic of pressure. At that time the standpoint of the hon. the Leader was as follows, and I want to take this matter further with him to-day; he will remember, for the sake of the record, that he again mentioned White representation in this Parliament. I then asked him what had happened that he was no longer foreshadowing, as he had previously done, that the representatives would ultimately be black. The hon. the Leader then said that what had happened was that the pressure that had existed previously no longer existed. Nothing has done the Opposition more damage than that admission on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.

What about Dr. Verwoerd’s admission that he granted independence because of the pressure on him?

No, the then Leader of the National Party stated very emphatically that that was the logical outcome of the apartheid policy. [Interjections.] All that the late Dr. Verwoerd envisaged was that he would probably not be able to go ahead so rapidly with that policy. Who is better acquainted with the policy of the National Party? I, as a member of the National Party, or the hon. member, who is not even acquainted with the policy of his own party?

[Inaudible.]

You should rather leave the late Prime Minister and myself to our policy and our party. Defend your side of the matter if you can. That is what the hon. the Leader has told us now, namely that the colour of the representation depends on the pressure that exists. [Interjections.] Forget about the independence now, because we are dealing with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now. The colour of his representation depends upon the pressure which is brought to bear on him. At that time I was rather kind to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. and referred to the pressure from the black people. He then realized in what difficulties he had landed himself with his admission, and said that it was not the pressure from the black people, but that it was the pressure in his own party. His words were: “I know my people.”. Who are the people in his party who want black representation? it would give us an interesting insight into the inner circles of the United Party it the hon. member would now explain that to us. Let him, who is so quick to talk about bigoted and enlightened people, tell us who the “pressers” and who the oppressors within the ranks of that party are. We will find it particularly interesting. What principle is inherent in that? It is a matter of cardinal importance. What principle is inherent in the fact that the colour of the representation merely depends upon the pressure which is brought to bear upon one? Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not realize that he may in future be hoist with his own petard? Does he not realize that with this kind of argument he is creating a source of future agitation?

Do you not recall how Dr. Verwoerd stated that there was pressure in his own party that there should not be representatives of non-Whites in Parliament? That was during the 1959 election.

Our point of view has always been that it is wrong in principle for non-Whites to be represented in this Parliament. [Interjections.] The hon. member is now trying to make an argument of that 1936 legislation, whereas it has been argued out ad nauseam in this Parliament. Does the hon. member recall what opposition we encountered from their side when the Bantu representatives in this House were abolished? Do they recall that? Do they recall that that was the reason why they are now saddled with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? Now that I have said that, I want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In the course of his speech he spoke, amongst other things, about Bantu education and about the education of the Coloured groups, and he had a good deal to say about that. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition recall what opposition we encountered from him and his party, when they forced us into night sittings when we wanted to establish certain facilities for higher education for the Coloured groups in South Africa? [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is simply that if we had not established those facilities the Coloureds would not to-day have had a higher educational institution at which to equip their people for the task they have to fulfill. If we had not established those facilities in spite of extremely bitter opposition from the United Party then the black people of the future would not have had those opportunities and facilities for the education of their leaders.

We never opposed their establishment. [Interjections.]

Order!

What were hon. members doing at that time but making the black people and the brown people suspicious of those facilities? What were they doing but trying to estrange those people from those institutions which had to educate them? What were they doing but arousing hostile feelings against those institutions which are to-day training the leaders of the non-White races in South Africa?

Nonsense.

Order!

Absolutely untrue.

Order! I hope the hon. member for Kensington will try to contain himself a little.

If the hon. member for Kensington says that it is untrue, then I am merely surprised that a political party can repudiate its past so openly, and with such a semblance of anger. What is the main point at issue between the National Party on the one hand and the United Party on the other? The issues that existed in respect of our becoming a Republic, in respect of the establishment of industries and in respect of the development of South Africa have been decided in favour of the National Party. We need not argue about that. What remains to-day? The policy of this side of the House is separate development. What alternative to that does the Opposition put forward? There is only one alterna time to that which we can put forward …

Says who?

The hon. member has not even heard yet what I wanted to say. [Interjections.]

Order! When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was speaking I made an appeal to hon. members to give him a chance to put his case. I am now making the same appeal to the hon. members of the Opposition, and particularly to the hon. member for Yeoville.

As far as I am concerned there is only one alternative, and that is the alternative of the multi-racial society, a concept which has often been propagated by the hon. member for Yeoville, a concept which has a unique significance in South Africa, a concept which has a particular political significance in South Africa, and that is the concept of the elimination of dividing lines on the basis of colour. [Interjection.] If that is not what it means, then hon. members on the opposite side must tell us what it does mean. I and my party stand for the retention of dividing lines between colour groups here in South Africa. Do the hon. members also stand for that now? If they do stand for that, why are they continually arousing suspicion against separate development? Why do they get angry, as the hon. member for Kensington got angry, when we tell them what they did in the past in this regard?

Only if it is untrue.

The day will come when the hon. member for Kensington will claim that he was the founder of separate universities in South Africa. But I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this: Let us give this matter our serious attention for a moment. What do we achieve by attacking the retention of dividing lines on the basis of colour, by casting suspicion on the matter, by inciting people against it, if we are not prepared to eliminate them? If one is not prepared to eliminate them, and according to the hon. member for Pinelands it is evidently not the United Party’s policy to do so, what does one achieve by arousing suspicion in regard to their retention? Then surely one is not serving South Africa and its interests. Then surely one is not creating the security which the hon. the Leader has stated he wants to create. Then surely one is not bringing satisfaction to the people, as the hon. the Leader has said he wants to do. Then surely one is creating a source of new agitation, and we all realize that what we want, and what we must have, here in South Africa is the elimination of friction in every sphere. But then surely one is encouraging friction. Then one is drawing the people together so that it must necessarily cause friction. The hon. the Leader knows our political history as well as I do. Is he prepared to say that before 1948 there was less friction than there is in South Africa to-day? You will recall, Sir, that my predecessor repeatedly mentioned from this bench that before 1948 there had been many more disturbances amongst the black people in South Africa than the total number of disturbances under the régime of this Government. These are facts that we can verify; we need not even argue about them.

What about the Sabotage Act?

Yes, we introduced the laws relating to sabotage in order to obtain security for South Africa, but the hon. member for Wynberg was not interested in that. I would not like to have to reproach the United Party again for their actions during that period of our history. This is the choice facing South Africa: either we must decide to retain the racial boundaries, or we must decide to do away with them. One cannot retain them a little and remove them a little, if that is the next course which the hon. member for Yeoville is considering. One cannot pride oneself in practice on the fact that one is enjoying the protection, the security and the happiness brought about by boundaries that exist, and then in theory want to do away with them in order to derive dubious political advantage by that means. But the time has now come, in respect of separate development, whether in the educational, residential or political field, to decide. The people outside know precisely where they stand with the National Party Government.

What about the residential areas in the Transkei? There it is on a mixed basis.

The hon. member knows as well as I do what the position is in regard to the residential areas in the Transkei. He is pretending that it is this Government that is responsible for that. Surely the hon. member is aware that there are parts of the Transkei where the Whites are temporary residents at present, and surely he is aware that one is dealing here with a transitional stage, and he is aware of the commissions that have been appointed there. But if the hon. member wants to imply in that way that it is wrong, why does he not help us to rectify the matter?

I am prepared to help, yes.

Does the hon. member now want to state in advance that he is prepared to implement apartheid? [Laughter.] No, we must not waste time by arguing in this way.

That brings me to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Because this is the one outstanding political issue our people expect him to take a permanent decision. Either we retain boundaries or we do away with them. On my part and on the part of my predecessor, we have stated quite clearly that as far as we are concerned we not only want to retain the boundaries, but we want to develop them properly. We know that it is a long process. We know that there is still much to be done towards that end, but we accept it in all its logical conclusions. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not accept it as well? If he, as his spokesmen have indicated outside as well as by way of interjection here, also wants to retain the dividing lines, I want to ask him how one can retain them if one arouses suspicion in regard to them? How can one retain them if one incites the various racial groups against one another, as that side has so often done, as they have done this Session, as responsible members of the United Party have done both within this House and outside? Then it makes no difference to me whether one hides behind a figleaf, as the hon. member for Karoo is doing, who states that it is his personal point of view and not that of the United Party. I simply cannot understand how a man can sit in the caucus of a party and then state another point of view, which is not his party’s point of view, outside. I have never been able to understand that.

The fact of the matter is that everything can be reduced to the fact that there are various pressure groups within the United Party and that the Leader of the Opposition, in a candid moment, told us here in the House of Assembly that the colour of his representation will depend on the pressure which will, at any given time, exist within the ranks of his party. The time has come for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to make a choice in this regard between the one group or the other within his party. I want to give him the assurance, because I think he knows his people just as well as I do, that his people outside, just as our people, do not want racial boundaries abolished. His own people do not want the multi-racial society which the United Party Whip, the hon. member for North Rand, wrote about in the newspaper the other day when he made a moving appeal to organized commerce for funds for the United Party to establish the multi-racial society. Our people do not want that. It is not only my people who do not want that, the hon. the Leader’s own people do not want that either.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further and suggested that the happiness, the security and the prosperity of our people was not to be found under this regime because we were allegedly not doing enough for the education of our children. But the hon. the Leader forgets that it was under this very Government that numerous institutions for higher education which we have to-day in South Africa were established, and that it was under this very Government that two universities have just been established, and that every development which has taken place in the field of higher education, has taken place under this Government. When the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was in power, as it was in the Transvaal Provincial Council up to 1949, the position was that on the entire East Rand there were only two Afrikaans high schools. In the whole of Johannesburg there was virtually no high school whatsoever, except the Helpmekaar High School. Just consider what the position was in the Transvaal and the other Provinces when the United Party was in power there. Sir, is it not this very Government which has gone out of its way with its legislation on the Advisory Education Council to draw educational resources together in order to promote education in South Africa? And what support was forthcoming from hon. members on the opposite side in this regard?

Fourteen years too late.

Let us consider the matter from a purely financial point of view. What contribution was paid to our university institutions by hon. members on the opposite side when they were in power? Is it not a fact that one university alone, such as the University of Pretoria, is to-day receiving a greater subsidy from the Government than all the other universities put together received from the United Party when they were in power? These are facts, Sir. These are facts which convey their own message to us, and they are not only facts which convey a message to us, but also facts which are known outside.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now speaking of national unity, and with that he wants to indicate more specifically that he wants to further the relations between the two white language groups, Afrikaans and English-speaking. I listened to him, just as I listened to the previous speakers in that regard. There is only one way to further national unity and that is the way in which this side of the House has always tried to do so. It is in the first instance to appeal to our people to become bilingual. I asked the hon. member for Durban (Point) on a previous occasion to make an appeal of that nature to our people on behalf of his party, and he did not do so. Nor did I hear the hon. the Leader of the Opposition doing so to-day, and the question is, why not?

I have done so repeatedly.

We wanted to bring them together in the schools.

The hon. member for Transkei now comes forward with the pious argument that he wants the children together at school. Is the hon. member for Transkei aware that the first single-medium schools, i.e. single-medium English or single medium Afrikaans, were established by the United Party? Is he aware of that?

We are not prohibiting children from coming together at school.

Just as little as the National Party is not prohibiting that. Let me tell the hon. member that there are more parallel-medium schools in the Transvaal than there are English and Afrikaans-medium schools. We simply believe, as English-speaking people have always believed, that it is only fair and just to the child, and that educationally it is the right thing to do, that a child should be educated through the medium of his mother tongue. I have per heard the hon. member plead that English-speaking children should be educated through the medium of Afrikaans.

But they could and they have been. No objection was made to that, but objections were made where the reverse was the position.

The fact of the matter is that every person who has the interests of his children at heart believes that his children must be given the best education, and in order to provide one’s child with the best education, the child must be educated in the language which he can understand and which he speaks at home. That is the policy and the viewpoint of this side. I now want to tell hon. members of the Opposition this: If they state from political platforms outside—and they are doing so—that they want to bring the children together in one school, then they do not mean that seriously, then they are simply saying that because they want to make propaganda, for they never did it in practice when they had the chance to do so.

We did.

They simply did not do so, and if they were to come into power to-morrow, they would still not do so. They tried it once in the Transvaal, and there is not a single educationist who does not know that it was the most abject failure which any party has ever experienced in the field of education. They also know that that was one of the reasons why their own people voted against them in the 1948 election. Our people simply did not want to have anything to do with this absurdity. Sir, there is only one way of furthering national unity … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville must not argue so heatedly with the hon. member over there in regard to what their party’s policy is; it would be better if they settled the matter in the coffee lounge. There is only one way of bringing about national unity in South Africa, and that is to accord equal treatment to Afrikaans and English as the two official languages of the country, and that is the attitude which the National Party has adopted all these years. In order to accord equal treatment to both, it is essential that our people should be bilingual and that there should be mutual respect for each other’s culture and language in South Africa. I am aware that hon. members sitting on that side have all these years led the English-speaking people to believe that the National Party is the enemy of the English-speaking people in South Africa.

They are still doing so.

I am fully aware of that, and hon. members are also aware of that. We are aware of the moving appeals made in this connection by the hon. member for Wynberg during the last election.

My speeech was quoted out of context.

I only quoted the headlines of the report on the hon. member’s speech as it appeared in the Natal Mercury. That appeal did not succeed, nor will it succeed in future. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not present himself and his party as being the people who will bring about national unity in South Africa, nor is it necessary to bring about that unity, for the National Party has already done so. The fact of the matter is that relations between Afrikaans and English-speaking people, whether it be in the business world or in the social sphere or wherever it may be, have never been as good as they are to-day, because the National Party has in practice demonstrated to the English-speaking people that it believes in equal treatment, because the National Party has proved in practice that it will not demand anything for itself, in spite of the fact that the majority of its members here are Afrikaans speaking, which it is not also prepared to give the English-speaking people. We are committed to that. We did not merely talk about it; we also applied it in practice. Sir, on a previous occasion I invited hon. members on that side to bring it to my notice if what I have just said, was not applied in practice. I have committed myself to adhere to that, and up to now I have heard nothing in that regard from hon. members on that side, nor will they find such cases, because this policy of according equal treatment is not an innovation on the part of this Government. You will see, Sir, that the late General Hertzog stated that as the policy of the National Party as far back as 1st April, 1915.

Why was he kicked out in Bloemfontein in 1941?

Because there was a difference in formula in respect of general policy.

In regard to the rights of English-speaking people.

But what the hon. member has not explained to us is why they stabbed General Hertzog in the back when he stood for “South Africa first”. The hon. member must explain that to us. Sir, Afrikaans and English-speaking people will have to enter the future together, and they will do so within the National Party and under the National Party. This was not only demonstrated to us during the last election, but it is also being demonstrated by the actions of our people at the moment. In his motion and in his amendment the hon. member spoke of security. If the matter is considered from all angles, can he, in view of the threat which was and still is hanging over us, give the people more security than the National Party has given them? Is it not a fact that people voted for us precisely because we gave them that security? Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not himself admit during the last election that that was the reason why people were voting for the National Party, namely that it had given them security? Did he not do so at Benoni. and at many other places? What does he think he is going to achieve now by talking about security here and by adopting a pious attitude in that regard, while he is aware and the country outside is aware, that it is this Government which has given them security?

We do not for a moment wish to state that we have solved all the problems of South Africa, but what we do want to say is that we are solving them one after the other. We are solving them in the international sphere by means of the relations which we are establishing and by means of the relations which we will establish to an increasing extent in future. We are solving our internal difficulties in a practical way for all to see. We will have bottlenecks from time to time, as we have had inflation precisely as a result of the fact that there was over-development and, one may almost say, over-confidence in the future of South Africa. We have discussed it in all its aspects in this House. The hon. member referred to the millions spent on water conservation in the years during which the National Party has been in power. The Ministers in question furnished the full particulars in this regard in the House, and the hon. member is aware of that. Surely it is not an argument to say that this or that scheme has not been built? Of course there are many schemes which can be built if the necessary money is available. The question is whether one has in fact built schemes. Surely the hon. member is aware of how many millions we have spent on those schemes? If we had not done so, is the hon. member aware of what the consequences would have been for South Africa?

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thinks that our people are going to allow themselves to be caught by a lame argument, by being told that they must vote for the United Party if they want security and prosperity, if he wants to tell our people that they can acquire happiness if they support the United Party, then surely he knows in advance that he is making a mistake in that regard. In one election after another our people have, to an ever-increasing extent, given their support to the National Party, and they have done so because we have had a clear policy, a foreign policy as I have outlined here today and a domestic policy based on separate development in all its implications. Our people are aware of that, and not only are they aware of that, but they also accept it. What is more, the hon. the Leader’s people also accept it. There is no mistrust amongst the voting public towards the National Party; there is only an increasing trust that will be reaffirmed in future, a trust which is justified because the National Party has at all times put the interests of South Africa first.

The Prime Minister addressed the House for nearly an hour. I am afraid that his memory is faulty at times when it comes to the early history of this country. He divided his speech into two portions, one dealing with the Leader of the Opposition’s address to this House on external matters, and the other on internal matters. On external matters he said that he welcomed the change. Put can I remind the hon. the Prime Minister that it was only a few years ago that the Leader of the Opposition made a plea to the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Eric Louw, that South Africa should have representatives in other parts of Africa, and that we should attempt to have contact with other African states and even accept African leaders and politicians here as representing their countries, if that was necessary. Not only was the hon. Leader of the Opposition castigated, but he was ridiculed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and supported by all members on the other side. Now, when the Nationalist Party makes progress and the Prime Minister meets leaders from other countries, and we approve of it, the Prime Minister has the audacity to thank us for coming to his way of thinking. Have you ever seen such impudence? Then the Prime Minister deals with internal affairs. On internal affairs he simplifies facts very easily. He forgets that from apartheid we have now come to separate development over the years. Separate development was never referred to in 1948. The slogan was apartheid. He suggests that over the years there has been no change in policy. I remember that when the Leader of the Opposition years ago referred to the fact that one day there would be independent states, the Minister of Transport howled him down. The Minister of Transport said it was absolutely untrue and that no such thing would happen. Is the Prime Minister’s memory so short? I heard the Minister of Transport say that in this House. He ridiculed this side of the House because we suggested that there would be independent states. But now when the Nationalist Party has that policy, they say that it has always been its policy. That is how things have changed. I am afraid the Prime Minister’s reasoning is false. Then he comes with the proposition that one has either got to have their policy or a completely mixed society. Let us examine his policy. He says his policy is separate development. Does he mean separate development at all stages? Does he mean separate economic development? Because that is a logical consequence. When you have separate development you have the Coloured people having their own factories, shops, bottle stores, hotels …

They have got it at the moment,

The Bantu will have their own shops, hotels and factories. That will be the logical conclusion. That means that eventually they will only deal with another. The Coloured, the Natives and the Indians will not be allowed to come into the white stores. Is that what they are wanting?

Nonsense. [Interjections.]

This whole border policy can be proved to be nonsense. It will lead to nonsense eventually. I think I have said sufficient to show that the Prime Minister when he wants to deal with logic has to bring a better case than he brought to-day. When he talked on the international plane, he brought a certain amount of reason to bear on this aspect in his address. But when he became the party politician fighting a soap-box election, then it was a different story.

I want to bring to the notice of the Minister of Finance the problem of inflation and a problem which I think is going to face the country during the recess. It is an important matter and I hope the Government is going to give some attention to it, if they do not have a solution already. According to the Press reports there are over 300 vessels at sea at the moment which may use the Cape route and not the Suez route. Although the war is over in Suez, according to the Press reports, we do not know how long it will be before a peace will be negotiated. We do not know how long it will be before the Suez Canal is opened. It may be in ten days, it may be in ten months. There is going to be a lot of hard bargaining in the Middle East over the next few weeks, or possibly few months.

According to the Israelis they intend bargaining with the Arabs themselves. They do not intend allowing the United Nations to interfere, just as we do not want the United Nations to interfere with our internal matters. Israel suggests that this is an entirely internal matter. Only time will tell what will happen. But in the meantime, a problem awaits the people of South Africa, because if 300 vessels come to the South African ports, they are going to buy provisions. Anyone who has had experience of the attitude of shipping companies, knows that certain shipping companies and certain shipping officials have a very high standard of ethics and adopt reasonable and responsible attitudes. But there are some companies and some officials who however are quite irresponsible. When a ship radios to one of the major ports where she wishes to obtain provisions, and the price is no object, the people provisioning those ships, the responsible ones, contact the authorities. The irresponsible ones and the racketeers can go ahead and buy all the food that is available on the market. The result is that the housewife and the ordinary worker, who does not have the means and the facilities to build up a store, will find themselves either unable to obtain food or pay prohibitive prices for the food. That state of affairs can obtain during the next few months that lie ahead for this country. I would like to know if the Government has thought of that problem. Will they have any means of meeting the difficulty? Because it is a real problem and one which will have to be faced by every South African port. It will not affect the people inland. They will not be affected so much. But the people at the ports will be materially affected. The price inflation can do untold harm, particularly to the lower income groups. They cannot store up food and buy now in anticipation. Many of them do not realize what it is all about. It will only come home to them when they buy the provisions at the end of the week. The weekly paid Bantu in our factories in the coastal town, the weekly paid Indians and Coloureds and the Europeans who buy from week to week will find themselves in difficulty. I would like to know what proposals the Government has to meet the position. From a ship’s point of view, harbour dues are heavy and it is not a matter of importance to pay excessive prices for food, because in many cases they can tell their companies that it is an emergency, and therefore the prices are justified. In many cases the prices they pay here, even the inflated prices they may pay here, can be lower than the prices they pay in other ports, particularly American vessels. Therefore it is a matter which will have to have special attention from this Government.

While dealing with this, I want to ask the responsible Minister whether the Government has thought of the importance of emergency planning. It is all very well for the Minister of Defence to talk about the arms and supplies of oil he has and the oil that has been stored. We know that we are storing large quantities of oil. What proposals have the Government for emergency planning when it comes to the storage of food? Is there any storage of food to deal with an emergency, if any of our major cities have trouble? Are there any plans, when there are times of surplus, to ensure that the surpluses are looked after, so that in times of emergency there will be food available for the people? I suggest that the recent events in the Middle East have brought a lesson to a small country like South Africa. They demonstrate the importance of providing for food and providing for them at a figure which the people can afford. Because these problems are problems that are going to be faced during the recess, in the months that Parliament is not sitting and when there will not be an opportunity for us to ask these questions. It is not only the inflation of prices the Minister of Finance will have to face for his colleagues. He is still dealing with the inflation battle. He has told us that he intends to win this battle. He has told us that during the year. The Prime Minister said during the course of the debate that we have talked over and over again about inflation. We continue to emphasize the inflation problem, because it means that the earnings of the ordinary worker are being eroded. For that reason I would like to know from the hon. the Minister how he views the position, having regard to the recent suggestion of the Reserve Bank that the commercial banks will be required to reduce their borrowings from the central bank by R160 million by the end of September. Does the Minister regard that as an accurate figure? Does he think this is essential? Has he taken into account the effect that it is going to have on the small business man, the ordinary worker, and does he foresee any possibility that the income of the ordinary individual may be reduced, and not only a reduction of income, but also of profits of small businessmen? Because any reduction of income and any reduction of profits will, in turn, have an effect on the Minister’s Budget next year. So, we are not only concerned with inflation; we are concerned with the question of productivity, because productivity is also a problem which will have to be faced.

While dealing with productivity, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he regards the recent mergers in the fishing industry, the meat industry and other food industries as contributing to the reduction of costs? Has the Government any evidence that these recent mergers, these manoeuvres, are bringing down the cost of food, or are they making a few people richer by putting them into a more advantageous position to take a share of the market? I suggest that the whole question of mergers and movements of this kind are matters which must concern the Minister of Finance. He is in a very difficult position, because on the one hand he is fighting the inflation battle and on the other hand one of his colleagues, through the Industrial Development Corporation, is engaged with the pushing of mutual funds. It seems a bit incongruous to us that, on the one hand, the Minister of Finance is telling the country to save and to conserve its resources, whilst, on the other hand, some of the loan funds of South Africa are being diverted to the Industrial Development Corporation, which in turn, is in the mutual fund market. I would like the Minister of Finance to tell us whether he could justify this and whether he proposes to curb this. To what extent is he going to control his colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is concerned with investments by the Industrial Development Corporation, over which he has control. Then the hon. the Minister, in dealing with the question of productivity, must deal with the question of border industries. The Minister, through his colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, has made funds available for the Industrial Development Corporation to carry out the Government’s policy of border industries. Is the Minister satisfied that the industries established on the border are all economic? Is he satisfied that they are not only economic, but that they are producing at costs which are competitive within South Africa, and that those companies, those firms, can export and win markets outside South Africa? Because the Prime Minister during the course of these remarks did not answer the charge of the Leader of the Opposition and the failure of the Government to provide vocational education for the non-European. Here the Government has spent hundreds of millions of rand on border industries. Can the Minister tell us whether there is one single vocational school in these border areas? How does he expect the productivity to improve if the standard of education is not being improved? How does he expect the country to increase its productivity and to improve the output of the Bantu worker when they are getting no vacational education? What is happening in these factories is that these people are volunteering from the reserves to get work in these factories. They are given an aptitude test by industrial psychologists. In that way they are sorted out, selected and put into the factories.

Do you know about the scheme at Cyril Lord? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member knew as much about Cyril Lord as I do he should know that he is quoting a very bad example, because that company is not making a profit. He should also know that in arranging labour for the Cyril Lord factory, immigrants were brought from overseas and Bantu were trained but that they were still dissatisfied with the high labour turnover. The reason for this is that people are working for a time and then leaving or are being thrown out. While there was initial training at the Cyril Lord factory and at other factories, it was initial training when the work was first started. Thereafter they were expected to get on the best way they could. If they cannot make the grade they are thrown out. It is a vastly different attitude to that pertaining overseas. If the hon. member would travel a bit instead of just staying in South Africa, and visit similar factories to the Cyril Lord factory overseas, he would find for example in the Chesro factory in Manchester a series of classrooms provided where teachers from the Manchester Technical College go to that factory and give lessons to the workers to improve their productivity. There is no such example in South Africa in any of the border industries. In fact at one of the border industries the Government has spent nearly R10 million, and not only is there no school, but there is not one single Bantu house built. Examples of bad planning and bad organization by the Government are amply demonstrated by the many examples I can quote if time were available. And here, Mr. Speaker, we have the Government let loose for another six months. For another six months it will not be answerable to this Parliament. It will have an opportunity of not being faced with criticism, and opportunity to do as it likes. Cabinet Ministers go home and some will be travelling overseas. Some of them will have a lot of headaches and the Minister of Finance particularly will have plenty. I notice that the hon. the Minister has visibly aged of late. [Interjections.] I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker. He has to face certain problems during the next six months. It is not only the problem of greater productivity that he has to face. On the one hand he has to contract the efforts of the country and on the other hand he has to make sure that the country produces more so that the costs can be reduced. We are still faced with this one urgent problem which I have dealt with earlier on and that is the question of the cost of food, the prices of food and the cost of supplies during this recess. I hope the hon. the Minister will regard this as an essential problem and I hope he will give it top priority. I say this because the people at the coast, viz. Cape Town, Mossel Bay, East London, Port Elizabeth and Durban are entitled to have some protection and the assurance that they will not be exploited by the position which is being brought about by the war in the Middle East. The War in the Middle East is going to disrupt the economy for a time which cannot be estimated at the present stage. It does not necessarily follow that we are going to be worse off. It is true that those people who supply the ships will be much better off. Some of them will make fortunes. Some of the agents will do very well indeed. Some of the more unscrupulous ones may probably make fabulous fortunes. But what we are concerned about is that the ordinary man in the street, the ordinary worker, be he Black, Coloured, Bantu, Indian or White, is not exploited by the position which is not of their making. It always happens in an emergency that it is the ordinary man that gets the worst of it. Those who are in more favourable circumstances can protect their position. They can lay in stores. I know already of cases of people who have told me that they have laid in stores to cover themselves for the next two or three months. Even those people performing that function are themselves creating a problem. Every person and every housewife who goes along and buys three months’ supplies because there might be a shortage if these ships come in is aggravating the position.

What is your solution?

There is not the time to give the solution in detail. But I have had the practical experience of these things which the hon. member did not have. I did the investigation into the price racket for the British Ministery of Transport during the war. Ships came in, stores were bought up, the whole market cleared off, stuff dumped on the ships and people were making fortunes. It was only after this United Party Government had done the investigation and reported thereon that the matter was brought under control. The hon. member should know that the Minister has the power to bring it under control. He has the necessary legal powers to bring it under control. I can see this position coming and as I have been through it once before and therefore have firsthand knowledge of it, it is only right that I should, as a responsible person, bring it to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Finance and warn him now and not wait till next session and criticize him then for not doing anything about it. Now is the time to give him the warning and to tell him of the dangers. I hope that the hon. the Minister will take due notice of what I have said. If the hon. the Minister wants my assistance, I am available to give him the benefit of my experience and knowledge in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, this debate on the Appropriation Bill is the last major debate of this Session. It affords us on both sides of this House an opportunity to look back on that part of the Session we have behind us and to see what has been done and what has not been done, what has been said and what has not been said. It also affords us the last real opportunity this Session to face one another in this House as Government and Opposition and for the last time to state very clearly, man to man, in a public debate, the points on which we differ. When we go from here to meet the country and to report back, we shall therefore know exactly where we stand. Up to now we have listened to two hon. members. The hon. member who has just sat down agreed with the Leader of the Opposition’s argument in so far as he also spoke of productivity and said that the ideological policies the Government was following had an adverse effect on such productivity and that that was a factor which assisted in promoting inflation. In this connection I should like to discuss a major and very real difference which exists between us. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in this connection that what we needed was not fewer people but in fact more and better workers. Then he also said that there must be a reappraisal of the money invested in border industries and in ideological objectives. The hon. member for Pinetown said that the money invested in border industries was money wasted.

Therefore I want to deal with the subject with the discussion of which, incidentally, this Session commenced. I want to take the words of the two hon. members opposite who have just spoken and I then want to compare the policy of the United Party with our policy. I am referring to the debate on the Western Cape. The arguments I want to advance this afternoon in connection with the Western Cape also hold good for the rest of South Africa. The basic things I want to say here apply everywhere. Now what is the position? The policy of the National Party is very clear. We say that we are going to endeavour to reduce the number of Bantu in the white areas like the Western Cape. Our policy has two legs. We are going to try to reduce the number of Bantu in the Western Cape gradually and to effect their gradual return to their own land; we set ourselves the goal of a reduction of 5 per cent per annum. This is one leg of our policy. The other leg is that we will bring about development in and adjacent to the Bantu homeland in order to provide them with employment. Before coming to economic questions, I want to deal with both matters very briefly. Now what is the position? I want to say at once that I am asking this in view of a question asked here by the hon. member for Pinelands to which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration gave a reply on 16th September, 1966. Last year the Minister said that there were 255,000 Bantu in the Western Cape. Of that number 131,500 were solitary Bantu from the Transkei and the Ciskei who were here under contract and in addition there were 25,000 family units. The 25,000 family units therefore accounted for 123,500 Bantu and the remaining figure of 131,500 was made up of solitary Bantu. I want to ask hon. members please to make an attempt to follow this because what I want to discuss is a very important matter. The natural increase, according to the statistics of the Bureau of Census and Statistics, of these family units is 2,840 per annum. Suppose we succeed in achieving not 5 per cent but only 1 per cent of what the Government is going to try to achieve in the Western Cape, we shall at least have succeeded in returning the natural increase of the Bantu at present in the Western Cape to their homelands. And if we succeed in what we are trying to achieve, namely the figure of 5 per cent, we shall in due course be successful over a period of, admittedly, quite a number of years, in getting the Bantu settled in their own areas without, as other labour and other methods of labour become available, any disruption of the economy. Now what is the policy of the United Party and how does one relate these figures to that policy? I want to try to be very honest and very fair. Of this number of 255,000 Bantu 131,500 are solitary Bantu. Suppose that one half of that number is married. If one has to bring the families of those 65,000 married Bantu here, in accordance with the policy of the United Party and in accordance with what the Leader of the United Party once more stated so clearly here this afternoon, one will bring 260,000 additional Bantu into the Western Cape. If the United Party comes into power to-morrow 260,000 additional Bantu will come to the Western Cape within a period of 12 months and then we shall immediately have a Bantu population not of 255,000 but of 515,000 in the Western Cape.

Now I proceed. Those hon. members have aroused a great deal of suspicion against us in the Western Cape. They have incited agriculture and industry against us. Agriculture and industry may probably expect from them that there will at least be a reasonable flow of Bantu workers to the Western Cape under their dispensation. I have only taken a flow of 7,000 per annum which is less than 5 per cent. Now, if one brings in 7,000 per annum of whom one half is married, hon. members can make their own calculations that 105,000 will be brought into the Western Cape in that way within a period of five years. Now we already have 620,000 plus the natural increase of the Bantu who are here and whom they are not going to send back and that number will be approximately 50,000 per annum which will give one, under their policy, a Bantu population of 670,000 in the Western Cape within a period of six or seven years. If that happens throughout the country what has one done to South Africa? What heritage have we then left our children and what will be the position by the year 2000? What is now happening on the other side? [Interjections.] I should like to reply to all the questions, but I really do not have the time to do so. The hon. member for Pinelands asked what would happen on the other side in connection with the second leg of our policy? We want to take the Bantu away from the white areas and we want them to go to their own areas. Throughout this entire Session hon. members opposite have been casting suspicion on this policy and have been ridiculing it as well as the Act of the hon. the Minister of Planning by means of which we want to effect balanced development and planning in the interests of all the people in the country. The hon. member for Pinelands said that there were 1.5 million people in the Transkei and the Ciskei and that the birth figure was 40 per 1,000, in other words 60,000 were born each year. I assume that his arithmetic is correct. He then said that one had to provide 60,000 jobs every year in order to accommodate that increase. That is precisely an example, of, I feel inclined to say, the ridiculous method of arguing on that side of this House. The hon. member asked me whether we could implement our policy, but is it not true that all the people who are born do not grow up? Some die. There are adults who also die and the young ones take their places, and had the hon. member asked the Bureau of Census and Statistics they would have told him that the increase in the Bantu population in South Africa, scientifically and statistically determined, is 2.3 per cent—actually it is 2.29 per cent, but let us take it to be 2.3 per cent, i.e. 23 per 1,000. Now the increase of that 1.5 million Bantu in the Transkei and the Ciskei is no longer 60,000 but 34,500 per annum, or let us say 40,000 Now I want to say that for each person who is employed in a factory—supposing that these people must all be employed through the agency of factories, which is not true in any case—employment for a further two persons somehow come into existence outside that factory. Some of them make bricks, others help to lay water pipes and yet others make roads. That means that one will have to provide employment for one third. But had the hon. member asked the Bureau of Census and Statistics they would also have informed him that 35.5 per cent of the Bantu are active economically. That means that 35 work to feed 100 people and in order to feed those 40,000 people 14,000 will have to work. Those are the people who will have to work each year, namely 14,000, in order to feed that increase. Now one has to provide employment for one third of those 14,000 people in factories, i.e. for 4,600 per annum. Can the hon. member understand that? But one need not create 4,600 jobs in factories to accommodate the natural increase, because it should be borne in mind that towns will come into existence in the homelands and local industries will develop in those towns. However, a service sector will also come into existence. There must be teachers, post-masters, clerks, policemen and government officials. I want to ask the hon. member to reconsider these things during the recess and to arrive at the truth, and then he may come back next year and again address us on this matter, because as yet he has not considered the matter and has not at all come to understand it. The United Party has one solution only. This year too they just spoke about the “Reserves”. The hon. member for Transkei spoke a great deal about the “Reserves”. They are also in favour of some development there but the rest must go to the white areas of South Africa to make a living. They must go on a family basis and they must go, under the policy of the United Party, to obtain ownership, the title deeds, of land in the white part of South Africa, to be the co-owners with our children of those parts for all time to come and to create problems there which will be fantastically greater than the few bogeys they see each time they speak of our policy. The hon. member for Newton Park is another who may really reconsider this matter.

My time is getting short and I should like to discuss a few economic matters. The hon. member for Pinetown said that inflation was with us and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the same thing. I think those hon. members would like us to speak about that only. They want us to speak about that problem only, because they would like the public outside to see that as the only factor in our economy. But there are many other things which we on this side will not allow to be suppressed. During the past six years we in South Africa have witnessed our economy developing and flourishing at a faster rate than at any other period in our history. During the past six years we have witnessed, thanks to this Government, the creation of an industrial giant with a diversified industrial structure on which we may build in the future. During the past six years we have witnessed that there is tremendous confidence in this country, in its economic and political stability and in the future of South Africa under a National Party Government. This confidence has not been confined to the local investors but has radiated to countries abroad to such an extent that people in those countries now invest money in South Africa. We have built our economy into something big and strong, so much so that the commission appointed by the U.N. presented a report that a boycott against South Africa could not succeed. We have built such a strong economy that we have been able to obtain the money from that economy to see to the defence of the country, and we have safely navigated that stormy sea of international life. Show me a South African who does not appreciate that and who will not give the Government credit for that and who will not be prepared to make a small sacrifice for those things. What have the ordinary people received? It cannot be denied that there has been employment for us and our children. There has been work for everyone who wants to work. The rewards are good and for a person who wants to qualify himself and who wants to work hard, there are opportunities for promotion. I want to go further and I say that it cannot be denied that the standard of living of our people has been raised consistently during the past number of years. There are problems and I am not going to run away from them but we should like to revert in an orderly fashion to a more normal growth in our economy. We want to ask all our people to assist us and therefore we tell our people that we understand their problems. There is one problem of which I am fully conscious and that is that in South Africa, particularly in the cities, one has areas which are very active economically, whereas one has economically less active areas on the platteland. We must never forget what part has been played in this by the drought. If we take measures to slow down economic growth, then, proportionally, such measures may perhaps be felt more severely in those areas where the rate of economic growth already is very slow, measures such as credit restriction, those in regard to rates of interest, etc. The Government realizes what the problem is and the Government will most definitely act as and when it is in the interests of our people to do so. We realize that the cost of living is high; we do not deny that; we have never denied that. We ourselves find that the cost of living is high but the very thing we are striving for is to reduce prices and to effect a more stable growth with more constant prices. That is the very thing we want to effect.

To that I want to add the following: If these measures had not been taken, what would the position have been? In that case there would have been a real danger of the matter getting completely out of hand. I also want to add that the cost of living over the past six months has increased by 1.5 per cent only, if that is any consolation to our people. That already constitutes a considerable improvement. We cannot relax our measures now. The next few months will be very important and I should like to tell the people in our country that we badly need their support. There are signs which justify the hope that an improvement will come; there may be a reasonable expectation that there will be an improvement, but the next few months will be very important. What solution has the Opposition offered us in this time of inflation? Nothing. They asked that we should spend less money in the Government sector. We asked them where we were to cut down on expenditure but up to this day we are still waiting to hear from them. They pleaded for less expenditure and for less taxation. Last week when the tax proposals were discussed here, they once again pleaded for less taxation. They put a question here in connection with the Durban post office and the Opposition laughed scornfully when they were told that it would not be possible to build the new Durban post office next year. As in the past hon. members of the Opposition once more pleaded to-day for productivity to be increased and the only suggestion they made in this connection, through the hon. member for Parktown, was that apartheid should be abolished. That was the only suggestion they could make to increase productivity, “Abolish apartheid”!

Sir, if one looks at the pattern of South Africa and if one looks at the future of South Africa, one asks oneself, “In what is the salvation of our nation to be found?” To-day we once more heard from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about his race federation policy. He and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also told us about his race federation policy last year and I want to quote what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said (Column 4482)—

He is quite right …

But that is not a race federation.

… but that is not a race federation. He said—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used the U.S.A., Australia and other countries as examples. He said—

Sir, why does one use the U.S.A., Canada, Australia and Switzerland as examples if one is not in favour of their systems? The federation of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has as little to do with a federation as Aunt Agatha’s Siamese cat is a roaring lion. The Opposition has to settle this matter for us during this debate. This year they were asked here by the hon. members for Winburg, Middelland and Innesdal to tell us what their federation was. They must not wait to settle the matter until they have once more held a congress, because then we will ultimately be justified to apply the following old saying in a changed form to the Opposition, “He who runs and fights away, will live to run another day”.

We do not run away.

Mr. Speaker, I want to resume my seat and I want to say that it is very clear that the road and the policy of the National Party to arrange and organize the future of South Africa, remains the only acceptable road for South Africa and in this matter the National Party has a task to fulfill, also during this recess, which is as urgent and as essential as ever in the history of South Africa.

Sir, I must begin by contradicting something which the hon. the Prime Minister has now said three times with regard to me personally in this House and in the Other Place. The hon. the Prime Minister has chosen to misquote me on three specific occasions and I take this opportunity of getting the record straight. The Prime Minister has accused me of making a statement in Natal which he said proved that I was entirely against national unity as such in South Africa. I would like to say here in the House—and I am sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister is not present to hear it—that what I said in Natal was that it would be one of the greatest forms of treachery for English-speaking people to vote for the Nationalist Party because of the loyalty of the thousands of Afrikaans-speaking people in the United Party who had remained staunchly behind us over the years, many of whom, with their families, had even had to suffer forms of victimization because they stood by the English-speaking people over many, many years. My plea to the voters of Natal was, that where all these Afrikaans speaking people had stood by us so staunchly —and we have them with us still—they are the salt of the earth and we are not losing them—it was our business to stand by those Afrikaans-speaking people who had stood so loyally by us. That seems to me to be rèal national unity.

That was purely a racial appeal.

The hon. the Prime Minister seems to think that there has been nothing but a cooing of doves coming from that side of the House with regard to this question of unity between the English-and Afrikaans-speaking peoples. I think it is time that we got this record a little bit straight. Do hon. members not remember that right up to the Republican referendum in 1960, Cabinet members made public speeches time and again in which they referred to the “andersdenkendes”, to “die vyand in Suid-Afrika”?

Who were they?

They were referring to us. Sir, this is absolutely true. Mr. Eric Louw was one of them and there were various other people.

Did you not hear the hon. member behind you talk about “quislings” during this Session?

What are you?

Sir, I wonder how many hon. members remember a Press report which appeared in a Pretoria newspaper in 1955 in which it was said that a group of English-speaking people wanted to get together with the members of the Nationalist Party, with Afrikaans-speaking people? The previous Minister of Justice, who later became State President—and let me say immediately that he never played politics while he was State President but he was a member of the Cabinet as Minister of Justice—made a famous speech in which he warned the Afrikaners that it would be dangerous to shake hands with the English-speaking people because the average English-speaking person, when he shook hands with you, had a dagger behind his back in the other hand.

Albert still says that.

This jeering type of speech …

Good old racialist party!

Sir, who was the racialist party? It was the party on that side of the House. There are hon. members opposite who made this type of speech right up to 1960.

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister devoted a lot of his time to what I can only describe as jeering at the United Party administration which was inherited by the Nationalist Government when they took over in 1948. But what kind of people are they?

Good Nationalists.

This is quite astonishing. Hon. members opposite have been in power for 20 solid years during which time circumstances have changed and the country has developed a great deal, and do not tell me that it would not have developed under a United Party Government.

It developed thanks to the National Party.

No valid comparison can be made between an administration of 20 years ago and the present administration. I think it is one of the weakest arguments that anybody can possibly use. The hon. the Prime Minister then said that there were so many pressure groups within the United Party. Let me tell him that there are far more pressure groups within the Nationalist Party.

That is idle gossip.

One striking thing about the way in which the hon. the Prime Minister spoke—I must say that it struck me very much indeed—was his extraordinary lack of common, human generosity towards the Leader of the Opposition when the Leader of the Opposition was dealing with international affairs and dealing with them on an extremely generous and loyal basis to South Africa as a whole. All the hon. the Prime Minister did was to show what a difference in stature there is between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and himself. I would say that the one is infinitely superior in stature and in manners to the other. The hon. the Prime Minister then went on to talk about the Opposition having no meaning at all; he said that the voters were overwhelmingly behind the Nationalist Party. Sir, the arrogance of hon. members opposite has to be seen in this House to be believed. I want to remind them that 42 per cent of the voters in South Africa are solidly behind the United Party.

Not too solidly.

I want to remind them that only 58 per cent of the voters voted for the Nationalist Party, with the result that the 126 Nationalist members who sit here in fact bear no relation whatsoever to the voting division in the country. The fact that they Government has 126 members sitting here, with only 58 per cent of the voters behind them, while we have 39 members with 42 per cent of the voters supporting us, is an indication of some very curious political practices. Let me remind hon. members opposite that we have succeeded in bringing down their majorities in every single by-election in the last year and a half.

Sir, I think it is true to say that all South Africans wish the Government success when they tell us that they are determined to fight inflation but then, of course, we are entitled to hope that the Government itself will discipline itself and do something to curtail its expenditure of public moneys before enforcing harsher measures upon the working class people of this country. I do not think it is sufficient for the Government to say that South Africa’s businessmen must curtail their activities or that the average family man must spend less. How do you spend less if you are a working man and in fact your entire wage each week is already exhausted in trying to purchase the necessities of life?

The overall figures of Government spending over the past five years are a revelation to the country and to the ordinary tax payer. I think it might be as well to remind this House just what these figures are. During the financial year 1960-’61, according to the Controller and Auditor-General, the Government spent a total of R884 million, and five years later, i.e. during the financial year 1966-’67, it spent R1,755 million—R871 million more, or 98 per cent more, than in 1961. Government expenditure has been increasing at the rate of 15 to 20 per cent per annum. It is most extraordinary to see that Government expenditure is growing faster than our gross national product—in other words, faster than the growth in our national income. When the Budget for 1966-’67 was introduced, the financial year was already almost six months old. Nevertheless the Government increased taxation by R47 million for the remaining six months of that year. For a full tax year it amounted to R93 million. As a result of the present fiscal policy the Government started 1967 with a handsome surplus of revenue over expenditure, but nevertheless it decided to milk the tax payer even further by demanding a total of R106,600,000 by way of extra taxation. All this means a tremendous sacrifice to South Africans everywhere. I wonder whether Members of Parliament realize quite how great a sacrifice it does mean to the small man. At the same time, according to its own estimates, the Government’s expenditure during the current financial year is going to be increased by R153 million over last year’s expenditure. Do hon. members opposite realize that the ordinary South African is not bluffed into believing that the Government is serious in its admonitions to them to spend less and save more, while the Government itself is giving absolutely no lead at all in the matter. If one looks at the consumer price index, what does one find? In January, 1963, the index stood at 103 points; by January, 1965, it had risen to 114; by January, 1967, to 119; and by March, 1967, to 120 points in all the main centres in the Republic. According to the trade unions this is well past the danger mark. May I also remind hon. members that judgments for debt, taking the year 1965 as an example, amounted to more than R20 million, involving about 110,000 people—mostly small people who failed to make payments on goods purchased over and above their income. The respective figures for 1966 are even higher.

The hon. member for Queenstown said we had failed to point out any instance where the Government overspent. I want to refer him to the position of the Public Service under this Government. The establishment of the Public Service in 1956 was 128,352. Five years later it had increased to 152,174; by the 1st January, 1966, the establishment grew to 191,946 and by the 1st January, 1967, to 202,934—in other words the percentage increase over the decade 1956 to the end of 1966 is 58 per cent. The year 1963-’64 was a phenomenal year in this respect because the increase in the number of posts in that year was no less than 20,000. If these figures are properly studied and analyzed in the light of educational qualifications, and if one takes Std. VIII as the criterion one finds that the Public Service employs between 27 and 30 per cent of the total white population with a Std. VIII certificate. This includes both males and females. The Public Service is, in other words, by far the largest employer in the country. What does this mean? It means that the ramifications of Government are increasing annually and from a labour point of view and is increasingly in competition with the private sector. Of course, where this leads to increased and better services, the country cannot have any objection. But where it means the increasing application, through officialdom, of ideological projects and programmes which solve no problems and are essentially unproductive, the public has a right to object. That is what we have been doing from this side of the House. If one adds up the cost of certain items, items which taken singly do not amount to very much but which when added together make formidable reading, we have a different story. Let us take a few examples at random: The amounts spent on the annual increases in the Public Service; the cost of administering the Population Registration Act year after year; the cost of all those officials whose job it is to issue permits for the right to use halls; the Ministry of Sport and its portion in the Budget, which is a waste of money; the salaries of thousands of group area inspectors, whose job it is to pry into people’s homes; inflated salaries for readers attached to the Publications Control Board and other boards, whose existence we have queried; the cost of the hundreds of extra policemen needed to administer our clumsy pass laws; the cost of extra prison accommodation and of the officials needed to guard the thousands of statutory offenders who fill our gaols year after year; Cadillacs of hon. Ministers, some with more than one, I understand; expensive houses for M.E.C.’s—so I can go on. The list is absolutely endless.

These are the things on which the taxpayer’s money is being wasted. Who are the really happy people in South Africa to-day? Just think of the pensioners. Under the present high cost of living most of these live miserable lives on a shoestring budget. Nobody can argue about that. What is more, many of them live in buildings which should have been condemned many years ago. What about our farmers? They have had a rotten deal from this Government and are continuing to get a rotten deal. The Government has no constructive long-term plan for our farmers. Thousands of them have had to leave their farms, a tendency which will continue. There is no doubt about that. But what kind of security have they got under the present circumstances? As hon. members know, thousands and thousands of existing farmers are up to their eyes in debt and do not know where to turn in order to straighten things out. Let us take industry. Industry is deeply concerned about the new controls over its freedom and about the threatened withdrawal of large numbers of Bantu labour, particularly from certain areas. These industrialists who, next to the mines, constitute the mainstay of our economy, are deeply worried because of the Government’s refusal to assist in the training of our unskilled labour, a matter which the Leader of the Opposition discussed earlier this afternoon. The Government refuses to do so largely because these unskilled labourers are non-White. The result is that production suffers and inflation is encouraged.

If one looks at the educational field we all have to agree that this field has been scandalously neglected. That goes for Whites, for the Bantu and for the Coloureds. That this is so, is a short-sightedness on the part of the Government which is proving a great disservice to South Africa as a whole. The more you neglect education, the more adversely you affect productivity. Therefore I say that we are correct in saying, whether the Prime Minister likes it or not, that thousands of our white youngsters leave school far too early. They leave school with poor qualifications, but they are forced to do so in order to assist with the family budget. Their potential is lost to the country year after year. On my desk I have letters from parents to prove that what I am saying is absolutely true. It is going to take South Africa a generation to overcome the effects of this short-sightedness. Do not let us bluff ourselves on that score. It is only now, 20 years too late, that the necessary educational and vocational surveys are being made. What is more, if one examines the financial position of education, one finds that although the total sum of money being spent on education has increased during the past few years, as a percentage of the national income it has decreased—an alarming state of affairs. In the Economic Journal of 1964 Pro. fessor Horwood wrote in an article—

Under the latest Budget the amount of money spent on education is 4½ per cent of the national income. One would have thought that, after a period in office of 20 years, this Government could have done something more dynamic. I know the hon. the Minister has said that this amount must be increased, but the hard fact is that the country is getting richer, we are all being grossly overtaxed and yet the amount spent on education and training is, expressed as a percentage of South Africa’s net geographical income, decreasing. Money voted for education is a long-term investment. What is more, it will not encourage inflation—in fact, it will increase productivity. And increased productivity, as has so often been said, is one of our greatest needs.

66 per cent of our industrial workers are unskilled. This is a frightening figure. In the United States only 15 per cent are unskilled. The answer to the problem for us lies in better education, not only for the Whites, but for all. All we have had this year in so far as education is concerned, is this dreary and frightening National Education Policy Bill which underwrites nobody at all in a practical sense. Another practical aspect concerns the health of the nation, an aspect with which productivity is also linked. I refer here to the grievous shortage of funds for medical research. The country is short of scientists, engineers, medical doctors, and university staff, partly as a result of chronic neglect and shortsightedness, and partly out of meanness in the allocation of funds to assist these people. The latest report of the C.S.I.R. makes dismal reading on this subject. Let me read the following extracts therefrom—

Half a million rand. Sir! That was all that was allocated to all our universities, for postgraduate study, individual ad hoc grants and to units and groups for purposes of medical research. The report goes on to say:

That to me is an absolute disgrace. Further on it is stated that the work on medical research set out in the report “represents but a fraction of the medical research potential of the Republic”. It is pointed out that because of lack of funds this potential lies dormant. That is an indictment of the Government, quite clearly set out in this report. Add to that the fact that they go on to say that less money is coming to us from outside, and we are receiving less money from the U.S.A. They go on and say—

Then they say—

Finally they say—

In other words, everything is earned out on a limited scale because just over R½ million, and no more, is allocated to the C.S.I.R. for medical and nutritional research purposes.

Now, poverty in South Africa is rife. Malnutrition and disease, whatever hon. members may say, are also rife. Most of these things arise out of the poverty which I have just mentioned, and they lead in their turn, as hon. members know, to a whole mass of sociological problems which are becoming so deep-seated that South Africa one day will reap the whirl-wind in grim human terms, unless we set about dealing with them now.

It may interest hon. members to know that the average expectation of life at birth of the different population groups in South Africa differs very much as a result of the prevalence of poverty amongst our non-white population groups. For instance, the expectancy of life for our white males is 64.6 years and that for our white females is 70.1 years. For Coloured men the figure is only 44.8 years and for women it is 47.8 years. The respective figures for Asiatics are 55.8 years and 54.8 years. This shows a 20-year span of difference in the average life expectancy between white and Coloured people, and there is no doubt whatsoever that this is largely due to poverty. There is also a ten-year difference between the Asiatics and the Whites.

Rigid ideology, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition quite rightly said, breaks up family life in South Africa with incredible cruelty and indifference, and I think this is a grave reflection on the European people as a whole and with it the children, of course, are the ones who suffer.

Last year I raised the question of the amount of skimmed milk that was thrown away in South Africa annually simply because there were no means of collecting it. I do not have time to go into the subject in any detail, but thousands and thousands of pounds of fresh milk are thrown away annually. It is not collected. No plan seems to have been made to organize the collection of this milk, to have it properly processed, to stockpile it and let it be distributed. Only 120 municipalities are receiving it at the present time. The tuberculosis rate is such that the Secretary for Health said only a few weeks ago that South Africa was facing an epidemic of tuberculosis which might last for another 50 years. If there is no co-ordinated plan whatsoever on the part of the Government, except on a very small scale, namely R25,000 for the Bantu areas and R64,000 for municipalities, the outlook looks grim. The latest figure voted for tuberculosis on the Estimates is R14 million. But by that time they already have the disease. It seems to me that nothing practical is being done to stockpile skim milk which can be processed either for poverty purposes or for purposes of civil defence in terms of the country’s needs if we find ourselves in the middle of a war.

The incidence of tuberculosis among our urban and our rural Bantu is becoming a frightening business. These are the things we on this side feel the Government does not devote nearly enough time nor money to under the circumstances. They spend so much time talking big business and power politics that the practicalities are so often forgotten. That is why I deliberately mentioned education and this question of health. It is on these grounds that we consider the Government should turn its attention to matters of really human concern and that is why the Leader of the Opposition moved his amendment, i.e. to ensure the security and happiness of the South African population.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my doubtful privilege since 1954 to be a member of an assembly together with the hon. member for Wynberg. who has just resumed her seat. I have heard many speeches by the hon. member, but I want to say with all due respect that I have seldom heard her make a speech as poor as this afternoon’s. But one cannot actually hold it against the hon. member, for if one has no case it is rather difficult to make out a good case. I am not going to try to reply to all the arguments advanced by the hon. member, but I cannot resist the temptation to reply to some of them.

In the course of her speech the hon. member dealt with the farmers, amongst other matters. I do not know how much she knows about farming and how many farmers she knows. Perhaps she still knows as little about our farmers as she knew in 1954, when she referred to the people in the rural areas as the “blikkiesdorpers”. [Interjections.] I am afraid she has not learnt much more about the farmers since then, because this afternoon she told us that the farmers were getting a “rotten deal” from this Government. But in spite of the fact that the farmers are having such a terribly bad time, according to her, prices of land have increased by about 100 per cent in the past six years. Now I ask the hon. member: If the farmers are having such a hard time, if they are in such a poor position, if they are getting such a “rotten deal”, as the hon. member alleges, how can they be prepared to pay 100 per cent more for land than they did six years ago? I leave the hon. member there as regards her arguments on farming, because it is apparent that she knows nothing about that.

The hon. member also said: “Poverty and malnutrition are rife in South Africa.” I wonder—no, I am convinced that there is not one other country on the continent of Africa where so little poverty is encountered as in South Africa. The hon. member referred to the low life-expectancy of our non-Whites, particularly our Coloureds. Does the hon. member not know that only 20 years ago— when this Government was not in power—as many as 50 out of 100 Coloured children died in infancy? As I say, it was not the National Party which was in power then. Under this Government that figure has now decreased to less than 10 per cent. Is that proof of callousness, of the inhumanity of this Government to non-white races in our country?

The hon. member also complained terribly because the Government expenditure was supposedly so high. She also complained about the large increase—according to her—in the number of public officials. As a reason for that she advanced the fact that population registration entailed unnecessary staff and money; that control over the movement of Bantu in our country occupied unnecessary officials and money, etc. This afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also spoke about the so-called unnecessary public expenditure. But in the same breath he spoke of the thousands of children who were crying out for education. According to that side the Government expenditure is unnecessarily high, on the one hand, but on the other hand they complain that the Government is not spending enough, for instance on the education of our children. How long will the Opposition persist in sitting on two stools? I am afraid they are no longer sitting on two stools—they have long fallen between them and are lying on the floor between the two stools!

For that reason I do not want to spend any more time this afternoon replying to arguments of that kind, because that does not get us anywhere. I would rather point out that here we have a Government, a dynamic Government, consisting of extremely capable men under a very dynamic young head of government. Because that is the case, I have no hesitation whatsoever in raising a matter this afternoon which I think warrants the attention of the Government. In fact, I believe that in the near future this matter will receive the necessary attention. In recent times we have heard a great deal about re-appraisal, particularly with regard to the U.N. and its activities. This afternoon I want to speak of our re-appraisal in respect of our provincial system. Sitting in our dining-room the other day, I looked at the wonderful work of art by Professor Roworth which so beautifully portrays the meeting of the fathers at the National Convention 58 years ago, and it was as though I saw those people before me in the flesh. The thought occurred to me whether now, after 58 years, the time has not come that we should form a re-appraisal of our entire system. It goes without saying that over a period of 58 years conditions may change very much, and in the past 58 years conditions have in fact changed very much in South Africa. Circumstances have arisen which are beginning to cause me concern, and this afternoon I want to raise some points. I am not doing this in a spirit of criticism—I want to make that quite clear at the outset, in order that there may not be the least misunderstanding. If I draw attention to certain unfortunate phenomena, it should not be construed as criticism of any administrator or executive committee. It should not be construed as criticism of provincial councils. I am pointing out certain things because in my opinion they are inherent weaknesses in this system, this system which, as I said, is 58 years old.

If we look at the Estimates of revenue and expenditure before us, we shall see that no less than R189 million is paid over from our revenue account to the provincial administrations. In addition there is R52 million for national roads. Of this Budget approximately 16.6 per cent goes to the provincial administrations. Over this 16.6 per cent this Parliament has very little to say. In fact, the Select Committee on Public Accounts, which reviews the expenditure of all the Government Departments, has no power to discuss and review this percentage of our Budget which is paid over to the provinces. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say this is an unfortunate phenomenon, which does not imply any criticism of the provincial administrations concerned. It is inherent in our system. We have no right to supervise the spending of that R189 million, although it is voted by this Government. Let us take the Cape Province as an example. According to the latest Estimates of the Cape Province, which I have before me, that is. the 1967-’68 Estimates, revenue total R166,457,440. Of this amount the provincial administration gets R83,442,000 from the Central Government. In other words, exactly 50 per cent of the total revenue is received from the Central Government. Now we all know that it is an unfortunate fact of human psychology that one is more meticulous and more sparing with money that one earned oneself than with money one inherits or receives as a present. For that reason I say that to me it is an unfortunate fact that we, who have to vote this money for the province, have no right or power to review and supervise that expenditure through the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I say once again that it is an unfortunate fact of human nature that one is not as cautious with one’s expenditure if one receives the money as a present as one is if one has to earn it oneself. A further unfortunate fact which has arisen in the past 58 years, since the fathers portrayed on the painting in the dining-room drew up their plans, is the unequal pressure of taxation on the different sections of the population of South Africa. Apart from income-tax imposed by this Parliament on the population of South Africa, there is also income tax which is levied by the various provinces. In the Transvaal and in the Free State it is 32 per cent of the Central Government’s income-tax. In the Cape it is 33 per cent and in Natal 37i per cent. Now the question occurs to one: Why this unequal pressure of taxation on inhabitants and taxpayers in the same Republic of South Africa?I give you another example. In the Cape we still have the divisional council system and its concomitant divisional council rates. I do not know whether hon. members are always aware of the fact that on a small farm of 100 morgen a farmer in the Cape pays up to R150 in divisional council rates.

It is a disgrace!

The hon. member says it is a disgrace. I repeat, I am not criticizing the Cape. I am not criticizing the Cape Administrator. Nor am I criticizing the Cape Provincial Administration. These things are inherent in the system we received from the hon. fathers on that panting in the dining room, 58 years ago. But I also say that it has certainly become time to form a re-appraisal. This entire system must be reconsidered. I have given you these examples to show that this system, which has now applied for 57 years, suffers from certain anomalies. In this regard I may refer to the question of motor-car licences. The provinces are not entitled to levy a tax on petrol, but the provinces have to build roads. And what better and more equitable form of taxation with a view to the maintenance of roads is there than a tax on petrol? But unfortunately the provinces are not entitled to levy a tax on petrol. This is another legacy from the National Convention. Because the provinces are not empowered to impose the most equitable form of road taxes, namely a tax on petrol, they must necessarily turn to the other source of taxes that they do in fact have, namely motor-car licences. And now one finds the anomaly that the citizens of one province pay much more for the same vehicle than the citizens of another province. But this is by no means the worst. One furthermore finds the anomaly that a person who travels 3,000 miles a year pays exactly the same as a person who travels 30,000 miles a year. In this regard I have made calculations on the basis of one example. On a six-ton truck the vehicle licence in the Cape is at present R110. For the farmer who travels 3,000 miles a year, licence fees alone therefore come to 3.66 cents a mile. The person who travels 30,000 miles, on the other hand, pays .36 cents. You will therefore note that we find this kind of anomaly because the province’s sources of taxation, fiscal sources, are so restricted. They have to fall back on this one source, and that is why one finds this inconsistency or anomaly.

Are you in favour of abolishing it?

I am not asking that it should be abolished. I shall tell you in a moment what I am in fact asking. I shall come to that. There is a further phenomenon which gives rise to concern at present. That is that the responsibility of the provincial council is being reduced more and more. When traffic legislation was before the various provincial councils recently, the members of the provincial councils were told quite clearly that they could not tamper with the ordinances because the Administrators and Executive Committees had decided on them jointly, and that the provincial councils should merely accept them as they were. Now I ask, what is the function of a provincial council if the provincial councils as such are tied down to such an extent, with a view to uniformity? And one of these days we are going to find exactly the same thing as far as education is concerned. For these reasons, and because these circumstances have arisen since 1910, I believe that the time has come to review this entire system. I have the utmost confidence that if we raise this question with the Government, they will consider it most thoroughly. The hon. the Minister of Finance recently said in a Press statement that he was already reviewing these financial relations which contain aspects of in equitability. He is studying them. I am not asking that the provincial system should be abolished. I merely want to make the statement that since 1910 circumstances have arisen which have made it imperative that this entire system should be reconsidered. As regards its financial aspect, the most important aspect of my speech this afternoon, I have the utmost confidence in our hon. Minister of Finance. And permit me, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate him now on his first Session as Minister of Finance, which is now coming to an end. And allow me to say at the same time that he is assisted by a capable, young and dynamic Deputy Minister of Finance. And if I add to that that we have a very capable young Minister of Economic Affairs, I am convinced that the finance and the economy of the Republic of South Africa are in very safe hands. And that is why I feel confident in raising this matter this afternoon, in the knowledge that they will make a thorough study of it. I believe the Borckenhagen Commission report has been completed and that it will be dealt with during the recess. For that reason I have no hesitation in raising these few points, because I believe that the time has come to review this entire system and to make a very thorough study of it, in order that it may be adapted to our changed circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to what has been said by the hon. member for Paarl. All I gathered from his address to you here this afternoon is that the provincial system should have a slow death and not a sudden one. That was inherent in his speech. But this is a typical approach that has been going on but this is the first time that I am aware of that an hon. member of this House has voiced these sentiments. This surreptitious eroding of the powers of the provinces has been going on for a long time. And what has happened in the past is that the Government has so tightened the string round the purse that we have the position of an Administrator saying that he has become quite ashamed of having to approach the Minister like a beggar, cap in hand, to get a reasonable subsidy. And the hon. member for Paarl will know that when it was in accordance with Government policy that Coloured education should come into the hands of the Central Government, the Government simply cut down the subsidy on education and made it impossible for the Cape Province to continue to run and to finance Coloured education to the extent that the province said: Please take it over, we cannot run it anymore. The hon. member referred to the question of taxation. It is a matter that has been raised frequently by the administrators, namely that the limits on their powers taxation are unfair and unjust. The hon. member mentioned the case of the tax on petrol. He knows that the Central Government at the present moment extracts from the motorist R113 million per year by way of customs and excise on motor vehicles, fuel, parts, spares, types, etc. And after that it merely hands back to the province sufficient to cover national roads. If the provinces were enabled to have the benefit of the total of that taxation there would be no difficulties in financing. There will be no difficulties in financing the roads which is the cause of the hon. member grumbling about the taxation on farms. I do not know whether he realizes that his proposals mean the end of the divisional council system, and the end of the local authorities system if we do away with provincial administrations. The position I believe does need airing. We on this side of the House have repeatedly asked the Ministers responsible to publish and make known the reports of the Borckenhagen and Schumann Commissions. I think the hon. member will be quite enlightened when he reads those reports. He will find, I am sure, if my anticipation is correct …

Do you know what is in the report?

I wish I knew. I have to make some intelligent guesses and that is that a little more authority should be given to the provinces and not taken away from them. And I would like to see those reports published because publication is becoming urgent. I do not know how much longer the Schumann Commission report is going to be on the banned list. It has been in the hands of the Government I believe for several years. It is impossible to get a copy of it from the Minister. I think there is something a little more sinister about this proposal, and I say it with reluctance to the hon. member for Paarl. Nationalists call it uniformity, but I believe that the Government’s problem is that it does not like independent thought in the lower formations of government. The attitude is that if it is difficult to get the provinces or the municipalities or the divisional councils, to toe the line, let us scrap them and let us govern the whole country—that seems to be the line of thinking. Let us get away from the basis of argument and persuasion.

I want to raise one matter with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration on which a certain amount of clarity would be welcome to the country, particularly arising out of the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. The Prime Minister posed certain questions on the federation aspect of the policy of this side of the House, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration or some member opposite if they can perhaps give us a little enlightenment on a very basic aspect of what they term “separate development”. I ask this because, quite frankly, I do not have a published pamphlet before me; they do not publish pamphlets on the other side of the House to deal with a mobile policy like separate development. I have been trying to find out exactly what separate development entails, and the one aspect I want to deal with is the concept of the hon. the Minister that we have separate nations in South Africa, Black, Coloured, Indian and White, and then again the Bantu are divided into a number of nations. I also understood that attached to those separate nations and their separate development is a separate geographical place for them in the Republic. That is why the homelands are being created, and I understand that it is part of the separate development policy that the ultimate end of the road is self-government for those nations of their own homelands. That seems to be clear. I want to ask the hon. members, if that is the position, and whether they will deal with two aspects. The one is that that concept is foreign to the laws which are at present on our Statute Book. Is it the intention now that such laws as these of citizenship, etc. will be so altered that the laws will provide for these different nations; and is the whole concept of population groups now a thing of the past? Because a population group is not and cannot be a nation. What puzzles me, and why I raise this matter, is because the Minister of Bantu Administration read us a long lesson on this subject during the 1966 Session and on other occasions. But I have before me a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in April. 1967, when he attended the sitting of the Council for Coloured Affairs. This was issued by the Department of Information. The Prime Minister was speaking partly in English and partly in Afrikaans and these were his words, and not a translation. The Prime Minister spoke of the policy of separate development and said it had become the policy of South Africa and it has not only been accepted by the leaders of the different population groups, which he describes as being Black, Brown, White or otherwise. He goes on to say that it is a fact that we have four population groups, the Whites, the Coloureds, the Bantu and the Indians, and then he goes on to make a further statement which seems to me to run contrary to the exposition we heard from the hon. the Prime Minister when he says—

In other words, South Africa is to be regarded as one geographical area.

But not one states May I put a question to you?

No. The Hon. Chief Whip can get up and explain how we are going to have separate nations developing to separate individual freedoms and self-government, and yet maintain one geographical area, the Republic of South Africa. If hon. members will take the trouble to read the Prime Minister’s speech, they will see it is certainly not a fragmentation of South Africa he is discussing. [Interjections.]

I now want to deal with certain demands that have arisen in this country resulting from the natural population increase and increased immigration. In the time at my disposal I will have to restrict my remarks to one aspect only, and that is the situation in regard to the health services of South Africa. I want to restrict myself entirely to the administrative aspect. I am not a medical practitioner and I am not in a position to deal with this question from a medical aspect, which will be dealt with by other speakers. We find that in South Africa, in the white areas, there is a ratio of one white doctor to 1,440 of the population. In the Bantu areas the ratio is one doctor to 13,000 Bantu, and in the overall picture there is one doctor to just under 2,000 Whites and non-Whites. Our neighbours are in a very much worse position. Let me say so immediately, but I do not want to set out what the position is in our neighbouring countries, except to say that in Angola there is one doctor to 14,500, in Mozambique there is one doctor to 20,500, in Botswana there is one to 21,000, and in Lesotho one doctor to 21,300. The worst of the ratios in Western Europe is in Finland, where there is one doctor for 1,500 people, which approximates to our ratio in South Africa in regard to the Whites. As regards this figure I want to draw attention to the fact that the total number of Bantu doctors registered in 1960—I have not got the latest figures— was 127. Of these, only 103 were practising in South Africa. They are in various areas, and of the 103 only 20 were within the Bantu homelands.

I have raised from time to time in this House the problem of training Bantu and other non-White doctors as a matter requiring urgent attention. It seems that under this Government’s policy of separate development there is a complete dissipation of effort between the various Departments and Ministers who are responsible. I find that when one wishes to inquire into the position the Minister of Health says he is not responsible; he says the Minister of Education is responsible for setting up the medical schools. The Minister of Bantu Administration is responsible for the training of Bantu doctors, the Minister of Indian Affairs is responsible for the training of Indian doctors, and the Minister of Coloured Affairs is responsible for the training of Coloured doctors. This is an urgent problem. Year after year the question is asked as to what is being done and all the Ministers, up until this year, when we had the exception of the Minister of Coloured Affairs, have said that the matter was under consideration. The Minister of Coloured Affairs said it was intended to establish a medical school, but where will he establish it? Apparently he will establish it at the Western Cape College, at Bellville South, but that college can only be established when there are facilities for teaching, and the only facilities for teaching will be at the Tiervlei Hospital which might come into use by 1971. That is when a start can be made in training Coloured doctors. But as far as the Bantu are concerned, one is told that the matter is still under consideration, and we have this answer year after year.

One realizes that problems exist, but where is the Cabinet’s responsibility for meeting this problem? Is it the Minister of Health on whom the ultimate responsibility rests if there is a breakdown in medical services? That breakdown will surely come unless there is some urgent planning, and in the absence of some co-ordination it is unlikely that this problem will be tackled as urgently as it should be. The only legal means of co-ordination is the National Health Council, but the Minister of Health tells me that Council has not been convened since 1952. In so far as the other statutory body is concerned, viz. the Coordinating Council, that is meeting less and less frequently. The Minister of Bantu Administration is well aware of the necessary plans that have been prepared by his Department. I had the privilege in earlier years of attending such a conference dealing with the areas in the Cape Province. He knows the urgency and in reply to a recent question he told me that he is getting on and that the hospitals are being built; he is going to provide something like an additional 4,370 beds, not in the Bantu homelands but in the border areas to serve them. But nothing is being done to train personnel to run those hospitals. The Minister knows that a few Native nurses are being trained, but where is he training enough doctors to attend to the 4,000-odd beds? The hon. the Minister should know how many doctors are necessary to run these hospitals, and unless they are going to be provided by the Bantu, then it is a mythical business to talk about separate development. If the Whites are still going to run these hospitals for them, then for how long; for how many generations? Perhaps the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education will tell me what he is doing in this connection. The difficulty that the hon. the Minister is faced with is that there are only about 500 Bantu matriculants coming out each year who can possibly be trained for professional occupations, and those 500 matriculants are expected to provide the professional men for millions and millions of black people. Sir that is the problem and I want to know what the hon. the Minister is going to do, because the amount that is spent on Bantu education has been pegged; it does not allow for increased numbers to be educated. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do in this connection because I see no signs that anything is being done and the people who are responsible for health see no signs of it.

Let me turn to the question of nursing services, and in this connection I want to say to the Minister that the hospitals which are under provincial control at the moment, are doing their utmost ito train Bantu nurses, with the material that is available, as fast as they can. That is being done not by this Government but by the provincial administrations which the hon. member for Paarl wants to do away with; they are the people who are training Bantu nurses and they are training them as fast as they can.

Sir, I want to speak to the hon. the Minister of Health about the question of nursing services generally. According to a recent survey made by the South African Nursing Association, the wastage each year or during the course of training of nurses is over 50 per cent in the case of general nurses and something like 78 per cent in the case of nurses for mental patients and mentally defective persons. Sir, what is being done to meet this problem? One finds that in 1933 185 nurses wrote the final examination for mental nursing. Thirty years later, in 1963, the total was 190. That is the progress in thirty years so far as nursing services in mental institutions are concerned.

But you were a member of the Executive Committee; what did you do about it?

Sir, perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister might study the constitution of the country. If he does, he will find that mental hospitals fall under the Minister of Health and have nothing to do with the provinces. I am sorry he is so ignorant. That is why he thinks that the nurses are being trained by the Government when in fact they are being trained by the provincial administrations. Sir, the position is urgent in so far as nurses are concerned. I know that the hon. the Minister is waiting for the report from the Nursing Commission. I hope that there is going to be no question of that report being delayed so that steps can be taken to remedy the position. He indicated to me last year that he hoped to receive the report towards the end of this year.

There is another aspect of planning which comes directly under the Minister of Finance which causes me grave concern. In the capital Estimates this year provision is made for a total expenditure of R109,000 for the expansion and the provision of mental hospitals in this country. It amounts to .3 per cent of the Public Works Vote of R30¼ million for this year. Sir, this is the planning which is being done by this Government at a time when we are told, as we were told by an hon. Minister on Friday of last week, a few days ago, that at one stage they had to keep 847 mental patients in police cells because there was no mental institution to receive them. In spite of that fact, we find that provision is being made for only R109,000 in the capital Estimates this year. The Minister will be aware of what is being done by the provinces. Here provision is being made in the Estimates for capital expenditure of R109,000 when the four provinces are carrying a total of R131 million for hospital building work to be done, R131 million of which they are providing an amount of nearly R30 million this year. The hon. the Minister will concede, and those with experience in this matter will agree with him, that when you have a Budget, such as we had this year, in which there is no indication of new planning, it means that we are going to sit for four, five or six years without any adequate expansion of these necessary hospital facilities. I come back again to the hon. the Minister and I ask him, as I asked the Minister of Finance earlier, whether he will not let us have a look at the report of the Schumann Cornmission. I am sure that better provision will be made for services for mental patients if all hospitals were under one control, or at least they might be in three of the provinces because I cannot speak for the fourth. If all health services were under provincial control I am sure better results will be achieved.

The final matter which I wish to mention just briefly is the question of civil defence which has arisen and which is part of the question of health services and the taking of adequate precautions in the event of any disturbances within the country. Sir, there has been a very long delay in getting this civil defence organization off the ground. The Minister of Health particularly is concerned with one aspect which flows from the Defence Bill which is passing through the House at the present moment. He will know that civil defence will be very much dependent upon the extent to which voluntary nursing organizations assist the Government and provide the machinery to operate emergency medical services in times of trouble and need. He will find that his colleague, the Minister of Defence, is now making it an offence to mention anything in the newspapers about the voluntary aid detachments of nursing services. That provision is contained in the Defence Bill, and it seems to me a very unwise provision when we are attempting to build up the Noodhulpliga, the Red Cross, St. John’s and other organizations of that kind. They need the maximum publicity if they are to get people to join these organizations and to play their part. I hope the Minister will look into this matter and see that there is some co-ordination between him and the Minister of Defence in that regard.

Sir, looking at the results of the Session and looking at the capital Estimates for health services one finds that instead of feeling secure, instead of feeling that our continued prosperity is ensured, instead of the country being happy with this Government, one finds that, in so far as these matters to which I have referred are concerned, it has the greatest reason for the utmost alarm at the neglect on the part of this Government.

It is disheartening that an hon. member of the Opposition should get up here and ask elementary questions on the colour policy of this Government. The hon. member has been in this House quite some time. It is true that he is not an old member of this House, but he has been here long enough to find out what the basic difference is between the policy of this Government and the United Party policy. But apart from that the hon. member has been on the Provincial Council. He is involved in politics, and he should at least have some knowledge of these elementary things, but what did he do? He got up and started by referring to the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with the different race groups in the country. It is quite clear that the hon. member has no grasp of the policy of this party, for what the hon. the Prime Minister said when he made his first statement as Prime Minister on the steps outside this building was that we in South Africa—the Whites, the Blacks, the Indians and the Coloureds—would solve the problems of South Africa right here, and that we needed no interference from outside. The hon. member is confusing that with the details of the policy of this Government. But apart from that the Opposition has tried in this debate, and in fact throughout the Session, to create the impression that there is not very much difference between their policy and our policy, and certain sections of the Press have also tried to create the impression that the National Party and the Opposition are not really so far apart, which of course is wrong. The fact of the matter is that we differ fundamentally as regards the most important question facing South Africa, and the fundamental difference relates to the meaning of “nation”. The hon. member asked, as though it was the first time the matter was discussed here: “What does ‘nation’ mean?” It is clearly apparent from the various concepts mentioned by him that the hon. member does not understand the elementary points in South African politics, namely who constitute the people of South Africa. That is what it is all about. The important question before the nation is this:

How can more than one nation co-exist peacefully within one geographical unit in future? The fundamental difference between this and that side of the House centres on the question: Who constitute the nation? We believe that there are several nations in South Africa, and that has been said umpteen times, both here and outside. What is more, everybody except the Opposition understands that. The black people of this country understand what it is all about, and that is why they support the policy of this Government. The outside world is also showing greater understanding than the Opposition, who hear our policy every day. What is more, the public outside understand it, and that is why they support the Government to an ever-increasing extent. But the Opposition inside this House fail to understand it, despite the fact that nothing has been explained to them so frequently as this very concept.

There are signs that the outside world is beginning to understand this concept to an ever-increasing extent, for what is happening in Africa? What is now happening in Africa is what happened hundreds of years ago in the rest of the world. Hundreds of years ago Europe was divided into nations. The Western world has run away from the Continent of Africa; it has left it precipitately and it has left it with certain geographical areas in which various nations live together, and it hoped that they would be contented to live within the same geographical boundaries, which was unrealistic and unacceptable, and which is now causing great strife in Africa. What is the position at present? In the past decade or two the metropolitan powers have run away from Africa, and now a struggle has arisen here. While we are conducting this debate, the nations of Nigeria are dividing in accordance with the natural boundaries in Nigeria itself; at the moment the fragmentation of that country is progress, and it is not going to stop at East Nigeria and West Nigeria. In the years ahead Nigeria is quite probably going to be fragmented along natural lines. But that does not only apply to Nigeria. All the other countries north of South Africa are splitting along natural lines. Sir, it is a very great truth, a truth that is also basic to the policy of this Government, and it is the law of nature herself, which contains a great diversity in herself, a diversity which reveals itself on all levels, that one cannot force people or things together unless they belong together. That is the foundation of the policy of this Government. It is not a policy which was cleverly devised; it is this Government’s attitude to life, an attitude to life which developed as a result of the fact that the white man in this country has co-existed with people of other races through the centuries, which is at present more clearly defined and more clearly set out. It is nothing but a pattern of life which has developed through centuries, since the white man arrived in South Africa. What is the basis? Its basis is the simple, natural concept that one should afford an opportunity to people of the same culture, the same language and the same ambitions, who have grouped them together through the years, to preserve their own identity and to seek their own salvation in future, separately and among their own people. That is the basis of the Government’s policy. On the answer to the question as to how more than one nation can co-exist permanently and in peace in future, hon. members on the opposite side and we on this side differ fundamentally. We say there is more than one nation. That there is more than one nation is proved by the fact that these nations manifest themselves through their own languages, their own sense of coherence and the urge to live together. Now it is most interesting to see how this concept is accepted by the Bantu in South Africa. I am going to give you examples of how they accept this concept.

When the Government grouped the Bantu in the urban complexes according to their ethnic ties, the tension which had previously existed was resolved immediately. It was accepted immediately and there was peace in those areas. That is one demonstration of it. Another important demonstration is the following: When the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development recently took a further step along the road and projected the development of the Bantu homelands and the greater responsibility placed on local units, this announcement was immediately accepted by the Bantu themselves in great confidence and contentment. An offer was made to them, an offer to co-operate on this basis, and every single national group in South Africa not only accepted it but was also enthusiastic about it. They were enthusiastic about the prospect of making their own way in future, with the assistance of the white man. They were enthusiastic about doing so for their own sake and with a view to their future. That is the basis on which the hon. the Minister is now further developing a policy. The fact of the matter is that in every field where the Government has tried to apply this concept administratively, it has been accepted by the black man of South Africa. An interesting phenomenon in the field of politics in recent times is the following: The breakthrough to the black man himself has come. This is one of the great breakthroughs the Government has made in recent years. Its acceptance is indeed a demonstration of how we are solving our problem in the Republic of South Africa on the Government’s basis, while all the Western countries in the rest of Africa failed in their efforts. The very fact that here in the Republic we have peace, acceptance and co-operation on this basis while the rest of Africa is beginning to go up in flames because they function on the opposite basis—a basis which is also subscribed to by hon. members on the opposite side—demonstrates to the rest of the world that South Africa is succeeding where the rest of the world has failed. That is what is happening at the moment. It is not only a political fact but also a political demonstration of a truth regarding the politics of Africa in these times, something which makes us world leaders.

The second point I want to make in this connection is the following:

This matter has certain implications. In his speech the hon. member demonstrated that he had no grasp whatsoever of what it was all about. In the past millions of people were allowed to live together in this territory of ours. That was in the days when that side was in government. The people were allowed to live together and work together to a large extent. We on this side envisage that it should be different in future. Well, in order to reverse this integration demands a few things. It demands patience on the part of both sections. It demands courage to put it to one’s own people and to ask them to accept its financial and other implications. They have to be asked to shoulder the great administrative responsibility It demands a large administration which has to be built up. Furthermore, it demands a great deal of money. It is impossible to separate millions of people, after they have lived together as they lived in South Africa, unless the people are also financially prepared to pay the price. The hon. member complained about administrative problems. He does not understand that what is inherent in the concept of self-development for the Bantu is that we have to make the Bantu start from a certain point—no matter how small the beginning may be—and that we have to lead him to a certain point. In himself he must be able to move to a certain point. From there, we have said, the following steps—the A, B and C— of this policy must be taken. What are these steps? He must be given an opportunity to develop in his own schools and universities in the educational field. He must also start from a certain point as far as his medical services are concerned. He must receive his training in his own hospitals. We are so far ahead now—we are so far ahead in numbers and achievements. And yet the Government is reproached across the floor of the House for supposedly progressing too slowly. How unfair that is! Not only is the Government not moving slowly—the Government is moving much more rapidly than the progress made in the rest of Africa. Even more, it is moving more rapidly than any country in the East, apart from Japan, and it is moving more rapidly even than some white countries in Europe and many states in South America. In other words, South Africa’s achievements as regards the black man alone are so great that there is no comparison between them and the achievements of other countries as regards the black man. The achievements of the Republic may indeed be compared to the highest norm of achievement in white countries. I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not trying to claim that we compare with developed countries such as America and Switzerland. The fact of the matter is, however, that quite a few of the countries I have in mind now are under white control. I am thinking of virtually all the countries in Central and South America when I say that the achievements of our country’s black man are actually comparable with the achievements of those countries’ white men. That is what it means in effect.

There is therefore the following implication. If we want to pursue this policy, we must provide for a transition period. We must be prepared to lay a certain foundation, slowly but surely. Then it does not befit hon. members on the opposite side to look at us reproachfully and to ask us: Why are there not enough doctors, nurses, etc? The fact of the matter is that the black man is contented and has confidence in and is co-operating with the Government to implement its policy. That in itself is such a great breakthrough that the hon. members on the opposite side in this House dare not set out clearly an alternative policy in respect of the black man. Another leg of the Opposition’s attitude in the past was that whatever they sought to do, they wanted to measure by one principle: White leadership. Do you know what has happened? Neither the black man in South Africa, nor one population group, nor a single responsible ship of the Opposition in the political field, organization is prepared to accept the leader-Not one.

As regards the Transkei, the fact of the matter is that the Government of the Transkei, and not only the Government but also the people of the Transkei, are accepting the policy of this Government to an ever-increasing extent. Even Vendaland, Tsongaland, Zululand and the Tswana areas of the Western Transvaal are ready and willing to accept the policy of the Government. Why? Not because the chiefs alone favour it and accept it, but because the people themselves sense and see the results of the Government’s achievements and the prosperity and advantage these offer them.

Those are all dreams.

Dreams? The hon. members on the opposite side say they are all dreams. Do you know who has been dreaming in South Africa? The Opposition were dreaming when they thought they would catch the Black man of Africa by speaking of “one big society” and “White leadership”. There is nothing as harsh and true in South African politics than the Black man’s rejection of the United Party’s policy. It is a dream. They were dreaming, but Africa does not dream. The Continent of Africa does not dream. Do you know what is happening in Nigeria? There the Black man is demonstrating, without interference from the outside, through himself and for himself, that the policy of the National Party of South Africa is correct. [Interjections.] There in Nigeria, where the Black people are governed by Black people, the inhabitants are rejecting the “one society” and the “great society” of which the Opposition speaks. But not only do hon. members on the Opposite side want all blacks together, they want to mix White, Browns, yellows and Blacks. [Interjections.]

I just want to say the following. Apart from the breakthrough that has been made to the Black man as regards the policy of this Government, another important breakthrough has been made. There is also goodwill from Bantu states outside South Africa. During the past years this goodwill has unfolded and developed. What is the hard fact of that? The hard fact is that outside South Africa, too, the honesty of this Government’s policy is accepted. Outside South Africa, too, the truth which lies at the root of separate development is accepted. Do you know when it is going to be a great day for South Africa? The great day will be when the voices of which there are now a few will become more and more and more. Because then it will mean that the White man in South Africa has rejected the attitude of that side, that the Black man of South Africa has rejected the attitude, and that the Black man in states outside South Africa has rejected their attitude. Mr. Speaker, the world outside is getting to ask more and more whether South Africa is not perhaps correct, whether South Africa is not winning. I want to predict here that if we follow up our successes in this field, as we have done, not only the black people on this Continent but people all over the globe will accept the Government’s attitude. Because it is based and tailored on one great natural law, namely: Bring together and keep together what belong together—those who speak the same language, those who have the same ambitions, and those who have to create their own future. Not only are we as White people creating our own future, but with us the Black man is prepared to create a future for himself.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to-day to words, words, and more words. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat says, that people of the same kind, people who speak the same language and who have the same traditions, ideas and ideals belong each with the other. The hon. member, and other hon. members before him, have referred in nearly every case to the “swart man” as distinct from the white man. I want to say that the group of people for whom the Government has no answer, are the Coloured people, and it is the Coloured people about whom I wish to speak to-day. We hear about “multi-national”; we hear about “multi-racial”, and we only have “multicoloured”.

Here is a group of people nearly two million strong who are with us, and have lived with us for hundreds of years, and the Government is deliberately thrusting them away from us. We get the glib talk, of which we have heard so much to-day, that these people are a nation. Well, let us examine what the Coloured nation really looks like, how it is composed, and what it comprises. First of all, in making classifications, those who are not white or Bantu, are classed as Coloureds. The Coloured nation consists of seven groups, and the seven groups are first the Coloured people, as we know them; the Indians, who include two religious groups, namely Muslims and Hindus; the Malays; the Chinese; the Griquas; other Asiatics; and other Coloureds. In these last-mentioned two groups there are many other groups of people, whose skins are darker than ours and who are classified as Coloured.

I now ask the Government in all sincerity, how such a heterogeneous group of people can be regarded as a nation? That is what I should like to know. If there is a nation, surely a nation must have a home-land? It is all very well to talk glibly about the Bantustans. I am not going to discuss that this afternoon, except to say this. If the Bantustans could be developed, and if they could be brought to a state of independence, which would make them entirely self-supporting, I think we would all be very happy. But, the Government is singularly silent in regard to the vast number of Bantu, who live around the towns, townships and cities in South Africa. For the Government, these Bantu just do not exist. They say now that the Coloured people are a nation. I should like to ask the Government: What national anthem is the Coloured community expected to sing? What flag must it respect What country is theirs? Which is their homeland? Here is the biggest group of Afrikaans speaking people in the wide world, other than White Afrikaans-speaking people in this country; yet we talk about treating them as separate people, as a separate nation—“ ’n aparte volk.” I say that it is utter nonsense. What does the Coloured man get?

The Ovambos have self-determination. They know self-determination means that one determines for oneself what one is going to do. But, the Coloured man is going to get separate development, and we, are going to tell him, how he will develop, separately. We control his social life, his political life, his sporting life and his economic life. He has no say. It is all designed for him. The hon. members whom we have been listening to this afternoon, who throw the ball backwards and forwards, are dealing with people, who have ambitions, fears, hates, loves, anxieties and worries of all sorts and kinds, the same as we have. These are the people for whom I am pleading to-day. May I ask the Government to please tell us where these people are to develop and when will they start. What does separate development mean for the Coloured man?

I will go through a few aspects of his life in regard to separate development. His children are not educated, except if they choose to go to school. Firstly, there are insufficient schools, and secondly there are no hostels; there are no boarding bursaries; there are no travelling allowances. These are paid only to Whites. The Coloured man, if he is a teacher, gets a very much lower salary than his White colleague. He does not have any prospect of getting into any of the professions other than being a lawyer or a doctor. If he wants to be an engineer, I ask the Government, where does he develop separately in that profession? Where does he participate in the higher brackets, the top echelons of aviation in this country? Where does he share in the higher and better paid jobs in the Railways? In other Government departments it is always said, that Coloured people can be postmasters in their own townships, and they can be station masters on their little sidings in the Coloured townships. But, if any unbiased man were to walk into any post office, in any city, he will find that the majority of the customers in the post offices, in the White areas, are Coloured and Bantu people. They are not served by their own kind. Coloured people are beginning to ask, whether or not the time has arrived that the policy of separate development be carried out properly. We have seen, and we have discussed it often, that, when a diamond concession is granted, Whites get it and never the Coloureds. With regard to fishing, Coloured people have no harbour, although they were promised one on the west coast, at Elandsbaai. There was a departmental committee appointed to find out where the harbour should be. If an individual wants to enter into the transportation business, the Act militates against him. Where are these people going to develop separately, other than in a few limited and prescribed avenues, set aside and designated by the Government?

The Prime Minister in a speech delivered at the opening of the most recent meeting of the Council for Coloured Affairs, spoke in the most glowing terms, almost eulogistically, of what the Coloured Representative Council could expect. The offer was, that they could handle finances, which would be voted by the Central Government. They would have some say in local government, at town council level. They would deal with education, social and community welfare, pensions and settlements in Coloured areas. The present Council of Coloured Affairs has been so dissatisfied, for so many years, that even to-day, although it has had its life extended from the original five years by another three and another one, making eight or nine years altogether, they have discussed every subject, that has been raised in this House, by many speakers who have spoken on behalf of the Coloured people. The Council has complained about the fewness of English schools. They have asked that the English language should be used to a greater extent. They have asked for compulsory education. They have asked for adjustments in teachers’ salaries to make them more realistic. They have even asked for two universities, or at least one, in the English medium, and they have asked for it to be sited, either in Johannesburg or in Natal. When the Coloured representatives have from time to time raised these matters, Government speakers have said that that was not so. I say to-day categorically that this is the case. These are the matters that have been discussed by the Union Council for Coloured Affairs. This Council is a very unhappy and dissatisfied body, because all its deliberations are in secret. They have complained about the Group Areas Act and the inadequacy of compensation. They have been asking for 2½ years for the Transportation Act to be amended and for discussions with the Minister of Transport, and nothing has happened. Let me say here, in passing, that last year in Port Elizabeth a Coloured man got the contract to transport the post from Jansenville to Klipplaat. A case was taken against him before the Road Transportation Board on appeal by the White operator, who was unsuccessful, not on any other grounds than that the man was a Coloured. I ask the Government whether they think that is fair and reasonable.

We come now to the Liquor Act. I heard it said a week or two ago, that Coloured persons, applying for licences in the Coloured arereas, find themselves having to compete with White persons, who have set up their businesses on the perimeters of the Coloured townships. The hon. the Minister of Justice is applying his mind to this problem. I state it simply as a fact, to get it on record. It is grossly unfair. If White people vote to have Coloured people moved out of town, they cannot chase after them to get their business. The Union Council for Coloured Affairs has also been asking for some time, for discussions to take place on the penetration of Indians in Coloured townships in Coloured areas. They, the Council, make no headway. They have also been dealing with another matter, namely the question of trading, where Indians —and one cannot blame them—who have been pushed out of the White areas by the Department of Community Development, set themselves up in business and in shops provided by Community Development on the borders of Coloured townships. These people are now going to compete for the little business, that is offering amongst the Coloured people. In other words, the Coloured people are the Aunt Sally. There are many cases on record. The departments are well aware of it. The Ministers know about it, and yet it goes on. All this glib talk takes place.

When it is suggested here that Coloured people should participate in our defence, the Government hold their hands up in horror. These are loyal people. They are people who have come to the front, when they have been called upon in the past. They will not only make good soldiers, but loyal soldiers and they are brave men. But, we do not make use of them. Is it intended that they should form a separate army inside South Africa in this mythical homeland which they do not posses? So, the sorry story goes on. There is no walk of life readily open to Coloured people because of the prejudice of Whites. Legislation has been passed against them dealing with job reservation, which they resent and reject. Because of the fact, that these people are good tradesmen and the country is developing, there have been more exemptions than declarations under this particular Act. The reason is, that Coloured men are just as apt at acquiring training. They are just as skilled. They are even craftsmen. If the Government would like to do justice to the Coloured man instead of an injustice they would scrap that Act and repeal it forthwith. It is not working, and it never will work. The Coloured man finds himself in the position where his White countrymen do their level best to humilitate him on every possible occasion. In the Free State, as hon. members of this House will know, a departmental commission or committee was appointed by the provincial administration to investigate the possibility of having Coloured people served at different counters in White shops. In all seriousness, this is a type of resolution passed by a Nationalist controlled council and seriously pursued to see whether or not it is a workable proposition. A town council, I think it was the Roodepoort Town Council, came to light promptly, and proposed to serve Coloured and White on alternate days. I say this in all seriousness. When do we get to the stage where we shall have separate tills and separate cash registers, and when do we have separate money? Because this is the climax of what I want to say this afternoon. The Government has got to make up its mind, one way or the other. If the Coloured man is to be herded into townships by himself, he has to get his fair share of every possible occupation, trade, and calling which is offered in this country, according to his ability. He has also got to have the opportunity to have the necessary training for that, and his children have got to have the opportunity to be educated to fill those posts. What do we find? I said in the beginning of my remarks that it is not unreasonable to say that the 12 million Bantu can be accommodated to an extent in their Bantustans and homelands, but, there is no such place for Coloured people. There is no such place. They are here with us, they are the closest to us, and they have everything that we have ever had and ever will have. Their skins are a little browner than ours in many cases, but there is no other difference. I think, there will come a day of accounting. If ever a charge was laid at the door of this Government, it would be the criminal attitude, which they adopt towards these Coloured people. It has been said by one or two of my colleagues, that Coloured people accept separate development. Let me say here and now, that that is not correct. The Coloured man has got to the stage, when he feels that he cannot hit his head against the wall any longer, and that he cannot live with bitterness in his heart.

Now you are giving it another twist, not so?

There are no other “kinkels” here at all. These are people we are talking about. The Coloured people are here with us, have always been with us, and I feel that one of the biggest, shall I say, blots on the escutcheon of the Government is their treatment of the Coloured people, because what the Government is doing to the Coloured community is indefensible. It is indefensible in any part of the world, under any circumstances, and at any time, which anybody should wish to choose. When they go to public places, they are isolated, segregated and even chased out. I want to say to the Government people, that the time has come when they must seriously consider that if we are going to pursue the myth of a White South Africa for Whites only, then Whites must work for Whites, Whites must buy from Whites, and Whites must be the only people who deal with Whites. That is what we have heard here. We have heard here about “algehele skeiding”, and I would just say this, namely that the Government people can laugh about it, that this is what the Government policy means. The sooner people outside wake up to and face the fact that this is what it entails, the sooner will we get some reason into the heads of these gentlemen, who go on to the platteland and propagate this myth, that there is a White South Africa. There is no such thing, never was, and I am absolutely certain never will be. Therefore, I conclude by saying that Coloured people are beginning to think and they will be expressing themselves along the line …

What happens to White leadership in the meantime?

Well, White leadership is going on first class as far as we are concerned. That is why I am standing here to-day. The Coloured community knows the White men that they can trust, and they know the White men that they can follow. The Government must not run away with the idea, that they can go on to the platteland and make fancy speeches at these obscure places, we read about in the papers, and hoodwink people outside, into thinking that there is a possibility that this can be brought about. The whole history of the policy of this Government is such, that to-day we have more Coloured and more black people in the White towns than ever before. I would say that the Ministers responsible for carrying out the Government policy do their best. However, I am absolutely convinced that every one of them, without exception, should examine his conscience very, very closely every time he goes to bed at night.

I trust the hon. member for Karoo will forgive me if I do not immediately follow his line of thought. It is obvious that the attitude and the policy on the Government side as far as our internal affairs are concerned, is as different as the north and south poles from that of the United Party. In order to understand that, it seems to me that we must try and understand the immense events and changes that occurred in the world during the Second World War. It is so that before the Second World War the White man was in the position of dominance in the world, and the black man and the brown man accepted that fact. Just as the British and the French and the Belgians were ruling in other parts of Africa, so the black people and the brown people accepted our dominance in South Africa. But during the Second World War a vast change came over the thought of the world, and when I heard the slogan that we fought for world freedom from the Allied side, I often wondered if we in South Africa fully understood what the implications of that idea was going to be. In 1947 I was in the Eastern Province and I saw the Lovedale Institute and various institutions the State was subsidizing for the education of black people, and I asked Government supporters, and all I knew were Government supporters in those days, what they were going to do with the Bantu who were educated and who had degrees, and who had developed political ambitions. Were they going to be sent back to look after the cows. I got no answer. In Cape Town every day Bantu streamed in from the Bantu areas. Bantu who could speak neither Afrikaans nor English, came to town to look for work. They used to beg for money and I, being in a business here in town, used to give them something because they were starving. In Bellville and in the Peninsula, squatters villages began to develop and I used to ask Government supporters what the plan was for the economic development of South Africa. I could get no answer. It is terrible to think of what would have happened to Cape Town and the Cape Peninsula if the United Party had stayed in power and had just let things develop. Not only the White people, but the Coloured people too would have been choked by Black slums long ago. The United Party in 1948 refused to accept these vast changes in the world. It seemed to be their only object to stay in power. In order to do that, they, although they now always talk about national unity as they talked about national unity then, made out to English-speaking South Africans such as myself that the Afrikaans-speaking supporters of the National Party would destroy the rights of the English-speaking South Africans. And curiously enough, because of a certain strange logic, we believed them because those leaders were Afrikaans-speaking, and we had no knowledge of and we had no contact with Afrikaans-speaking National Party supporters. Not only did they whip up and stir up English-speaking voters to fear Afrikaans-speaking National Party supporters, but they whipped up the fear of the ignorant Coloured people, portraying the National Party as horrid Boers which will oppress them. By doing that they managed to get probably 99 per cent of the Coloured votes in 1948 and nearly all the English-speaking votes. But despite that the White nation turned to the National Party who with their feet on South African earth and seeing the world through South African eyes, said that the only road for survival and for happiness and harmony in South Africa was the road and policy of apartheid or separate development. The National Party won the election with 42 per cent of the votes. This is a fact with which the United Party made much play at the time. The Leader of the United Party, General Smuts, said that they were going to reverse the reverse and that it was just a fluke. The United Party always talked about national unity. They had their opportunity. I distinctly remember the last nine years of their regime. They frightened the English-speaking voters and they did not play the game with the Afrikaans-speaking voters. Not only did they frighten the English-speaking voters to make them vote against the Afrikaners, but they did not carry out the agreement of Union in regard to the equality of the two languages with the result that there was constant tension between the two language groups. When the National Party came into power one of the first things the new Prime Minister did was to give the assurance that in the rule of the National Party both languages would be treated equally. And they have been treated on an equal footing since that time. Immediately the tension between the two language groups ceased. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has said that he is glad that South Africa’s image in the world is better. But who blackened South Africa’s image in the outside world? Certainly no Government will ever blacken the image of its own country. In their fury in being defeated and losing power they blackened the name of South Africa. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, at that time … [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Mooi River will get his opportunity to address the House.

Ah that time we were in the British Commonwealth. All information which other countries received about South Africa came through London and the United Party had the ear of London and they and their Press did not scruple to blacken South Africa and the new Government. The Government was placed in the worst possible light. I remember the then Leader of the Opposition, General Smuts, in his impotent fury at being rejected by the electorate describing his opponents, the Nationalists, as things that creep in the night. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has expressed great concern about our economic strength. I am very glad that he treats it so seriously. But I distinctly remember a time when the then Leader of the United Party, General Smuts, used his great international position to say and to influence people with the idea that factories would close, banks would shut down and that the tread of unemployed would be heard in our streets. Not only did General Smuts say that but I distinctly remember how hon. members opposite and their followers took great pleasure at the idea of South Africa’s discomfiture and weakness. During those first years of National Party rule when it became obvious that it was not true that the National Party, mostly supported by Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, was going to destroy or remove the rights of English-speaking South Africans, they came with the story that once the Republic was established it would be brought about. But actually when the Republic did come as a result of a majority vote by all South Africans living at that time, the National Party Government entrenched both language rights. It is the only entrenchment in the Republican Constitution. What is the position to-day? While we believe in a policy of apartheid or separate development and have never deviated at all from that policy or principle and carried it out to its logical consequences, the United Party still fails and refuses to accept that we are a White nation on a black continent. They want to make the most of both worlds. And so the United Party leader says that he wants everything under one umbrella. We still have the old traditional separation but we will have everything in one form of state, be it unitary or federal. The reasoning is: What harm will a Coloured man as an M.P. do? That cannot do any harm. It cannot break down the traditional separation. But if a Coloured man was a member of this House with the status of an M.P. how could he possibly entertain friends? How can he go into hotels? You must thereby break down separation between Whites and Coloureds. We are told that in this federal system the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to give the black people who number 12 million, eight White representatives in the South African House of Representatives. We are supposed to believe and accept the fact that 12 million people are going to accept eight representatives in the South African Parliament, where in the middle of South Africa Lesotho who was created there by another nation and over which we had no say, have complete sovereign independence. That is what we are supposed to believe. Malawi and all their brothers to the North have achieved sovereign independence while our Black people will accept White leadership with eight representatives. I want to know what is going to happen if these people do not want to accept the leadership of the United Party. If they do not accept it we are straight back at White dominance. It is the National Party who is the liberator of nations. We accept the fact that while we will not give up power over ourselves, we realize that power over them is not the point, as long as we have the power to control the destiny of ourselves and of our children.

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

Evening Sitting

It is a pity the hon. member for Maitland likes to indulge in so much superficial argument. Take one instance. He says we are frightening the English-speaking people into not supporting the Nationalist Party. It is very easy for somebody on this side to turn round and say that they are frightening the Afrikaans-speaking people into not supporting this side of the House. It is a very superficial argument and I think it is an insult to the English-speaking community. As I know them you can lead them, but they are not easily frightened and I do not think they are so unintelligent as to swallow anything that is put before them. As far as national unity is concerned, there is a simple test. Let the Government present us with a Cabinet, a balanced Government of Afrikaans and English-speaking South Africans, and I will concede that national unity has become a fact under the present Government.

Judging by their speeches, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs have set themselves a twofold target. The one is to improve race relations in the country. The second is to improve our country’s relations with other countries, notably the countries of the Old World in the West and the countries of the New World in Africa. This is an aim which the Opposition has consistently propagated. In fact, this is the essence of all politics in South Africa. Of course, the one is very much dependent on the other. Better relations abroad is very much dependent on harmony in race relations at home. A nation is like an individual. Your personal position in society is largely dependent on your general behaviour as an individual, and on this depends your ultimate welfare. In the same way, a nation’s position in the society of nations is dependent upon its behaviour as a nation; in other words, on its political actions and beliefs. Therefore, a nation’s ultimate welfare and its security are also to a very high degree dependent upon its position in the society of nations. Because, just imagine what development projects South Africa would have been able to tackle, what social benefits we would have been able to give our people, if South Africa were at peace with the world, or rather if the world were at peace with South Africa, and if we were not required to dissipate so much money and manpower on defence against threatened hostilities. There is, therefore, no heavier duty on the Government than to work for greater harmony with the nations that matter in the world.

There was a time when the Government took up a very narrow attitude in this matter. Their attitude was that it was no use trying, that there was no point in trying, to meet argument with argument; that the whole world wanted one thing and one thing only, and that is one man, one vote; and that because we could not concede one man, one vote, there was nothing we could do but to draw the laager and prepare for the worst. This was the most unproductive approach in the political history of South Africa, and I hope we have seen the last of it. The fact is that “the world”, as we call it, is not a united, single-minded whole. It is an assortment of power blocs and a conglomeration of conflicting interests. No country is without its enemies and adversaries, and we are not the only country with enemies. The Prime Minister was quite right when he said that at the time of General Smuts we also had enemies. No country is without enemies; but the difference is that at the time of General Smuts we had powerful friends, and that is the secret of the security of a country. You can afford to have enemies if you have on your side at least a few powerful friends. And that should be within the resources of any government. I say without hesitation that a government which finds itself unable to be accepted in any alliance of nations anywhere in the world and so strengthen the security of its country is not worthy of support.

That applies to South Africa more than to any other country, because with our immense mineral wealth, with our geographic position, as a country of tremendous strategic importance, and with our long background of intimate association with the West, it is indeed a poor government which cannot find an alliance to belong to. It is of vital importance to South Africa that we belong somewhere. It is no use shouting at the West that we are their best friends and that they are too stupid to realize it. “The West” is more than a geographic concept; it represents an idea, the broad idea of democracy, and democracy is a very powerful idea, because it respects the desire of every man to share in his own rule. Therefore, because the West is a wider concept than mere geography, a country can be Western orientated and westernized without really being part of what we call the West and the democratic idea it represents. That is where we, in the eyes of others, appear to fail. Let us face that fact. We will have to come to honest grips with this problem if we are sincere in our desire to become an active partner of the West, in the interests of the security of South Africa.

We on this side believe, in the first place, that for the sake of our future welfare, our security and self-respect we must belong. We must be seen to have friends. We must belong to an alliance. I notice that some Government commentators seem to take comfort from the fact that Israel stood alone and yet she prevailed. Sir, this is a poor analogy, because Israel had so many powerful friends, silent as they were in order to avoid a world conflagration … [Interjections.] Yes. the major nations had to avoid a world war; but I say that Israel had so many powerful friends, silent as they were to avoid a world conflagration, that at the crucial moment in the fighting between Israel and the Arabs, nobody, not even the rest of the great Islamic world, came to the practical assistance of Israel’s enemies in the field. So I say again that we must belong, and we believe that we must make up our minds that we want to belong to the West and become once again an active partner in the Western alliance. I firmly believe that in the long run this could be more important to us than our membership of the U.N. We heard much of the U.N. to-day. It is quite true that the U.N. is far from a perfect organization, and we in South Africa certainly have no reason to love the U.N., and I am in full agreement that South Africa should refuse to give any financial support for actions which are aimed against us. And we should encourage every suggestion for improving that organization. But we should be realistic enough to realize that it is futile to expect an organization like the U.N. to be more perfect than the world itself. That will never be. Just as the strongest and best-equipped police force in a country will never stop individuals from starting a fight, so no international organization can prevent conflict from breaking out between nations intent upon fighting.

The point of importance is whether an organization like the U.N. can prevent local conflict from becoming a world conflict. That is the important thing, and let us be fair. Since the Second World War, the world has been seriously threatened on many occasions. There was Berlin, and there was Hungary, and there was Cuba, there was the Congo, and there are still Vietnam and the Middle East. There was also Korea. And despite the brinkmanship we so often faced, in every case, the conflict was contained and a world conflict was avoided, as the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly pointed out. There is endless room for debate as to what would have happened if there were no machinery such as the U.N. in existence, and how much the U.N. positively contributed to preventing world conflict. We should always be grateful for suggestions put forward, whether they are put forward by the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the Opposition, to improve the U.N. But in the end all that counts is that there exists an organization where the major powers can meet and indulge in a war of words, if necessary, as they do at the U.N., rather than to withdraw into hostile camps where they are not faced with the task of meeting criticism as they have to do in the open forum of the U.N. It is very significant that the last war was started by those very countries that had left the World Organization and had withdrawn into their own camps and were no longer prepared to meet with the others in open discussion.

As far as small nations are concerned, like us, I believe that we should seek our security by becoming an active member of the Western alliance, preferably within the framework of an organization like the U.N., and I believe we can do it. The question is how we should proceed in terms of practical politics. What should we do? I was most grateful to learn from the hon. the Prime Minister, not to-day but when he spoke in the Other Place, that he was keen to have this kind of problem thrashed out in open debate. If he was correctly reported, he said that he was willing to engage in debate for days, so important was it for South Africa to find the right answers. I want to thank the Prime Minister for that, and to say to him that he will find the Opposition more than willing to participate, if he means by debate discussing the problem. But we have learned, and I am sorry to say it, that this kind of debating has become a rare occurrence, because no sooner do we start discussing a problem than hon. members opposite start attacking the man and the party. I sincerely hope that I understood the Prime Minister correctly to imply that he wanted us to tackle the problem rather than to tackle the man. If this is so, let him say so and let him consider whether our Parliament should not follow the footsteps of other Parliaments where it is against the rules to digress from the matter under discussion and attack the person of the member and indulge in personalities.

Coming to the question as to how we should proceed in terms of practical politics to improve our international relations, I think the main answer lies with race relations at home. But before I come to that, let me deal with a few improvements that could profitably be considered in the field of foreign relations. In the first place, Parliament should have a Standing Committee on Foreign Relations to consider the question of international conferences, matters relating to the diplomatic service, relations with the U.N. and other international and African organizations, and, generally, the relations of South Africa with foreign countries. The establishment of such a Standing Committee would immediately tend to give to the question of our foreign relations a wider basis, less of a partisan basis and more of a national basis than is presently the case. Most important of all, this would give Parliament the opportunity to deal with the South-West Africa situation on a national basis rather than on a party-political basis. In fact, this is so important that I believe that I should make this a separate heading and call it Point No. 2, because if there is one matter which should be dealt with on a national basis and not a partisan basis it is South-West Africa. I believe this could be done through a Standing Committee on Foreign Relations.

Secondly, I believe that we should go out of our way to re-establish contact between our Parliament and other Parliaments in the rest of the world. Members who participated in the old Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and who attended parliamentary conferences of the C.P.A.—I was fortunate enough to attend one such conference, the first one to be held on African soil, in Nairobi in 1954—will testify that it was of immense value to South Africa, and that we benefited tremendously by contact between members of our Parliament and members of other Parliaments.

The Government has already decided to do just that.

It is a pity the hon. the Prime Minister did not tell us about this this afternoon, but I am extremely grateful to hear it, because we have been asking for that for a long time. I believe it is vitally important that this should be made a success, and I will leave this point until further details are available. I hope that as many exchange visits as possible will be organized between our legislators and the legislators of other countries.

In the fourth place, we should do everything in our power to attract international conferences to South Africa—all kinds of international conferences. I think we have been far too afraid of colour; and far too afraid of the world. South Africa will prove to be a most popular venue for international and regional meetings, and I can think of no greater advertisement for South Africa than to promote this kind of activity. Personally I would say that a city like Johannesburg is best suited to accommodate such conferences. There are several large hotels of international standard being erected, some now nearing completion. Some of these will have conference facilities, but if the Government finds that suitable conference facilities are not available then I would suggest that such accommodation be provided in co-operation with one of the universities on the Witwatersrand, either the University of the Witwatersrand or, even better, the new Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, for which new buildings have to be erected. I can think of no better idea than that the Government should provide the necessary facilities to make it possible for us to invite international conferences to our country.

That has been the policy for years.

In that case the policy has never been carried out.

We cannot compel them to come here.

Certainly not, but we have been very hesitant and the Minister knows that that is so. On several occasions when there was talk of international conferences here there was no encouragement given at all because of the question of colour. Furthermore, I do not think that we should hesitate any longer to invite an exchange of diplomats with those countries in Africa who are willing to be on friendly terms with us. Sir, I believe that such a step would have important benefits for us in those countries and, not least of all, it would help to create in our country not only contacts for business people but the right psychological climate for the outward-looking approach which some leading circles in the Government are trying to promote.

In the sixth place. Sir, I believe that it is essential that we make our diplomatic service more attractive to people of talent outside the party political ranks. I firmly believe that our diplomatic service should be the most attractive career in the whole of the Public Service. The highest positions should be open to those who make it their career, and I believe that this should be the rule rather than the exception. At the same time I want to say that I believe that the diplomatic service should be far more representative than it is at the present time. I think we should start now with the training of South African non-Whites to help to man positions abroad. Sir, it cannot be argued away that in the present climate of world thinking, a non-White speaking up for South Africa and helping to represent his country is often far more effective than miles of argument. That has already been proved in the case of private agencies who have included trained, talented non-Whites in missions they have sent abroad in the interests of South Africa.

Finally, Sir, I do believe that we should at all times hold our own on the international platform and that we should not withdraw. There must be no question of withdrawing. I go so far as to say that we should miss no opportunity, no invitation, to argue the case for South Africa. I believe that the time has never been so ripe for a forward thrust, for dynamic action, as it is to-day. Sir, the outcome of the South-West Africa case at The Hague has given an important breathing space to South Africa. The events in the Middle East have proved once again our strategic importance, and events in the Middle East and Vietnam have taken much of the heat off South Africa, and therefore the time is ripe for a forward thrust on the foreign front as well as on the home front, because in the last instance the future relations of South Africa with the rest of the world will depend on our handling of human relations in our own country. It is true that the Government is at last making the right kind of statement in the right places abroad. The Government stated not so long ago—last year—in no uncertain terms that it was moving in the direction of removing discrimination in South Africa. Sir, I would like to have heard the Prime Minister say a little more about that this afternoon. He is very effective when it comes to popular politics, but we want to hear from him how he intends to set about removing discrimination, as solemnly declared to the United Nations. In front of us lies an immense task, the task of bringing peace and balance in the relations between the diversity of peoples in South Africa. I believe that we must distinguish between unity and uniformity. The unity which is South Africa must be based on a recognition of its inner diversity, and I believe that if we concentrate on fundamentals and eliminate petty stuff which only tend to spoil our image, we would have a big chance of improving our position abroad. Our problem is not as unique as we try to suggest. The world is full of examples of countries with diverse peoples and nationalities, all within the same country, seeking a way to live together without sacrificing cultural and historical identity. There are examples in every part of the world, and a very glaring example that comes to mind is that of Yugoslavia. The attempt to form a “Yugoslav Nation” from Serbians, Croatians, Slovenians, Bosnians, Montenegrins and Macedonians has failed because of the deep contrasts amongst the peoples making up that country. Not even the brutal force of two dictatorships, a Royal Serbian one and an international communist one. were sufficient to overcome the cultural, religious and historical contrasts and the crass economic differences between these related nations. The federal idea came to their rescue, with very marked success. I am not suggesting that we in South Africa should copy any other country. The conditions are nowhere quite the same, but what I am saying is that it is always helpful to look and see how other countries with similar problems overcome some of their difficulties. Let us be frank. In our country it cannot be expected of any self-respecting Bantu nation to accept exclusive white rule or white domination for all time; but similarly we white people will never be willing to accept Black domination. It must be clear to everybody that we must find a way whereby we can co-operate without the one dominating the other, because we shall simply have to co-operate. Sir, for one thing, we form an economic workshop; we will never get away from that. Think of the many links of communication; think of the security we would lack if we were not the unity that we are. If in South Africa the military, the police, the security services, were not free to operate over the whole field, what would the position have been? I wonder, for instance, where we would have been if the thousands of loyal Bantu serving in the S.A. Police were not available to help stamp out subversion and crime. We are very heavily indebted to Bantu police co-operating with white police. Johannesburg would be an impossible place to live in if it were not for Bantu police assisting the white police. Sir, time will show that there are fields where you can have separateness but there are fields in which Black and White will have to co-operate, whether we like it or not; and therefore our aim should be to establish co-operation without domination. Of course, there will be obstacles and difficulties, but, Sir, who has ever achieved anything by only seeing obstacles and losing sight of the possibilities? [Interjections.] Leadership is not the same as domination, or do hon. members opposite look upon their Leader as dominating their Party? I do believe that we should move, as has been stated over and over again, in the direction of the development of “kerngebiede”, as I prefer to call them, for the different Bantu peoples, and “kerngebiede” for Whites cum Coloureds cum Indians … [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout started his speech to-night by saying that foreign relations depended upon domestic relations. I also believe that this is true to a large extent, but I just want to put this question. Since when has our image abroad started improving? I want to make the statement that it started improving when the Opposition stopped thinking that its salvation to come to power in South Africa once again would come from abroad. Over the years the United Party has made a point of availing themselves of every opportunity to say and do things intended for overseas consumption and not to promote the welfare of South Africa. If in the past we had a wrong image abroad, then I am laying it squarely at the door of the United Party over the years. But since the verdict in the South-West Africa case, the United Party has undergone a remarkable change. It acquired “a new image” and it wanted to pose as the great patriot. I just want to remind the Opposition of the fact that before that verdict was given, their own Leader made a speech in Windhoek, where he said that he had a policy which was acceptable to the outside world, not a policy which was acceptable to South Africa. He played with the cards of the outside world to obtain foreign aid so as to come to power in South Africa. That is the game the United Party has been playing over the years.

That is not true.

What do you know about truth?

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell on that point too long, because in regard to foreign relations the hon. member for Bezuidenhout expressed certain thoughts here in respect of which I can agree with him wholeheartedly. I can name a few of them, but I do not think that it is necessary to waste my time on doing that.

I want to come to a second thought, and that is in connection with domestic relations. The hon. member said that as regards domestic relations we should not pursue a policy of ‘‘uniformity”, but of “diversity”. I want to read what he said on a previous occasion to accentuate this idea of “diversity”—

That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said this year in a debate in this House on 12th April, and to-night he emphasized that once again. But how does this agree with what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advocated here this afternoon? Because the Leader of the Opposition laid a great deal of emphasis on one idea this afternoon; he said that we were one people and one state in South Africa, and he quoted the example of Israel. He said that if we could really be one people and one state, then we could follow the example of Israel and then we, like Israel, would also be able to accomplish a great deal, but he said that as long as we wanted to regard the other population elements, such as the Xhosas, as separate nations, we would never have that unity. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to know this afternoon when we would achieve unity and how such a state would be able to function. I want to express just a few ideas to-night about these two thoughts that were expressed here by the Opposition: the thought that was expressed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, namely that we are a multi-racial state, and the thought that was expressed by his own Leader, namely that we are one state and one people. Mr. Speaker, we, the National Party, do in fact believe in that diversity of nations. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg portrayed this in very explicit terms this afternoon. We believe that every nation in South Africa has an identity of its own. We believe that every nation in South Africa has its own nature and its own character. We believe that every nation in South Africa has its own purpose and its own destiny. We believe that we have here one white nation, one mature nation with its own state, i.e. the white mature state, and we believe that we have under our trusteeship nine Bantu nations and two minority groups that have not yet developed into nationhood. They are still groups in that they have not yet developed the solidarity of nationhood. I am referring here to the Coloureds and the Indians, but I am not excluding the possibility that they may and will become nations in the future. The United Party talks about one nation and one single state, a concept which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition emphasized here a great deal this afternoon. The logical conclusion at which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to arrive with that starting point of one nation and one state, as the hon. the Prime Minister pointed out this afternoon, is that in that case he should believe in integration. If he believed in one state and one nation, then he must believe in dividing lines being wiped out. That is the logical conclusion, but he is confronted with a dilemma. He knows that on that standpoint he and his party have time and again been rejected by the electorate. The nations of South Africa do not want that. Not one single nation in South Africa, as the hon. member for Zoutpansberg pointed out so strikingly this afternoon, wishes to hear anything about dividing lines being wiped out. The Bantu nations accept this diversity; the white nation accepts this diversity and both the Coloureds and the Indians accept this diversity of nations in South Africa.

Therefore the United Party finds itself in a dilemma, and it wants to escape from that dilemma by designing a kind of policy whereby only this diversity of colours will be taken into account, a policy whereby these differences in race and colour may continue to exit. The first problem that faces them is the question of numbers, because according to their point of view there are 3½ million Whites to 14 million non-Whites, according to the 1960 census. In other words, the non-Whites outnumber the Whites by an enormous majority. You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that they do not regard our population groups as one nation as distinct from another nation, but as non-Whites on the one hand, all of them grouped together, as distinct from the Whites. Let me contrast with that the National Party’s point of view. If one goes by numbers, one finds the following ratio: One has a White nation of 3½ million, a Zulu nation of 2.8 million, a Southern Sotho nation of 1.2 million, a Xhosa nation of 3 million, a Tswana nation of 1 million and then one has the other population groups that are under 1 million in number and the Coloured group with1.6 million and the Indians with .4 million. If you look at these figures, you will see at once that the white nation is numerically the biggest nation in South Africa. Under our policy there is no question whatsoever of our finding ourselves in a numerical dilemma. I maintain that if we approach this matter from an ethnic point of view, then it is already obvious that we do not have that dilemma at all. At any rate, there is no need for us to reply with figures because to the National Party policy of separate development this is not a problem at all. A nation is a nation, whether it is big or small. To us it does not make any difference because we know that all the Whites belong to the same nation and that all the Xhosas belong to their nation, and the same applies to the Zulus. Numbers are of no importance in this respect, but they are in fact of importance in the United Party’s point of view in which it wants to take differences in race and colour into account because it does not want to accept the logical outcome of integration. Why do numbers count in their policy? It is because numbers bring them to the dilemma of numerical domination. They know that the moment one draws distinctions within the same nation and creates minority groups …

Order! Hon. members at the back should not think that they are conducting a separate debate.

That is the dilemma of racial domination. That is the dilemma they are trying to accommodate by means of their race federation plan. I took the trouble to analyze this race federation plan so as to see precisely what we have in this race federation. The race federation plan originated in 1963, by way of an article written in the Sunday Times by the Leader of the Opposition. Before that time they tried to get out of this dilemma by writing into their constitution those so-called “checks” and “balances” or by means of a “Bill of Rights”, but they abandoned those things and then they arrived at the race federation plan.

What is this race federation plan on close examination? This plan has two levels. Firstly, on the level of central government there is the parliament, and then there is the level of the communal governing bodies of the various races. They never refer to nations, but to races. The race element of the plan should be sought in their race representation, and the federation element should be sought in the way the powers are distributed between their communal governing bodies and the central governing body. I should like to deal with the federal idea first. A federation consists in having two governing bodies between which the powers are distributed. Each receives its share of the powers, but the one cannot dominate the other as far as those powers are concerned. Each governing body has its powers which have been allotted to it and in respect of which it is sovereign. Is that the case here? On the lower level we find that they have in their race federation plan communal councils for every Bantu area and then they have communal councils for the Bantu outside the Bantu areas. They have a communal council for the Asiatics and four communal councils for the Whites and the Coloureds to take the place of the present provincial councils. They have all these various communal councils, but then they say that these communal councils will always be “under the supervision” of the central governing body. “The general supervision will be necessary and very important during the formative years of the federation.” That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wrote in The Star of 5th November. Therefore the U.P. does not envisage federation at all. What it does envisage is that it will have a number of communal governing bodies controlled by the central governing body.

Now we come to the central governing body. This is the highest level. What does it consist of? It consists of the Whites and the Coloureds in the Cape and Natal, and they will be placed on the same Voters’ Roll. Along with the Whites of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State they will elect 160 representatives. They will have 40 representatives in the Senate. That is according to their race federation plan. The Bantu, consisting of approximately 11 million people at present, will have eight White representatives in the House of Assembly and six White representatives in the Senate. I can understand why the hon. member for North Rand is laughing about that, because it is ridiculous. He never understood it himself. The Coloureds of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal will get separate White representatives in this House, but they have never said how many. The last time we put this question to the Leader of the Opposition in this House, he did not reply directly. He said one or perhaps two. On 13th April this year, in column 4155 of Hansard, he said that the Asiatics would also be given one or two White representatives in this House. You will notice that according to this whole plan the white race has no governing body of its own, because it has to share this central council with the Coloureds. The Coloureds must also sit here as representatives. Therefore the whole position is that it is only the white race that does not have any separate representatives for itself in terms of their federation plan. The white race must share it with the Coloureds throughout, but the other races will have representatives, although they will supposedly be Whites. Why the Whites can be represented in this House by Coloureds, while the Bantu are to be represented by Whites, is a matter only the United Party can understand.

But from this one thing becomes very clear, namely that 4½ million Whites and Cape Coloureds will then have to dominate 11 million Bantu completely, in the ratio of 160 to approximately eight representatives of the Bantu in this House. Will it be possible for that domination to endure? They themselves admit that it cannot endure, as the hon. the Prime Minister indicated in his speech here this afternoon. It is simply going to depend on the pressure that will be exerted on them. Their policy reminds me a great deal of a pressure-cooker. When the pressure-cooker has to let off steam, they will change their policy. Their policy is nothing but a pressure-cooker policy. There is no guarantee whatsoever in this plan of theirs. I want to put it this way. There is no race plan, there is no federation plan and there is no race federation plan at all. After this speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout —the speech he made on 12th April, 1967—the United Party itself said that it was no longer a race federation, but also a federation with a geographic concept. That was as a result of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s speech on 12th April, 1967. The geographic element has now been added to that plan.

If we look at the ridiculousness of this plan, which can never be carried into effect, then we see that it brings them back to the logic of their starting-point, namely that one state in South Africa means that they must also accept integration. One state and one nation without integration of the various race groups is a ridiculous idea. They will have to accept that. Now they want to attribute that to us as well. They are confronted by that dilemma, but now they say that we are also confronted by that dilemma. They say that our policy is only theoretical, because there are 3,471,000 Bantu in the white areas. Time and again they cast into our teeth the fact that 55 per cent of the Bantu are supposedly living in white areas. To the United Party this is a real danger to their policy. That is true, because as their numbers increase in the white areas, there will have to be more integration under their policy. But under our policy this is quite a different question. Numbers cause no fears whatsoever in the case of the policy of separate development. Large numbers of Bantu in the white homeland do not make any difference, because they do not cease to be Xhosas or Zulus, in the words of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Each of them still knows to what nation he belongs. The charge is leveled against us that they are detribalized Bantu. They are supposed to be detribalized Bantu. If they are detribalized to that extent, I want to add that even if it was true that they have no tribal background, they have nevertheless not ceased to have an ethnic background. They still have the background of being Xhosas or Zulus or whatever nation they may belong to. Through this policy of ours we retain that ethnic background, in spite of the fact that they are here in the white homeland. Irrespective of how large their numbers here may be, they still fit in with the political set-UD of their own nation. The way we view the State of South Africa is that we do not only have one state here, but a state with emerging states for each of these nations, under the supervision of the Whites. They are going to find their refuge in that. In that framework they are going to find their political salvation, and there they will be able to realize their political aspirations. There they will become full-fledged citizens of their own nation. [Interjections.] We shall come to them presently. Just give me an opportunity. Even if they are working here in our homeland, they are still able to link up with their nation.

But now the United Party says that they are integrated with the Whites here, and that there is economic integration already. We have argued this matter so often that I do not want to repeat all the arguments. Nevertheless, there is one point I want to mention again. That is that the concepts of the economy should be approached scientifically. The economic concepts are those of money and goods, capital and commodities. These are the concepts with which the economy works. If one talks about economic integration, one has to work with those concepts. If a Bantu invests his money in a bank, that Bantu does not become integrated with that bank. All that is integrated with that bank is his money, because it becomes part of the money invested in that bank. [Interjections.] Yes, it may seem ridiculous to you, but that is the concept. You are referring to economic integration, not I. If a Japanese sells a camera to South Africa, he does not become a South African and he does not become integrated. They are merely trading here. That camera becomes part of our economy in South Africa. If a Briton provides certain services in America, he does not become integrated in America and he does not become an American. His services do become integrated with the economy of America. Arguing purely on the economic concepts of money and goods, capital and commodities, the provision of services that are a commodity can never be regarded as the integration of the person by whom those services are provided. Under our system integration can never take place as a result of the fact that those persons are providing their services here.

The hon. member for Green Point spoke here this afternoon about the idea of citizenship. He said that we should explain the so-called idea of citizenship a little. Recently the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development made a very interesting speech in the Senate. He pointed out the multiracialism in our policy. He said that we should also place the relations between the various nations and ourselves on an “inter-national” basis rather than a person to person basis. As far as the idea of citizenship is concerned, we should look once again at the prototype the National Party created in the Transkei. There we have two kinds of citizenship. At present we have two kinds of citizenship for the Transkeian citizen. He has citizenship in that state which has self-rule, but in terms of the South African Nationality Act he has another nationality. He is still a South African. You had a similar idea under the old British Commonwealth of Nations. At that stage you had a “common status” as a British subject, but you also had citizenship of the dominion of which you were a citizen. That is the basic idea with which we are working in respect of these nations. Now the hon. member says that they are all citizens of the same country. At the moment they are citizens of South Africa, but the moment their states have been developed, they will be granted their citizenship in those states, even if they still have South African nationality. The moment they become independent their citizenship of the White state will cease. Then they will only have citizenship of their own state. That is the position.

They will have dual citizenship.

The position will be as it is in the Transkei. If the hon. member does not know that, he should read the Transkei Act. Therefore this is in actual fact not problem. Hon. members are saying that in 1949 we piloted through the Citizenship Act and that we made all of them South African nationals. That is true. We made them citizens. But that does not mean that they will become emancipated within the framework of our politics and that they will not be granted their own citizenship in due course.

Now we come to the Coloureds. I said that we regard the Coloureds as a minority group. That is because they consist of various homogenous groups which, however, have not yet developed the feeling of solidarity of a single nation. However, I am not saying that they will not become a nation. We are training them to become a nation in due course. Once they have reached that stage where we can grant them recognition as a nation, we can treat them the same as we do the other population groups with which we are dealing. But I want to emphasize that these processes will take many years. They do not merely take decades, but may even take centuries. Just as the process of emancipation our Bantu population has to go through is a lengthy one, it will also be a lengthy process even for the Coloureds to make such progress that they may develop into one homogeneous nation. Once they have reached that stage, they and the Bantu can be treated alike. The object we are pursuing is very obvious. That is why we have already established institutions for them, to make it possible for them to develop that feeling of solidarity. That is why we have established a university for them. That is why we have settled them in certain townships, separate from the Bantu. Under the United Party regime the poor Coloureds were the step-children of this country, because in every location they forced the Coloureds to live among the Bantu. Here in Cape Town, too, the Coloureds were not given separate townships. They were merely pushed into the backyards of the Whites or forced to live among the Bantu. They never gave them separate townships. This National Party is giving them separate townships in which they can develop as communities. That is why we have a Department of Community Development to develop these communities, the Coloured community amongst others, so that the Coloureds may develop themselves into a full-fledged nation. If we have the pattern for the Bantu nations, we shall also have the pattern for the Coloureds in due course.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow very far the line which the hon. member who has just sat down has taken. However, I want to deal at once with the statement which he made and repeated. He repeated it obviously because he wanted to get it on the record. I do not think it should go on the record without its flat contradiction. His statement was that the Leader of the Opposition had used the phrase during his speech this afternoon that we in the United Party stood for “een volk in een staat”. In that regard the hon. member proceeded to build half an hour of his speech. He drew deductions from this statement. He made assumptions. He went on to say what the consequences would be, and so forth. This was all based on a completely false premise. My Leader made it clear that the term “een volk” could be translated as having many meanings. It is quite clear that the hon. member who has just sat down was determined to give it the very narrowest meaning, read in conjunction with the words “in een staat”. My hon. Leader did not leave it there. He was questioned by the hon. the Prime Minister. He made it clear that if “een volk” meant a common citizenship, then there was common citizenship in South Africa. Indeed this Government was responsible for giving South African citizenship to the Bantu, and not only to the Bantu, but to the Coloureds and Asiatics in South Africa as well. In fact the citizenship which is now general throughout South Africa, was a citizenship created in terms of legislation passed by this Government. I go further. My Leader went on to say that nevertheless and in spite of that, this Government was responsible for legislation which was giving the various ethnic groups of the Bantu a special and particular loyalty, first to their own people and only secondly to South Africa.

Correct. What is wrong with that?

Hon. members say “correct”. That is the end of the argument of the hon. member who just sat down. His own colleagues say “correct”. He was wrong. His basic assumption was false, his premise was wrong, and the whole of his case which he took half an hour to build, was simply a house of cards which falls down with the first puff of wind. I have other things to say tonight, but I do want to say to the hon. member who, in the last five or seven minutes of his speech went on to deal with the Coloured people and the Asiatics here in South Africa, that I know him and that he is in a privileged position where the Bantu are concerned. I think, however, that he should make a wider study of race relations in South Africa and have a look at the Coloured people, and not only the Coloured people down here in the Cape, but the Coloured people in Natal, who come from a completely different racial stock, who do not come from a common stock, even amongst themselves. They come from three different racial stocks. When the hon. member has applied the policy of his Government of separate ethnic groups, having sovereign independence in their own independent homelands, and he applies that logically to the Coloureds in South Africa, and to the Asiatics in South Africa, then there will be time for him to come along and tell us whether he is going to apply it in the case of the Bantu. As long as that hiatus remains in the argument of the Government, they can never climb over it. We either give homelands to all the people and we treat them all alike, and give them all similar rights, or we do not give it to the non-Whites at all. We must draw a line somewhere. Where are they drawing a line to-day in regard to the Coloured people? In my own province they are drawing it, and the hon. member is a party to it. They are drawing a line in regard to the Coloured people in Natal who. not being on the common roll when the Separate Representation of Voters Act was passed, have no franchise at all. They have given a franchise to the Bantu, but not to the Coloureds of Natal. They do not treat the Coloureds of Natal as they treated the Coloureds of the Cape in regard to the franchise. Why not? Why discriminate against them? They leave the Coloureds on the common roll in Natal. They took them off the common roll in the Cape and made a big song and dance about it, but they were quite illogical, because they have left them on the common roll in Natal, but only those who already were on it. Since then, whatever the qualifications of the Coloured man in Natal have been, he does not get any sort of franchise. They give it to the Bantu, but not to the Coloured. What kind of a logical attitude is that for Government speakers to adopt?

What about the Indians?

The hon. member should not interrupt like that. He says:

What about the Indians? I shall tell him what about the Indians. The Indian in Natal has no franchise as regards the municipalities, nor the Provincial Council nor Parliament. But when the Indian comes from Natal, under the Government’s legislation he goes on the separate roll here and becomes a Coloured man. He then has a franchise and has a parliamentary vote and a municipal vote. That is the position under the hon. member’s Government. Therefore he need not say to me: What about the Indians. He does not know about the Indians. If he would listen to me for a bit, he would learn quite a lot to-night.

I want to deal briefly with a matter which has been dealt with here by my Leader and by the hon. the Prime Minister and also by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. That is the question of the United Nations. I think we can easily let our feelings run away with us in regard to the United Nations. Heaven knows there is plenty of provocation from time to time for us to feel that we have lost faith in them completely. I would be the last to suggest that there is not room for improvement. Along the lines of the suggestion which has been made by the hon. the Prime Minister—not quite as it was put across by the S.A.B.C. this evening, but along the lines that he suggested—it may well be that there is big room for improvement. I want to say that I think we in South Africa should be wise in our generation. We should not be afraid to face the signs. We should read the signs as clearly as we can, even if it means being very uncomfortable in the process. We are a very small nation, and we have seen a very small nation that has been successful in a lightning war. I wonder whether we realize that Israel was fighting our battle when it fought the battle up there. If Israel had been swamped or wiped out. the influence of Russia would have come right down, south of the Asiatic Peninsula. It would have spread right into Africa, into our continent. The only thing which stopped that influence was Israel in this fight. Our own people must be a little more wide awake than the President of Egypt was. I think that he must be one of the most naïve men alive at the present time. He believed that he could swamp Israel and still maintain his independence and the independence of the small nations who had lined up with him to gang up against Israel in the recent war, and maintain the oil supplies in the Middle East. How naïve can a man be? Did he not realize that Russia’s sole concern was in connection with the oil in the Middle East? Once that battle was won by Egypt and its allies and Israel had simply been swamped and annihilated—which they said was their intention— where would the influence of Russia have ended to the south? Our memory is so short. I wonder how many hon. members here have read the history of the three Baltic states, Lithuania and the other two, and what happened to them? This was one of the most tragic chapters of human suffering. Did the United Nations sit down and decide how they were going to give independence back to the three Baltic states? Most people do not even know about them. They do not even know their names.

I wonder how many people have read the history of Russia’s take-over of the oil wells in Rumania. Why was Russia so interested in those areas, when the name Baku was on everybody’s lips once upon a time? To-day they do not know where it is. Sir, these things come and go. What we have to realize is that when Russia and America, the two great giants, are opposed to each other, honest men may come by their own. If those two gang up together, it does not matter about the United Nations. When those two have ganged up together, there is nothing to stop them. That is what we should realize here in South Africa. We should be willing to make friends ourselves, not only to try to strengthen the United Nations. However uncomfortable it may make us from time to time, and however stupid we may think that they are, we should be willing to make friends ourselves. We should go out to make friends whenever it is possible. It is opportunities like these which have now presented themselves as a result of the war in the Middle East which are giving us the opportunity to make friends. But we should cash in on it when the opportunity comes. We should not be bashful and be afraid to come forward. I think we should read the lessons aright of what has happened in this period of our history, in case, having failed to read those lessons, we in our own history hereafter have to pay for it.

I want to come to a matter I really wish to deal with in more detail to-night. That is the question of the Bantu and the training of the Bantu for specific tasks. This is a point I raised in Committee on another occasion. The then Chairman of Committees ruled me out of order and, may I say, quite rightly so. As I sat here to-day listening to the speeches, I wondered who to-day speaks for the raw Native in this Parliament.

Helen Suzman.

As a Government guess, it is about as wide of the mark as most of the guesses Government members make. You will notice. Sir, that there is not a single voice on that side raised to suggest that any body on that side speaks for them. They are 12 million. Are we so keen to discuss Bantu affairs in this House that we forget about the Bantu? Is that not what, in fact, is happening? We are forever talking about Bantu affairs. Heaven save us! We go on everlastingly from the one aspect to another of Bantu affairs, but what do we know about the Bantu? Who is speaking for them? [Interjections.] Yes, they are all Bantu. We decide this for them; we decide that for them. But they are not given the voice to tell us what they think.

How can you say that they do not have the voice to say what they think?

Of course, they do not have a voice to say what they think. The hon. the Deputy Minister should know that they have no voice to say what they think. What utter nonsense to suggest that it is otherwise. [Interjections.] I want to discuss the hon. member for Soutpansberg and the speech he made this afternoon. He is not here. I am sorry. The hon. member said that all the Bantu—and he named them—the Xhosas, the Tswanas, the Sothos and the Zulus, accepted the Government’s policy, and he was prepared to say with the greatest emphasis that not one of those people were accepting the policy of the United Party but that they all accepted the Government’s policy. There was much waving of arms and gesticulation.

That is what you said last year.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member and to the hon. member who is interrupting that not a single one of those people has accepted the Government’s policy. The only ones who seem as if they might have accepted it, might have been, of course, those in the Transkei. But as long as Proclamation No. 400 remains in force, the Transkei has not accepted it either, and the Government knows it. [Interjections.] The hon. member who preceded me has some special knowledge …

Order! The hon. member for Boksburg wishes to put a question.

Did not the hon. member for South Coast say last year that the Bantu of South Africa had never before supported the Government as they supported it then? [Interjections.]

No. Let me have a straight question and let me deal with it, but what is that? No, Mr. Speaker. Let me say again, categorically; it is extremely difficult to get from the Bantu exactly what they do feel in terms of political advantage along the lines of the white man’s course. [Interjections.]

Order!

We, the white man in South Africa, although on a slower tempo, are going the same way as the metropolitan powers who used to have control over such big areas in Africa. They left what they called independent states behind them, which every one of them is crumbling. We are going at it more slowly, although on the same basis, namely that of the vote. The only place where the vote was ever tried out, was down here in the Transkei where the Bantu have had the vote for so many years in the past. They voted for certain representatives in this House. As to the rest of the Republic, the Bantu never had the vote. They do not understand it and they do not want it. I stand on that absolutely. Not a single hon. member in this House who knows the Bantu can tell me that there is a single tribe, let alone what the hon. the Minister calls a nation, who understands what the vote is and says: That is the way of solving political problems.

Do you believe in apartheid?

Please talk sense. The hon. member talks like a Native talking about the vote. That is exactly the kind of reaction. One asks a Native; “Do you believe in the vote, my friend?” He replies: “Will the porridge be hot of cold with sugar on it?” That is the kind of inconsequential remark one receives. What we are doing at the present time is that we are speeding up the process of political advancement under our Bantu people. But where are we going so far as their economic upbuilding is concerned? Where are we going so far as making them able to earn more and better, to give them the material things which they want, exactly the same as all the rest of humanity? Now again I come to the Government and say, because it has the power, the money and the facilities: “What are you doing to train the Bantu on our farms, let alone anywhere else?” I will leave the question of training in industries and elsewhere completely alone and I simply deal with the training of the Bantu on our farms.

What are you doing on your own farm?

Order!

Farmer after farmer—and I am one of them—has to train his lorry drivers, only to find them leaving you. They go away somewhere else. They do not go to another employer as a lorry driver. When they have been back home again, one may next find them in town, humping great cases about or doing a labourer’s work. They may be doing stevedoring work, or something of that kind. If these men could be relied upon, thoroughly trained and made to realize that they would get paid more if they would stick to that job … Here is the point I want to make. With training for a particular job, they should be free to sell their labour where they can get that job. So the man who is trained as a lorry driver, should be free to offer his services as a lorry driver. A man who is capable of doing first-hand repairs to farm implements, is a man who is almost worth his weight in gold at the present time. You will realize, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite impossible for us to take a white artisan and keep him on a farm, doing that kind of work. In fact, one cannot get him. One can get neither a Coloured nor an Asiatic to do it, as far as Natal is concerned. But one can train one of the Bantu to do it, and he will do it admirably. Then, the next thing that happens is that he is gone. When farm labourers are being trained, particularly in regard to the use of farm implements and the ability to carry out repairs, they should be made to realize that, when they have been trained, they will be able to rely upon that employment. We have done it in the past, until for economic reasons a change had to be made. I had kraals that have been on my farm since the days of my father and my grandfather. The people that live there, were good and honest, in fact, some of the finest people in the world. But the temptation was always there, when one has trained one of them, to leave.

One man, one vote.

One man, one goat. Training facilities, in my opinion, should be provided throughout the rural areas, wherever these Bantu are employed and where the masters are willing, if necessary, to pay the fees themselves. I am certain that they will be overwhelmingly willing to pay those fees, so as to get that relationship of the man who is willing to see to the education of his employee, that he should be properly trained. Most farmers do not have the time to devote to the training of their Bantu employees in this fashion. But it has become a dire necessity. We must give the Bantu that first requirement, namely definite employment of a kind which they wish in the place where they wish to have it. That is basic, wherever they are going to be employed. If we are going to simply send them back en masse, untrained, to their own homelands and tell them to go and pull themselves up by their own bootstrings, it is not going to get them anywhere. It is not going to help in solving the real troubles which will then arise, troubles that will arise from having a great mass of humanity, an amorphous mass there, who are not allowed to go out and seek labour in a market which they are free to enjoy to the best advantage because they have been trained for a specific purpose. I appeal to the Minister concerned. If he puts his mind to it, I would be perfectly satisfied that he can do it. He should start these training places for Natives who are in employment and ask the masters to pay the training fees. A Native who can read and write and has been there for three hours, is very valuable, more valuable than a completely illiterate Bantu. A Bantu who has had a practical training in the use of implements on our farms, is infinitely more valuable than one who has not had it. Why give one the little academic training up to Std. II or III and then refuse to go on with the practical training?

Must they then be compelled to work for the master who has paid those fees?

There is no compulsion at all. If the hon. the Deputy Minister had listened to me, he would have realized that. It is a case here of the employee freely choosing his employer, going to the best market, the same as a white man would wish to do, and if he can get a better salary then as a trained man somewhere else, good luck to him. But the training goes on, and at the present time there is no provision of any kind whatever that I know of, being made for the training of the Bantu in that particular respect. And it is the least that they can ask of us while we are deciding their destiny for them as we do day after day in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed in the hon. member for South Coast’s approach this evening. All I can think is that he is suffering from a political, psycho-somatic complaint of viewing everything with trepidation, of seeing only the black side of the future and never the brighter side, that part that is so important to this Republic. When an hon. member of the Opposition makes the statement that no Bantu is prepared to accept the policy of this Government, I think it is a statement that should be repudiated in this House not only by him, but also by other members on his side. I served for many years as chairman of a Bantu Advisory Board and I can give the fullest guarantee that the Bantu accept the policy of the Government as the only policy. They are not interested in integration; they are not interested in social integration, because they know what evils will result from that and the exploitation that will be born out of any economic integration. I am shocked to hear the hon. gentleman make a statement that is so unfounded after what is being done to give every man a place in the sun. This is the normal course that is followed by the official Opposition. They come out of an era long past, and out of the doldrums we find gentlemen representing the United Party in this House, debating on a very shockingly low ebb. They come on an ebb like the hon. member for Wynberg who repeatedly tries to cause a split between the two language groups. She knows and we know that the Afrikaner has always been very tolerant and the Nationalist Party was, as the Opposition said to-night, the mouthpiece of the Afrikaner. But it is the mouthpiece not only of the Afrikaans-speaking South African to-day; it is the mouthpiece of the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking South African to-day. It is the most tolerant party that there ever could have been for the simple reason that if they were not tolerant, what would the civil service have looked like to-day? I challenge them to show one case of victimization. I wonder what the position would have been if they had been in power. I would like this evening to show the facts as they are. I want to use only one aspect as a debating point this evening. In this past Session we saw the United Party fighting a Bill on planning and the development of our natural resources as ardently as they possibly could fight a Bill. It was more than purely a law they were fighting. They were fighting the future of this country, and I will prove it this evening to the best of my ability. When this Bill was laid before this House, who did they drag in to support them? They dragged in the people who see South Africa as a short-term investment, people who still believe in the statement of MacMillan that the white man is expendable. But the people that believe in a long-term investment and take South Africa as security know that this country is a gilt-edge investment with a great future, a certain dividend and no fear of amortization. In the metropolitan areas where the European workers have been used for many years by certain industrialists as half-skilled labourers because they had got into that habit of using Bantu labour they will find that as soon as they can mechanize and automate their industries those half-skilled European workers will become first-class skilled workers. In the whole world to-day we find this shortage of skilled artisans, but we begrudge our own Europeans the right to become skilled artisans by working on this method of overusing unskilled labour in our metropolitan areas. I am convinced that by forcing, if you want to call it forcing, although it is not forcing, and by giving guidance to the industries you will find that they will mechanize. and you will find that the industries which make use of intensive labour will go to the rural areas. In speaking of the rural areas, the hon. gentlemen on that side have lost touch completely. They have created the impression among the industrialists that they are going to be pushed out into the bundu. They have lost touch with the rural areas. The rural areas have played an important role in the development of our country. The rural areas to-day have created the correct industrial atmosphere for potential industrialists. The electricity and water tariffs are competitive with those in the cities, and I think, if you take the amount of transport subsidies paid for Bantu labour in the cities, then I think we are surely entitled to subsidize to a certain extent, or to make certain concessions to those industrialists who are prepared to develop their industries in the border areas. And this is not just what I say. What did Dr. Van Eck say at the opening of the Rand Show? And he is no politician. He is a very well-known financier, economist and industrialist. This is what he said—

That is the position, Sir. Dr. Van Eck, an industrialist, can see that basically migrant labour is wrong. However, the members of the Opposition cannot realize that they are entitled to a place in the sun. South Africa is a dynamic country and if one considers our industrial development over the past six years since we became a Republic—the Republic which that Opposition fought in a way they have never fought before—then you will see that our gross domestic product which in 1960 was R5,000 million, to-day totals R8,000 million. This phenomenon is unprecedented in the world. It is something to feel very proud of. Every South African should feel proud of this great industrial development which took place. But I believe that it is not yet the end of the development. I believe we are on the eve of far larger development than what has taken place up to now. If South Africa was a static country, if South Africa was a country with low potential, then the Opposition would have had an argument. But I believe that we are on the eve of great industrial development. I believe that the socio-economic aspect of this development will and must play an essential role. If one considers our cities, our metropolitan areas, for example Johannesburg, what is the position to-day

You find over-population, which is one of the causes of inflation. It pushes up land prices and rentals, and who suffers? A few businessmen gain through this over-population, and the man in the street suffers. This Opposition has proved over and over again that the man in the street is only there when they want to climb onto the bandwagon and start their political face-saving. But the public of South Africa have had enough of their stories. The public of South Africa consider them to be redundant to-day. It is a pathetic state of affairs when an official Opposition has not that political backbone to stand up and admit that the way of life that South Africans want is separate development or apartheid, as they so belittlingly call it. The way of life of South Africa is not political integration. The way of life of South Africa has been accepted by the broad public and has been proved over and over again at every election to be the road along which the future of South Africa will be attained. We have to be very careful. All the development that lies ahead for us will be based on sound socio-economic planning. For many years we have been living on our minerals, which actually means that we have been living on our capital. The day must break when South Africa’s exports must be so large that the minerals we produce in this country can be kept in reserve. This Government has done more than any previous government to develop a sound industrial future for South Africa. But when you look at our minerals, not in a single debate have I ever heard the official Opposition giving as a reason for inflation the fact that gold has a fixed price, and not once have they ever said that this is grossly unfair to South Africa. Instead of that, they look for all sorts of excuses.

Of course we have.

When South Africa’s development is on the basis laid down by this Government, there is no stopping it.

May I ask the hon. member whether the development he is speaking of has not taken place in the white cities of South Africa?

Most of the development has taken place in the large cities, but it will be just as effective in the rural areas, when the Government has created this industrial atmosphere and you will not stop it. I will tell you, Sir, why the hon. member for Durban (Point) is so much against this development. He realizes that this is the final proof that separate development is going to be a great success. He realizes that the border industrial development will solve the problem that we have to-day in the metropolitan areas. Another thing is the social aspect in the metropolitan areas. We in this House are always inclined to look at the social aspects as they affect the non-Whites, and I think the reason is that the Opposition can never debate any issue without becoming colour-blind and having a colour complex. But this Bill which has just been passed in regard to the planning of our natural resources …

But that Bill is not on the Order Paper now.

I am convinced that as the result of it, the Suikerbosrand area will be developed and I am convinced that in future recreation areas and nature reserves will be planned, and that is important. South Africa is becoming densely populated and we as a Government must do everything in our power to develop this scenically beautiful country, not just for the financiers or just to make money out of it, but in a long-term process of development in the interest of every citizen and to give a place in the sun to the European as well as to the Bantu but in their own areas, and not integration as would eventually take place if the Opposition were in power, because basically that is where we differ. They love climbing on to this political bandwagon and they love their political face-saving, and they are past masters at face-saving. This afternoon we saw that happen again. We saw them claiming that they were great supporters of some of the ideologies that we have had all these years, but we know that eventually, if they ever get into power, which is impossible, we would have had a conglomeration of colours and the biggest chaos South Africa has ever seen. But we are grateful to have a Government that believes in ideologies, even though we are continually being ridiculed by the Opposition. It is continually said in this House: “Oh. that is another ideological law.” Every time one of those members says: “political ideology”, in my subconscious mind as a backbencher who does not have many opportunities to reply to them, I say to myself “Political idiots”.

Order! The hon. member can say that to himself, but he may not say it in the House.

We do not mind if he says it about himself.

If I was in a tree as often as the hon. member for Transkei, I probably would say it about myself. But let us accept these facts, namely that we have to deal with an Opposition which is not prepared to play its part. To me this story of a bipartisan approach as far as external affairs is concerned is nonsense, and I take it with a pinch of salt.

Take it with a little water, too.

I say that because if we do not have that basic love to solve our domestic problems, I cannot see how one can believe in a bi-partisan approach to external affairs, and I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville should take it with a little water; he should take it with a little of the Scotch that he is used to drinking. [Interjection.] But I want to tell him that the broad public of South Africa has seen that in all the years we had to live in isolation the West did not play their role and the communists certainly did not play their role, and the African states saw that they were being exploited. In this isolation they have realized that South Africa’s intentions are decent and that South Africa will play the role it should play in the future development of this continent, and that South Africa will always be the guiding country. The day will come when we will have a decent Opposition as far as policy is concerned, and that will be a good day for South Africa. To save our future we have great leaders under whom it is a pleasure to work, but when you listen to the front-benchers of the Opposition you feel ashamed of them.

I felt a good deal of sympathy for the hon. member for Lichtenburg because the speech he made here to-night was apparently a speech which he had not been able to make on a previous occasion, but I think it is a little unfair of the hon. member to expect, because he had not been able to make a speech at a certain stage, that we should now, at a different stage, have to listen to that speech.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg boasted of the industrial development which has been taking place in South Africa over the past few years. Of course I think that all the hon. members in this House, and not only members on that side, can be proud of South Africa’s achievements in the economic sphere. But at the same time, after the hon. member had boasted of the industrial development in South Africa, he said:

“Our way of life is not that of economic integration”. But all the wonderful industrial development which we have been experiencing up to now was possible precisely because we made use of the entire labour force which we had at our disposal in this country. We made use of the Bantu, and not only of the Bantu but also the Coloureds; we made use of all the human resources which we had at our disposal.

Where does integration come in?

It is the economic integration which we have had over the past years. If one does not want economic integration then one cannot have industrial development. And if one has economic integration then one must necessarily have industrial development.

Do France and Italy have economic integration?

Yes, they have economic integration in the sense that they make use of other manpower over and above their own in order to develop their industries, and here in South Africa we are also making use of the labour of all races, which has been placed at our disposal.

But the hon. member also went further. He said in the beginning of his speech that the hon. member for Wynberg was trying to drive a wedge between the Afrikaans and English-speaking people in the country. I find it strange that the hon. member could ascribe something like that to the hon. member for Wynberg when the hon. member for Wynberg is in fact one of the members of this House— actually, the same applies to all the members on this side of the House—who is prepared to bring Afrikaans and English-speaking children together under the same roof at school and on the same playing fields—and then the hon. member for Rustenburg states that the hon. member for Wynberg wants to drive a wedge between the two white language groups! Sir, if one wants to drive a wedge between two groups then one will not want those two groups to come together. Since the hon. member for Wynberg wants English and Afrikaans-speaking pupils to congregate under the same roof at school, perhaps in different classrooms, and that they should be brought together on the playing fields, the hon. member is in fact pleading for unity between Afrikaans and English-speaking people.

The hon. the Prime Minister told us that the National Party stood for the retention of dividing lines on the basis of colour. He said that if one wanted a multi-racial society, then one stood for the elimination of colour lines. I find it strange that the hon. the Prime Minister should have adopted that attitude in this debate, since he is one of the people who is being criticized in his own Press these days because his attitude is regarded by some of his followers as being too liberalistic.

Prove what you have said.

The hon. member says that I must prove what I have said, and I want to do just that. I have here before me an article written by Dirk Richard which appeared on 12th March of this year in Dagbreek. I am quoting some of the things he said here (translation)—

Never.

He writes further—

If Dr. Verwoerd were living to-day he would have done precisely the same thing.

I am quoting further—

And now the hon. the Prime Minister maintains that the United Party is breaking down the colour lines.

Continue quoting.

Very well, I shall do so. The next paragraph reads as follows—

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister wants me to continue quoting now.

Yes.

Mr. Richards also wrote in this same article—

Mr. Speaker, that is the type of criticism …

Must he continue quoting?

I am quite certain that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not ask me to quote further. To-day supporters of the National Party are expressing criticism against their own leaders to the effect that the dividing lines on the basis of colour are being destroyed because certain adjustments are being made, adjustments to which the Government was opposed in the past, and the National Party found that the best way of evading this criticism is to say that the United Party stands for the destruction of colour lines. That is the criticism which is now being used by the National Party, and the man who uses that criticism to the best effect is the hon. the Prime Minister himself, and that is why he adopted this attitude to-day, i.e. because they are being criticized at all levels by their own supporters. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was stated a few years ago at Loskop that no Maoris would be allowed to come to South Africa, and this year that policy has been changed and Maoris will be allowed to come here, and now that they are being criticized by their own supporters, the hon. Chief Whip and the National Party have suddenly come forward with the accusation that we advocate the elimination of dividing lines on the basis of colour.

The hon. member is alleging that a certain statement was made at Loskop dam, but does the hon. member not remember that the present Prime Minister has said that in similar circumstances he would have acted in precisely the same way his predecessor did at Loskop Dam?

A very incoherent question. [Interjection.]

If you act according to circumstances, where is your policy then?

After the speech made at Loskop dam, Die Burger, for example, stated very clearly that no Maori would be allowed to come to South Africa as a member of a New Zealand team. If that was the policy of the Government, why did Mr. Dirk Richard ask what could be wrong with a Maori or two being included in the team? Would Die Burger and Mr. Dirk Richard have adopted this attitude if it had not been clear to them that the standpoint of the National Party had been that no Maori should be allowed into South Africa?

But I really want to deal with another matter to-night, namely the depopulaion of the rural areas, as seen in the light of the Government’s agricultural policy. My point of departure is an article written by the hon. member for Primrose in Dagbreek en Sondagnuus of 1st January, 1967. His article was concerned with all the loose ends which have still got to be tied up in South Africa. This is what he wrote in regard to our relations with other states in Africa, and, inter alia, he also had a lot to say about our agriculture and our water. In regard to this matter he stated the following (translation)—

In other words, the hon. member is very well aware of the problems facing our country, particularly in respect of soil erosion, water conservation and increasing production costs. But articles are being written, public speeches are being made, but the results, as far as the farmer is concerned, are still not being produced. The farmer is receiving precious little in the way of active support from the Government. The result is that after 19 years of Nationalist regime the population in our rural areas is still diminishing. In 1958 only 18 per cent of South Africa’s Whites were resident in the rural areas and nine years later it was only 16 per cent. That means that 85 per cent of our Whites are to-day living in the cities. And yet the process of the depopulation of the rural areas is still continuing. I was particularly interested in what the hon. member for Rustenburg said, i.e. that we will have industrial development of the rural areas now that we have passed legislation in regard to the physical planning of our resources. But it will still be a long time before industrial development can make up the backlog which has arisen over the past few decades. I say that the obvious step which the Government must take is to create such circumstances for our country people that they will remain there and will not move away to the cities.

You mean there are many unoccupied farms in the rural areas?

No. Farms which were left behind by people moving to the cities were bought up by other people. But the hon. the Deputy Minister ought to know who are now taking the place of the people who were there—the Black people. As the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has stated on so many occasions, we have not only had a depopulation of the rural areas, we have at the same time also had a repopulation, with its concomitant social and sociological problems. But I want to confine myself to the question of what the farmer can do under these circumstances, and what the Government’s task is under these circumstances. I say that the process of the depopulation of the rural areas has been accelerated by this Government, because they themselves, and particularly the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, have announced that 2,400 farmers are abandoning their farms each year because they can no longer make a living on them.

When did the hon. the Minister say that?

He has said it repeatedly. For example he said precisely that a few years ago in Paarl.

But we are engaged on the largest resettlement scheme in the rural areas which has ever been tackled, namely the Orange River scheme.

The hon. the Minister is correct, but he must remember that he himself, in his planning, envisaged that the scheme would only come into full operation in 30 years’ time. [Interjections.] In ten years’ time there will be water for the Sunday River and the Fish River Valleys, yes. But the number of people who will have been resettled on farms in that region as a result, will perhaps not be as many as have been forced to leave that region over the past 20 years and go to the cities.

But these are schemes for repopulation of the rural areas.

I am not dealing with the question of repopulation. Nevertheless I am glad that the Government apparently realize that they have made a mistake and that they must now resettle those people in the rural areas. I shall add my voice to the hon. the Minister’s. I am certain that we have two good voices for that matter. What I want to bring home to the hon. the Minister is the following. The process of depopulation is continuing, owing to the fact that the agricultural policy which we are following in this country is not sound enough.

What is there in the policy which is not sound? You must state that now. [Interjections.]

Particularly the Ministers. The hon. the Deputy Minister must now afford me the opportunity of giving him the obvious reason and I shall do so straight away. I am quoting from the Suid-Afrikaanse Beeld of 4th June this year. It reads as follows (translation)—

I think that hon. members on that side … [Interjections.]

Order!

… have had the most obvious reason for putting a stop to the depopulation of the rural areas. And now I am presenting it to them as it has been stated in one of their own newspapers. I continue—

This is the point which I made previously, just before I began reading this—

Mr. Speaker, if hon. members on that side are looking for the most obvious reasons why the agricultural industry in South Africa is in the position it is in I think they may as well begin with the two hon. Ministers … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I want to allege that over the past 19 to 20 years the Government has stood helplessly by, so to speak, and watched how the process of depopulation has been accelerated. One of the most important reasons for that is that our agricultural industry is no longer as attractive as it was previously. The agricultural policy is more or less in the form of a protective policy in times of emergency. What is more, the amount of protection given was ineffective. In times of so-called prosperity the farmer in South Africa had to try and stand on his own two feet. I want to state here to-night that the Government has created certain problems which are affecting all the farmers. It is not only one particular group of farmers which is being affected. They are affecting all farmers. They are problems which have to be considered by the Government. In the first instance, we on this side of the House allege that the dividends which the average farmer derives from his agricultural undertaking makes it impossible for him to continue his operations on a sound basis. We maintain that the dividend of from 2½ to 3 per cent, which is what the average farmer is earning, compares much too unfavourably with what the average industrialist and the average businessmen are earning in their fields. Unless the Government is prepared to ensure the profitability of our agricultural industry, it will not succeed in keeping people there, nor will it succeed in drawing other people to the rural areas. We regard that as requirement number one. Requirement number one is that a survey will have to be made. I am certain that the commission of inquiry will in fact prove this. I am referring now to the commission of inquiry which was appointed a few years ago. That commission will prove that for the average farmer of this country a dividend of 2½ to 3 per cent is the lowest, when compared with any other form of undertaking. That is the aspect to which this Government will have to give attention. The second item to which the Government will have to give attention is that which was mentioned by the hon. member for Primrose in his article. I quote (translation)—

I think these are ideas which have crossed the minds of the hon. the Ministers from time to time, namely that they would also like to see this type of thing being done. But, why are they moving so slowly? Why are they not prepared, as the hon. member for Primrose said, to tie up the loose ends? Unless these loose ends are tied up, I want to make so bold as to say that even more farmers will leave the rural areas of South Africa. It is an item which affects not only the cattle farmer, the wool farmer or the grain farmer, it is an item which affects all farmers. There is not a single item being used by farmers to-day in the production of his product of which the price is not increasing tremendously. There have been increases in the price of his labour, fertilizer, iron standards, tractors and other requirements. There is not one item which can be mentioned the price of which has not increased tremendously over the past few years. In most cases the price of the farmer’s product has either diminished or remained constant. As a result, the profit margin is automatically being reduced and the farmer is losing confidence in his undertaking. That is why people are leaving the rural areas. I do not have to look far for my proof. I can really quote the commissions on the depopulation of the rural areas. The difficulties with which farmers are faced are clearly stated in the reports. That was proved as far back as 1959 when this Commission brought out its report. It stated very clearly that one of the reasons why people lacked confidence in the agricultural industry was the fact that production costs had increased so tremendously. That position has continued for nine years. Each year we have to bring it to the attention of the Government. Even at agricultural congresses the request is being made that production costs should be pegged. The Government ought to peg the prices of means of production. That is the type of thing that is being requested at agricultural congresses. But there has been absolutely no reaction on the part of the Government. The Government is merely allowing production costs to take their own course, and more and more people are leaving the rural areas.

What about all the subsidies?

Mr. Speaker, that is happening in spite of the hon. member’s subsidies. He must not forget that in most cases these subsidies are being granted in times of emergency. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park has now returned to agriculture. Perhaps it is a fortunate thing for this debate that he has done so, but it is a very unfortunate thing for the United Party. The hon. member quoted from a newspaper report of what the hon. member for Primrose is alleged to have written in regard to soil erosion, water erosion, water conservation and soil conservation. He wanted to use it as a means of informing this House how badly things are going with agriculture. He used the following examples. He said that in 1958 the number of agriculturalists in South Africa comprised 18 per cent of the population.

In the rural areas.

In the rural areas, yes. I am talking about the rural areas. According to the hon. member this figure has now, over the past nine years, diminished to 16 per cent. In the first instance, the hon. member’s figures are incorrect. In the second instance, he knows that it has repeatedly been pointed out during this Session that in other countries which are becoming industrialized, in countries where phenomenal industrial development is in progress, the percentage shift of rural as compared with urban population has been a natural phenomenon throughout the entire world. Also during this Session it was pointed out in this House that in France, a highly industrialized country, this shift is still progressively 2.8 per cent per year.

The French Government, as is the case in the rest of the world, including America, does not regard this phenomenon as being incorrect in point of state policy. On the contrary, if that agronomical and agricultural land had not been earning any interest, then the hon. member could have made out a case. But with the depopulation, as the hon. member puts it, larger units have simply been established as a result of a new farming pattern, organization and rationalization of labour, etc. It is those hon. members who took it amiss of us during the last session because the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure was not lending sufficient assistance in consolidating land so that it formed units. Surely it is obvious that if land is consolidated into economic units, if it is consolidated into units which are more productive, there will be a removal and a depopulation. Surely one cannot have it both ways.

The hon. member also alleged that because things were going so badly with agriculture, we found that there was a depopulation of the rural areas. As proof of how badly things were going he mentioned two persons, the so-called pocket-patriot Nationalists of Standerton whose photograph appeared in Die Beeld and who had stated that they had resigned from the National Party because they were not satisfied with the agricultural policy of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Throughout this Session, that has been the one fundamental way in which the United Party’s criticism of South Africa has failed. It has been unable to come forward with a case, and has therefore seized upon two so-called Nationalists—and they are nothing else but United Party supporters—to indicate how badly things are going. As long as that Party does not see the economy of South Africa as a whole, as long as they divide the economy up into separate compartments, and deal with it as separate facets while they play the one off against the other, they will remain bankrupt. They cannot understand that if we are dealing with agricultural prices, it is going to affect the whole cost of living, the entire political economy as a whole.

The hon. member referred to the case of mealies, and I want to use it as an example now. The hon. member must know very well that if the mealie price is raised, it is not merely being raised for the urban consumer, but also for the rural consumer. The rural consumer who has to feed poultry, milch cows, and beef cattle.

Did the price decrease after the price for the farmer had been reduced?

The price for the farmer has not been reduced—that only goes to show how uninformed the hon. member is. The farmer’s price did not come down. I want to make that very clear. Let me put the case. [Interjections.] Last year the price for the mealie farmer was increased by 28.5 cents over and above the calculated price, as a special incentive—I want to call it an actual subsidy, just as the one given to the drought-stricken farmers there in the north-west and in the Northern Transvaal when their fodder was subsidized. Because a harvest of 47 million bags had been expected the previous year, and as a result of the drought which had prevailed during the previous three years, this Government allowed the mealie farmer 28.5 cents over and above the calculated price to which the farmer was entitled, after the production costs and the entrepreneur’s salary had been taken into account and the increased adjustment had been made.

The price is calculated per morgen.

Precisely. A harvest of 48 million bags was expected and the actual harvest was 57 million bags. That gave the mealie farmers an overall revenue of R191 million. That was R2 million less than the figure in the record year 1953. To that increased harvest the farmer still has to contribute his 18 cents to the stabilization fund. Now the 1966-’67 harvest has been reaped. Those two people whom Die Beeld wrote about, have been used by this hon. member as an example. On an expected harvest of 87 million bags, the farmers’ overall income from mealies would have been R291 million. That is based on this price of 230 cents. The harvest is already 92 million bags. The farmers’ income is R100 million more than in the previous year. But that is not all. Let us glance at the income per morgen of the 1966 harvest, particularly since things have gone so badly with agriculture, as the hon. member wants to allege. The income per morgen of the 1966 harvest yielded 35.50 cents per morgen for the farmer. If we take the latest harvest at 87 million bags, and not at 92 million bags, the income of the mealie farmers is 37.50 cents per morgen. That is R12 more per morgen than they received from the previous year’s harvest. However, the production costs per morgen did not increase by R12.

Now I want to ask the hon. member this: Where is the weakness in the price determination of agriculture? Once again I am taking mealies as an example because the hon. member used as an example those two persons who resigned over the mealie price. The error which hon. members on the opposite side are making is this. They are trying to isolate one of our domestic economic facets, they want to view it separately, they are trying to place it in a separate compartment. They then want to use it to make political propaganda in the rural areas. But when they come to the cities, they simply reverse the argument and tell the people in the city, “Your cost of living is too high, your salaries are too low”. So they are playing the one off against the other.

The hon. member went further and said that subsidies were only being provided in times of drought and in times of emergency. Has the hon. member not analyzed this Budget yet? Has he not seen that in this Budget an amount of R77,728,000 has been made available for subsidies? Let me make it very clear that the farmers are not receiving this entire amount in the form of subsidies. But these subsidies make it possible for the consumer to buy the farmer’s product at a price at which the farmer can produce it and still remain in the rural areas. The result is that the producer is not saddled with a lot of surplus produce, and in addition it enables the consumer to purchase the product without, in turn, increasing his salary, something which would again draw the cost of living and the production costs into this eternal vicious circle. We do not have a separate, isolated economy, but an integrated economy which affects everything simultaneously.

In addition I want to discuss the question of subsidies, and I will once again use mealies as an example. For mealies alone provision is being made this year for a subsidy to the amount of R31 million. The farmers, i.e. the dairy farmer, the poultry farmer, are also receiving a share of that.

And the consumer of any other commodity.

Very well then. The hon. member wants to try and make out a case here that things are going badly with our agriculture. He referred, to use another example, to fertilizer as well. Let us consider the matter of fertilizer. Last year the subsidy for fertilizer was R8.8 million and this year it is over R19 million. Of that amount R14 million is to the account of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the other R5 million is to the account of the Department of Trade and Industries. That ensures that the fertilizer companies do not go bankrupt, but it also ensures that the farmers’ production costs do not fall.

The hon. member also made another point here and said that the farmer was only receiving 2.5 per cent on his capital investment. That is the statement he made here. But he adduced no proof whatsoever. Now I want to ask the hon. member this:

Does he want South Africa and the taxpayer of South Africa to help the farmer who is purchasing land for a price greater than its agricultural production potential for the sake of the appreciation value of such an investment? The best investment in South Africa is in property and land. Does he want the taxpayer and the consumer public in South Africa to shoulder the burden of that appreciation benefit? Must they guarantee a farmer interest on his investment?

No, do not put words in my mouth.

No, I am asking the hon. member a very straightforward question. He made the statement here that the agriculturalist and the farmer in South Africa were receiving 2.5 per cent interest on their capital investment. But he did not tell this hon. House on what capital investment they were receiving it. He did not say whether it was capital investment in implements or stock. Surely it was on his total capital investment.

Yes, that is correct.

Now that hon. member is saying “Yes, that is correct.” Now I want to ask him the following question. If a person were to purchase a piece of land here on the Foreshore for the sake of a good capital investment and with a view to the appreciation value of that land, who must guarantee that person’s interest for him? The hon. member cannot reply to that question. The greatest problem in connection with agricultural capital investment is that land is constantly being purchased for prices which are over and above the agricultural production value of that land. It is not being purchased for the sake of the agricultural value nor for the agricultural production which it will yield; it is being purchased with a view to the capital appreciation value which the investor intends getting out of it. No farmer, nor any other person for that matter, can claim that a certain interest on that land must be guaranteed.

Business; interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.