I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could indicate to us why it is that he wants to provide by regulation for each commission that is set up, for the prevention of the members of the commission, for example, being insulted or disparaged or belittled or to prevent the proceedings or the findings of the commission from being prejudiced, influenced or anticipated. Why is this not made a general provision? Why is it that it is only in respect of some commissions that provision is to be made for the members to lie protected from insult, and not in the case of others? Should not this be a general provision in the Commissions Act and applied to all commissions. There may be a case for the other part, relating to the findings being anticipated, being made an ad hoc provision to apply to a commission as the need arises.

It is included to allow some scope in the promulgation of regulations in respect of each commission. The commissions may differ in nature. In one case we may find it necessary to lay down certain provisions while in another case we may find it necessary to lay down other provisions. For that reason some scope is allowed and we are not compelled to apply the same provisions to all commissions. The basic idea is to allow some scope in laying down regulations.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

May I ask whether we can take clauses 4 and 5 together?

No, I do not think that can be done. The hon. member may refer to clause 5 in passing.

We are going to support this particular clause of the Bill, because it is going to apply rent control to business premises. The Minister already has power to do this, but I think his problem is that if he applies it he has to apply it as a blanket provision. Here he is seeking to take unto himself the right to proclaim particular premises, shops or places of business as being rent-controlled premises. The Minister told us he was going to do this earlier in the Session and we have had many complaints of exorbitant rentals being charged for business premises in various parts of the country. That is mainly the reason why we are going to support this clause. We do not like legislation of this particular type—we want to make this quite clear —and I should like the Minister to go into the reasons why suddenly, after years and years without these measures, we now have to apply rent control to business premises. Is it because we are falling behind in the provision of business premises or what is the reason? I believe that the reason should be investigated as soon as possible and I believe that that reason should be given to this House and the remedy should be applied because rent control is not the remedy. The law of supply and demand will in fact stabilize rentals far better than rent control will do. I accept that the intention underlying this clause is to enable the hon. the Minister to deal with those particular cases where landlords have become unreasonable in the case of a specific business. We have had cases where 300 per cent increases have been asked for where leases have been renewed. Sir, I also want to refer to the fact that the hon. the Minister of Community Development gave an assurance at Paarl on the 9th of this month, in addressing businessmen there, that he intended taking similar powers this Session in regard to business premises—he was talking about rent control—as there had been a disturbing new trend in the letting of business premises. He said that he wanted to lift rent control as soon as he was sure that in fact the position warranted it. I would like the hon. the Minister to repeat in this House the assurance that something will be done about restoring the rule of supply and demand and lifting rent control on business premises.

Order! The hon. member is now making a Second Reading speech.

On a point of order, Sir, this is an amendment that was accepted …

Order! The hon. member was dealing with the law of supply and demand. He should have raised that point in the Second Reading Debate.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

Sir, we are going to support this clause for the same reasons as those put forward on clause 4. This clause gives the Minister the power to lift rent control at any time. We are glad that the Minister is taking those two powers together, and I want to express the hope that the Minister will make use of this clause as soon as possible, and that he will restore the position so that he can in fact use it.

These two clauses were of course inserted by request of the hon. the Minister of Community Development, and I can merely undertake to convey the hon. member’s plea to my colleague.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

Sir, in the Second Reading Debate I stated the point of view of the Opposition and the objection we have to this clause, namely that this clause is being kept in force to deal with only one man. We submit that there are other laws which could be applied just as effectively against him. I do not intend addressing the Committee on the same lines again. We are opposed to this clause and will vote against it.

The matter to which this clause relates has, of course, frequently been debated in this House. On a previous occasion the previous Minister of Justice told the House how he had found the person in question, to whom this clause relates, namely Sobukwe. I want to underline that we are not concerned with a clause which brings about an extension of a sentence, but that we are dealing with a clause on the detention of a person. I want to point out that the hon. member for Houghton was wrong when she said during the Second Reading Debate that we were dealing with a clause which extended the sentence of that person. We are concerned purely with the detention of this person in the public interest, and with a view to the security of the State. The hon. the Minister has pointed out that the detention of a person under this clause is not a pleasant task to him. Nobody would lightly deprive any person of his liberty, but on the other hand it is sometimes necessary to restrict the liberty of a person in the public interest.

Order! The hon. member should have made that point during the Second Reading Debate.

I shall then come back to this particular clause, which provides for the further detention of persons. If we seek to justify the detention of a person in terms of this clause, we should see the detention as such in the light of the fact that this clause does not provide for an extension of his sentence but for his further detention in the interest of the security of the State. I think that is the principle in this clause. We find that people are sometimes isolated and detained in the public interest, in the interest of public health or on the grounds of their anti-social tendencies. The principle of this clause is in fact also that people with tendencies …

Order! The principle of this clause was approved in the Second Reading Debate.

If that is your ruling, it means that we cannot discuss this clause any further.

That is what it amounts to.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am not too certain these days what one can discuss in the Committee Stage. Can one not discuss the contents of this clause?

There is very little that can be discussed.

You can object to the clause; that is all.

I do object to it and I object to it very strongly. I think I have made that perfectly clear. This will be the fifth occasion on which I have stated my objections to this clause because this very same clause has appeared in five consecutive measures which have been introduced into this House. I do object to this clause and I object to it on the simple ground that whether or not this means an extension of the prison sentence is immaterial because what it does mean is the deprivation of the liberty of the person who has served his sentence.

The hon. member has already said that in the Second Reading Debate.

Well, Sir, I am sorry; perhaps I was out of order in the Second Reading Debate.

No, the hon. member is out of order now. She was entitled to discuss the principle in the Second Reading Debate but she cannot do so in the Committee Stage.

But, Sir, I am discussing this particular clause. Surely I can do more than stand up and say that I object. Surely I am entitled to say why I object.

Yes, provided that what the hon. member says is not a repetition of the Second Reading Debate.

Sir, I am not making a Second Reading speech because I am not discussing the whole principle of the Bill before the House.

The principle is contained in this clause.

Sir, the hon. member for Transkei has made the only proposal which I would want to make and that is that this clause be deleted. I intend therefore to vote against this clause together with the hon. member, but am I not entitled to tell the hon. the Minister why I am going to vote against this clause? I know perfectly well that he knows that.

Order! Everything that could be said in that connection was said in the Second Reading Debate.

On a point of order, Sir, it is not my fault that the Government keeps on introducing the same clause; in five consecutive years.

The hon. member said that in the Second Reading Debate. I am not referring to what was said in previous years.

On a point of order, may I submit to you, Sir, that even if something was said during the Second Reading, if it is permissible to say the same thing in the Committee Stage, then an hon. member is entitled to do so, if it is within the Rules and if it refers to the contents of the clause.

It is not within the Rules to discuss the principles of a Bill in the Committee Stage.

On a point of order, the clause itself contains the very principle that we are discussing.

You can move an amendment that the 2nd July, 1967, be substituted for the 30th June, 1968.

That is until to-morrow, practically. Well, I would like to do that.

The Minister is helping you.

Would I be in order, Sir, in moving that the provisions of paragraph (a) bis shall lapse on the 31st July, 1967, instead of the 30th June, 1968?

The hon. member may move such an amendment, but then she will be defeating her own argument.

I would be in a way, but at least I will be restricting the detention to one month instead of another year.

I cannot allow an argument in committee in conflict with the amendment moved by the hon. member concerned.

No, I think I would rather stick to the principle of this proposal and oppose the whole clause as it stands. I am not trying to make a laughing matter out of it, because I think this is a very serious clause indeed.

You nearly fell for it.

It might, of course, assist the victim of this clause to know that he will be out in a month’s time instead of being detained for at least another year. But what I want to ask the hon. the Minister, quite seriously now, is at which stage is he going to anticipate that it is going to be safe to allow Sobukwe to leave prison?

That is not in the clause.

Yes, this is in the clause. The hon. the Minister told us at the Second Reading that he did not enjoy exercising this power and I accept that unreservedly. I am sure that the hon. the Minister does not enjoy it, particularly as he has taken the opportunity of meeting the man concerned. He knows the sort of man he is. He is an intelligent, well-educated person. At which stage is the hon. the Minister going to feel able, in the public interest, to let this man go, because this clause does make a mockery out of a prison sentence. It would not have mattered whether the Judge had sentenced this man to one year’s imprisonment or to life imprisonment as long as the hon. the Minister is not going to give his freedom back to this man. Two years ago Sobukwe said he would be prepared to leave the country on an exit permit and would undertake not to engage in further political activities. I do not think he is giving that assurance at this stage, but supposing he again gives that assurance, would the hon. the Minister then be prepared to accept his assurance? My trouble is that I see no end to the detention of this man, and I do not know what criteria the hon. the Minister intends to use when he finally decides that he is going to allow this man to regain his liberty. I do not believe that you can lock a man up in anticipation of what he is going to do. A lot of people go round with criminal intentions in this country, and all over the world, but nowhere in the world does one lock a person up in anticipation of what he is going to do.

Order! The hon. member is generalizing now. These are points which should have been raised in the Second Reading Debate.

I did attempt in the Second Reading Debate to raise some of these points, but I am now discussing this specific clause which enables the hon. the Minister to keep a man in prison, under whatever refinements …

Order! The hon. member can only advance reasons as to why the provisions of this paragraph should not be extended for a further year.

I am trying to inquire from the hon. the Minister what criteria he used in deciding to keep this man locked up for a further year. At which stage is he going to feel himself able to let this man go? I am going to vote against the clause for reasons which I have advanced ad nauseum.

The hon. member for Houghton has asked me two questions. She asked what my attitude would be if Sobukwe asked for a one-way permit once again, and if he undertook not to take part in any further political activities. My reply to that is that under the present circumstances I would not accept such an undertaking from him. Her second question was when and under what circumstances I would be prepared to release Sobukwe. It is very difficult to reply to that. That depends on the general situation; it depends on the prevailing threats and on how Sobukwe could possibly fit into them. It depends on various things, and I cannot tell the hon. member at this stage that under these or those circumstances I shall be prepared to release him or that on this or that date I shall release him. We shall have to consider the general situation, the threats prevailing at that stage and the possibility that Sobukwe may collaborate in furthering the aims of some organization which threatens the security of the State. That will be the time to decide. I repeat that during my Second Reading speech I told the hon. member that I had met the man. It is not pleasant to deprive a person of his liberty. We make his position as bearable as possible, but under the present circumstances I have a stronger duty to the country than to Sobukwe.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 10.

This clause provides that persons who are arrested, may in fact be obliged to go on an identity parade. That is fine, and we accept that. We also appreciate the following: “In such … position or apparel as such peace officer may determine.” What I do not understand, is the following: “In such condition … as such peace officer may determine.” I wonder if the hon. the Minister could indicate to us what exactly this means. This is a most unfortunate choice of phrase, if I may say so.

I think the clause was widely phrased to meet this difficulty. What happens at the identification parades is that the person who is put on the identification parade may make his identification impossible, for example by lying down on his stomach with his face to the ground. I do not think there is any regulation or legal provision that prohibits him from doing so. I think the word “condition” relates to the way the person should stand, for example, that he should stand straight up, should have a proper look and a normal expression on his face, and not a fearsome expression, for example.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 11,

In regard to clause II I wish to make an appeal to the Minister to accept an amendment which I would like to move. The effect of the amendment would be to bring within the provisions of this clause the officials of the Natal Parks Game and Fish Preservation Board. What the clause before us does, is to provide that certain officials and the officials particularly of the National Parks Board of Trustees will be given certain powers in respect of certain minor offences. I want to deal with that in a moment, if I may. The National Parks Board of Trustees is constituted by an Act of Parliament. In the case of the Natal Parks Board it was constituted by a provincial ordinance, by provincial legislation. Certain representations along these lines were made some time ago. At that time the Natal Parks Board was a relatively small body. It had only a few employees and whatever the reasons may have been at that time, the matter was not proceeded with. But the situation has changed to-day. To-day the Parks Board is handling a budget of well over R1 million per annum. I think the last budget was about R1,200,000. It has a large force of enforcement officers in the reserves. The power being given to the officials of the National Parks Board of Trustees here is the power in the case of minor offenders to give them a summons ordering them to appear at the proper time and place before a judicial officer.

I seek that power for the officials of the Natal Parks Board in a similar manner, for the following reasons. Minor offences in the reserves tend to follow a pattern. And when they are committed, it means under existing circumstances that a Parks Board officer, in the case of the Kruger Park Board, the National Parks Board of Trustees, or our own Parks Board, has to go to the police, lay a charge and get a summons issued. Then they have to trace the offender and go through all that process. The person may have left; he may have gone back again even to another country, or he may have gone to a town far away. Now he is summonsed and brought back again and he has to stand trial for a minor offence. This clause simplifies the matter and makes it much easier. The man is summonsed and the usual trouble where this arises is in respect of minor offenders who are dealing with dangerous animals. It happens over and over again. It happens in the case of parks under the control of the National Parks Board of Trustees, such as the Kruger Park, where people will get out of their cars in the presence of animals like lions, elephants and so forth. They are running a great risk not only for themselves but for other people as well. Now if a parks board official comes on the scene in those circumstances, under this clause he would be able to forthwith summons the people concerned to appear before a judicial officer for the purpose of having their case summarily tried. We seek that for exactly the same reason. This type of minor offence is one that should be dealt with on the spot in our opinion. I realize that the hon. the Minister may want more information in regard to this.

I wonder if the hon. member is not out of order. I think he is trying to extend the scope of this clause.

No, I am only asking the provisions of this clause to be applied to a similar institution. This is not extending the scope of the clause.

The hon. member is asking for these provisions to be applied to an institution not mentioned in the Bill as adopted at the Second Reading. The correct way to achieve his object is to deal with the matter in the Other Place after an instruction moved by the Minister.

I do not think there will be a Report Stage. The only thing would be to ask the Minister whether he would re-commit the Bill or whether he would give the matter consideration and deal with it himself in the Other Place.

In any case, it will extend the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time. I cannot allow that as an amendment.

I must accept your ruling in this matter, and simply say then, without moving the amendment as it would be extending the scope of the Bill according to your ruling, that I would then appeal to the Minister to ask whether he would consider it, pointing out to him that the position is entirely in his own hands. The particular provision in clause 11 says: “The Minister may by notice in the Gazette declare …” Therefore if the Minister will go into this matter and perhaps make an amendment in the Other Place which he has the power to do, he will still have the power in his own hands to determine, after a full case has been made by the Natal Provincial Administration, whether in fact he will then issue such a proclamation in the Gazette or not. If he does not issue it and is not willing to do it, then there is nothing more to be said about it, if he is not satisfied that a good case is made by the provincial administration. On the other hand, if he is armed with the authority to do it, and the provincial administration then can make that good case, the Administrator will have the power, so I would appeal to him, if I may, to take such action in the Other Place as would permit that other body to be included in this clause. And I would appeal to him to help us in regard to what is really a very important matter and a matter of many years standing with us, as it is with the Kruger Park Board.

It is a pity that the hon. member for South Coast did not raise this matter with me at a somewhat earlier stage, in order that I might have gone into it. The hon. member for Durban (North) also mentioned it. The hon. member is now pleading for the Natal National Parks Board, but that is a provincial parks board, of course. There are other provinces which have similar parks and which are of course also involved. At this stage I am not quite sure what I shall do in this regard. I shall consider the matter, however, and deliberate on it, and see whether I can make the necessary amendment in the Other Place, if I find it advisable and if there are no insurmountable obstacles, and if the rules allow me to do so. Because, as the Chairman indicated here, it is of course an extension to the Bill. I just want to point out the difficulties in that connection. In the first place there is the problem that more than one provincial administration is involved in a provision of this nature. One would not like to have a clause in respect of which an additional body has to be added every time. If we could find a clause to include all provinces, it would of course be most desirable, and I wonder whether the hon. member will not leave it at that in order that we may consult the other provinces during the recess and find out whether they desire a similar provision and what kind of offences they encounter in their areas. We could then rather make an additional amendment next year to include the parks of all the provinces in one clause.

I would like to accept that suggestion. I think there is very firm reasoning behind it. Perhaps we could leave it at this stage. I shall see to it that we take the initiative in Natal in consulting with the other provinces and come jointly then with representation to the hon. the Minister.

Order! I think I have allowed more than enough discussion on a point which is strictly speaking out of order.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 13:

I want to move the amendment standing in my name on page 602 of the Order Paper. It seems that the intention of this new clause is to make provision for a state of emergency when the normal machinery which exists for the promulgation of Gazette notices might break down as a result of some extraordinary occurrence in the country. I believe that once the situation is restored to normal, it would be in the interests of the public and also in the interests of those people who subscribe regularly to the Government Gazette for the information, which had to be promulgated under extraordinary circumstances, to be republished for information in the Government Gazette. That is the intention of my amendment and I accordingly move—

I can see the hon. member’s point, but complications may arise. As the hon. member will appreciate, there may be certain notices which will have to be promulgated in this extraordinary fashion, and which will be obsolete once it is possible to print the Gazette again. As an example, I take an estate notice. There are several notices of this kind. In any event, I have gone into the matter and I am prepared to meet the hon. member by moving the following amendment—

1. (4) Any law or notice published in accordance with any rule made under subsection (1) shall, if it is then still in force, be published in the Gazette for general information as soon as publication of the Gazette can be effected.
2. (5) The provisions of subsection (4) shall not affect the validity of anything done under any rules made under subsection (1).

In this way I am able to accept the spirit of the hon. member’s amendment.

In view of the Minister’s amendment and his explanation, with the permission of the Committee I wish to withdraw my amendment.

With leave, amendment proposed by Mr. L. F. Wood withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

With regard to clause 14, I should just like to bring it to the attention of the Minister that the tariffs involved in this clause were prescribed approximately 16 to 17 years ago. While this matter is receiving consideration from him, will he not perhaps consider that?

Order! That is not relevant now.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 17:

With regard to clause 17 various amendments are proposed, amongst them the transfer of the Acacia Park Board of Control from the Department of the Interior to the Public Works Department, and also changes in the term of office and number of members. Now it appears that there is some misunderstanding. I am consequently going to ask the Committee to approve only one of these amendments, namely the amendment contained in lines 34 and 35. I want to ask the Committee to reject the other amendments. I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 22:

We indicated during the Second Reading that we have no objection to this clause. The mandate did in fact prohibit us from supplying liquor to the natives in South-West Africa, but circumstances have changed, and what was then regarded as protection is now regarded as discrimination, and it should be held to our credit that we are removing this discrimination.

The only point on which I should like to ask the attention of the hon. the Minister is this:

The clause confers on the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development the power to issue licences to Whites to sell liquor to Bantu in Bantu areas.

To which subsection are you referring?

I am referring to subsection (3). The Minister of Bantu Administration will have the power to determine to whom liquor licences for supplying liquor to Bantu will be granted. It also provides that the hon. the Minister will have the right to prescribe conditions when such a licence is issued. We feel that when a liquor licence, which is in actual fact a concession by the State, is granted to a white firm in a Bantu area, it should take place on the basis of partnership with Bantu interests. I do not think this is something we can move by way of an amendment, but we should like to hear what the attitude of the hon. the Minister is in this regard, and whether he will prescribe that when a white association or firm is granted a licence to supply liquor to Bantu in a Bantu area, a share in the profits should accrue to Bantu interests.

I think the hon. member has merely misread the clause. Subsection (2) should be read first; then the hon. member will see that subsection (2) actually relates to the principle of whom I may grant concessions to in connection with supplying what we always call “white liquor”, ordinary strong liquor. It is clearly stated there that “a Native may purchase, obtain, possess and deal in liquor and liquor may be sold, delivered, given or supplied in any other manner to a Native”. Subsection (3) then goes further and tabulates the three groups under (a), (b) and (c). The intention of paragraph (b), i.e. “any association of persons whether natives or otherwise” is definitely not—nor do I construe it as such—that Whites in the reserves should be included. Paragraph (a) is clearly intended for the urban residential areas, places such as Katatura, where it is granted to the authorities. Paragraph (b) relates to an association of persons, for example, a tribal council of Bantu in Ovamboland or elsewhere, but not a white individual in the Reserve. I quite agree with the hon. member.

What is the meaning of the words: “Natives or otherwise?”

For example the B.I.C.

It may be a body …

Which body?

… such as that mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister by way of interjection. It can also be a statutory body or some other body or council. That is what it amounts to.

Clause put and agreed to.

Title:

Mr.Speaker, I move the following amendment—

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

When the debate on this Bill was adjourned last night, I was dealing with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Newton Park. Now I want to deal with another aspect of his speech—where he tried to present the hon. the Prime Minister as a liberalist, because the hon. the Prime Minister had supposedly, according to the hon. member for Newton Park, adopted an entirely different course in regard to sport. The hon. member suggests that the old policy of apartheid, of separate development, is being violated by that. The hon. member tried to prove his premise with the help of a few newspaper articles. But if there is one thing of which the United Party, and particularly the hon. member for Newton Park, can be accused, it is that they are trying to drag sport across the political floor. The hon. the Prime Minister only did one thing, and that was, in view of the fact that, in their political manoeuvres, the liberalistic Press in the world were using sport for the purpose of isolating South Africa, to sever sport from politics and to give it back to the sports bodies. By doing that he indicated that South Africa did not want to act as the selection committee for New Zealand or Australian rugby teams, nor for the teams any country was sending to the Olympic Games. It was for that reason, he said, that South Africa would not allow Australia or New Zealand or the Press to act as the selection committee for our teams either. What he said was, when in Rome do as the Romans do. But I think that through the speech he had made, the hon. member for Newton Park exposed himself to being accused by the Karen Muirs, the Gary Players, our boxers and our athletes who are going to the Olympic Games of still exposing South Africa to the danger of isolation. I think that it is shameful, deplorable. for a person to act here as the lackey of the liberalistic Press, which is seeking to isolate South Africa by means of sport. That is something for which the hon. member will be remembered.

This Session has virtually come to an end. I want us to look at the way hon. members on the other side are making speeches here, and we must regard that as an indication of the nature of their speeches at report-back meetings outside. Last night I pointed out that the mistake the United Party was making, was to isolate each of the various economic facets in a separate compartment. They want to do that, for instance, with our laws and with administration. Now I want to explain how members on this side of the House are going to conduct their report-back meetings. We are going to say that our nation is a unit and not a divided nation of country dwellers as opposed to town dwellers, of farmers as opposed to labourers, because in our national economy the man on the farm has a son who works in the Department of Posts, and another has a son who works for the S.A. Railways—in other words, our nation is a unit, and because we are a unit in this respect, it is essential for the Government to preserve the balance between agriculture, the industries, the Public Service, labour and so forth. It is because the Government has been and is still preserving that balance that we have experienced in this country over the past 15 years economic growth that need not take a back seat to the economic growth in any other country in the world. Let us analyze it further and look at the method of price determination. The hon. member is suggesting that agriculture is being neglected. He should not forget that we have a Marketing Act with 17 marketing boards. Incidentally, the United Party has never asked that this should be interfered with or that a new scheme should be introduced. A control board determines the price of the product it controls. The recommended price is then submitted to the Cabinet and the Cabinet considers the implications that price may, for instance, have for the cost of living of the thousands of railway workers, and it asks the question whether these people will be able, on their present income, to make a living under a new price structure. On this basis the Cabinet decides whether the price of a certain product should be subsidized for the benefit of the farmer so that the consumer will still be able to buy that product. In this way the Government preserves the balance. It cannot ignore the consumer and simply pay higher prices to the producer straight away, because this may have the effect that the railway workers, the post office staff and other labour sectors will ask for increased salaries and thus cause a spiral of inflation. No. the Government preserves the balance. With that end in view provision has already been made in the Estimates for R77 million. Of that amount R31 million represents the subsidy on maize, R4,600,000 the subsidy on dairy products, R2,900,000 the subsidy on livestock, R19,400,000 the subsidy on fertilizer and so forth. In this way the Government is seeing to it that the balance between agriculture and industrial development is being maintained. At the same time the Government realizes that agriculture has to make allowances for certain risk factors, which is not the case with the other economic sectors. Therefore there is a separate method whereby the Government finances agriculture. For instance: By means of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services the Government makes available to farmers an average amount of R16 million a year in the form of research and the diffusion of knowledge, expenditure that is not recoverable; in other ways, such as by way of subsidies, the Government makes available an average amount of R45 million a year for the purpose of preserving the balance. But over and above these things, the Government makes available, through the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, capital for the category III farmer, the person with the small income.

However, the hon. member for Newton Park is trying to make out a case here by saying that agriculture is in a bad state and that this is giving rise to the depopulation of rural areas. What is he driving at by saying that? It is that the United Party wants to look down upon the farmers of South Africa as “peasant farmers”, i.e. farmers with small pieces of land, the bywoner type of farmer who is no longer able to make a decent living. At the moment only 16 million morgen of South Africa’s land is available for agronomy. But with the Orange River scheme, the Pongola Poort scheme and other irrigation schemes this Government is increasing this surface area to a maximum of 19 million morgen. One cannot settle on that land more people than are able to farm on it economically. The United Party are always bringing up their story about the population of the rural areas, but when, a short while ago, the hon. the Minister of Planning put forward a scheme for decentralizing our industries and thus to lure our people back to the rural areas and give the development of our rural towns a new stimulus, they opposed that measure.

Let me explain to the hon. member with what agricultural policy the Government succeeded. In agriculture we see to it that an independent and self-respecting owner-farmer community is maintained in the rural areas, a farming community which, in its responsible freedom, has been enabled to maintain the same standard of living as its fellow-countrymen. However, this should be done in such a way that the income derived from his farm will enable him to conserve the soil of South Africa as productive soil with the possibility of that productivity being enhanced even further for posterity. In this is to be found the difference between the National Party and the United Party as far as agriculture is concerned. The United Party with its story about the depopulation of the rural areas is heading for a bywoner type of farmer, “peasant farming”. As opposed to that it is the policy of the National Party to consolidate uneconomic units, to preserve the balance between the various sectors of our economy, to make available to the farmer the best agricultural technical knowledge, the best in Africa, and to make cheap capital available to agriculture. By those means the National Party is making out of the agriculturist an independent and self-respecting farmer with the necessary degree of freedom within the economy.

Mr. Speaker, when hon. members on the other side hold their report-back meetings, they will find out that the farmers have found them out. Our people are sufficiently informed not to allow the United Party to get away with the story they are spreading in the rural areas, namely that the farmers are being neglected, and the story they will then again spread in the cities, namely that the consumer is paying too much. They are no longer getting away with that story. The voting public realizes that there is only one party which can ensure the unity of the various language groups in our country, which can preserve and look after the unity of our population and unite our population—be it the townsman, be it the public servant, be it the artisan or the agriculturist. The United Party, on the other hand, are the people who want to sow the seeds of disunity and in that way to gain a little political advantage. But with those tactics of theirs they will fail dismally.

I do not really want to react to the attack the hon. the Deputy Minister made on the hon. member for Newton Park in regard to the question of sport. I heard the hon. the Deputy Minister calling the hon. member the “lackey” of the liberalistic Press. I think that something like that is below the dignity of even that hon. Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister also accused the United Party of supposedly placing agriculture in a separate compartment and separating it from the economy of the country. Well, that is not a charge the hon. the Deputy Minister can level at the address of this side of the House. What this party says, is that over a period of years agriculture has not been receiving its rightful share of the prosperity the Government says it has effected. There cannot be any argument about that— that is true, no matter how rosy the hon. the Deputy Minister may have tried to paint the picture of subsidies and other forms of assistance. The subsidies on bread are as much as the wheat crop of the country is worth. It is the policy of the Government to subsidize bread so that the cost of living may be kept low. The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot accuse me of ever having pleaded for unrealistic prices for agricultural produce. On the contrary, on many occasions in this House I said that unrealistic prices for agricultural produce would be unsound, because we would then cause the prices of our agricultural produce to be out of all proportion to those of other countries, and that eventually, when we have to export them, we would find ourselves in an embarrassing position. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that the Cabinet looks at the proposed agricultural prices to see how they are going to affect the cost of living, and that it uses this as a criterion for the determination of agricultural prices—to this side of the House this statement is an alarming one.

In addition, the hon. the Deputy Minister accused this side of the House of wanting to create peasant farmers. I thought that we had passed the stage of peasant farmers. I remember how the previous Prime Minister spoke of the Orange River scheme as the heartland of the Whites, and how he warned the farmers against thinking that they would develop that area with the aid of Bantu labour. Therefore, at that stage he was the one who pleaded for the small farmer who had to do his own work.

I referred to an economic farmer.

To accuse us of that, is not worthy of the hon. the Deputy Minister, because who is holding a brief for peasant farmers? What we on this side are in fact fighting for, is that there should be no peasant farmers. We are still pleading that agriculture should be given its rightful share of the economic prosperity in our country. Well, over a period of years that has not been the case, the result being that agriculture has been lagging behind for reasons the hon. the Deputy Minister himself furnished last week. But before I deal with that, I want to quote from the publication Tegniek, dated May, 1967. It contains an article with the heading “In only 33 years’ time the world will need four times as much food as it does at present”. The article goes on to say (translation)—

The attitude adopted on this side of the House is that agriculture should in the first instance be rehabilitated. The farmer must be rehabilitated. Owing to drought and a low price structure over a period, a backlog has been created, the result of which is that he cannot play his proper role in the production of food. Now the farmer has to be rehabilitated once again up to the point where he will in fact be able to do so. I shall now deal with what the hon. the Deputy Minister himself said at Adelaide last Friday. According to a newspaper report he said—

In this respect I agree with him wholeheartedly. He went on to say—

That was supposedly that water restrictions had taught us to make better use of our water supplies. But the point I want to make is that the hon. the Deputy Minister used arguments here which we on this side of the House are using. Here he says the things we are also saying. Here he says, like us, that the rehabilitation of the farmer and our veld should not be the responsibility of the farmer alone, but of the entire population. But when we say that agriculture has not been getting its rightful share of our economic prosperity and that it has therefore been lagging behind, then that hon. Deputy Minister comes along with a series of figures to prove what the agricultural departments are supposedly doing. But merely by looking at the latest Estimates, we see that only 5 per cent thereof, a little more than 5 per cent, goes to the agricultural sector. This important sector of our national economy, that sector which has to provide the food, is only entitled to 5 per cent of the total Estimates. We can also conjure with figures. How much of this goes to the Department of Agricultural Credit? Only R2.4 million.

R17 million has already been spent this year.

But the amount of R2.4 million is all that is being made available for agricultural credit in these Estimates.

Take another look.

The fact remains that if everything is added together, that is all agriculture receives.

What makes it possible for agriculture to produce properly? First of all the farmer has to be rehabilitated so that he may yield his maximum production. Added to that there is the labour factor. Here I am dealing with another Department and with the ideology of this Government in terms of which it takes labour from one sector, where there is a labour shortage, and places it in another sector, where there is already too much labour.

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

Afternoon Sitting

When the debate was adjourned, I was dealing with the need for agriculture to be fundamentally sound to make its contribution to the economy of the country and to make it possible for the agriculturist as well to receive its share of the prosperity of the country. As the first essential requirement, I said that agriculture should be rehabilitated and that the agriculturist should be rehabilitated to such an extent that it will be possible for him to yield the maximum production. As a second requirement I said that he should have a large enough source of labour to provide in his needs, and I criticized the Government’s ideological point of view, namely that they want to remove Bantu from the urban areas where there are too many Bantu, and also from the Western Cape. They want to reduce the number of Bantu in the Western Cape by 5 per cent a year. In this regard I should like to read a statement that was made recently by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, Mr. Vosloo. when he addressed a meeting of the Cape Employers’ Association in Newlands last week, and said—

If a Deputy Minister, a responsible person on the Government side, says that it is “a practical and considerate approach” to speak in terms of the figures the hon. member for Queenstown used—and I have my doubts about his figure of 120,000 permanent Bantu —but I shall accept his figures … [Interjections.] That is strange. The hon. member for Queenstown is a solid, moderate sort of person, but it is strange that he should argue in this way, so naively. He says that in terms of Government policy these 120,000 established Bantu should be reduced, and even if it is not by 5 per cent a year, it should be done by at least 1 per cent a year, but the hon. the Deputy Minister says that it is a “practical and considerate approach”. He means that it is a humane approach, but it is not. But the hon. member for Queenstown differs with the Minister. He says it can be a mere 1 per cent a year, that will also help to reduce the Bantu population in urban areas. They are blowing hot and cold. The one says that the Bantu have to be removed at the rate of 5 per cent a year, and the other says that it should be done at the rate of 1 per cent a year. But then the hon. member for Queenstown goes a great deal further still by saying that in terms of the United Party policy they are simply allowed to enter urban areas freely. Since when has it been United Party policy that there should be no influx control? [Interjection.] Then the hon. member makes a little calculation and says that in terms of United Party policy there will be 670,000 Bantu in the Western Cape in five years’ time. What I want to ask is where does labour go to? Does labour not go to those places where there are opportunities for work? Will they come here if there is no work for them, and if there is work for them here, should they not come here? Is it possible for agriculture to make its contribution in the Western Cape if the tendency is to remove them here and to send them back to the Eastern Cape, to an over-populated part? It is of no use to tell me that they are not going to an over-populated part. The Eastern Cape is over-populated with Bantu, and these Xhosas can only return to the Eastern Cape because, after all, they are supposed to return to their own people. Can the Eastern Cape afford to take an additional 7,000 Bantu a year in terms of the Minister’s calculation, or the 1,200 to 1,500 in terms of the hon. member for Queenstown’s calculation? What are they to do if at this stage the Government is not willing to establish State-aided industries for the purpose of absorbing them? Apart from the approach we as farmers have, namely that one cannot do that with labour, and apart from the fact that it is an inhuman approach, because these are people and not cattle, one has to allow a person to take up employment where he can find it. But they are not allowed to take up employment in the Western Cape. They are being forced to return to the Eastern Cape, where there is no employment for them. But agriculture needs labour in order that it may produce, and if the labour is not here, how is the agricultural industry to produce? The Deputy Minister said this morning that we were obsessed with the idea of placing agriculture in compartments, but this policy will place agriculture in compartments, because he will not obtain the labour he requires. But this is not the end of it. Then the hon. member for Soutpansberg comes along and very ostentatiously he explains how many nations there are in this country. He has not yet mentioned half the nations, but he says we have the Xhosas and the Zulus, and so forth. In terms of Government policy there will be eight Bantustans and one white state here in the Republic, and another ten Bantu states and a white state in South-West Africa, and soon we shall have 20 independent states in the Republic. Then he depends on the fact that they will live together in peace and harmony and that they will always be prepared to sell us the only product they have, their labour, and then we shall have a commonwealth of nations in South Africa. Even that is not the end of it. After he had spoken, the hon. member for Karoo said that even as far as the Coloureds were concerned, there was a large number of nations. There are Moslems and Hindus and the Cape Malays and the ordinary Coloureds, and they have to be grouped together and they do not have an area either. This story about nation-building in the Republic is being accepted just like that. That was followed up by the hon. member for Heilbron, who said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had talked about one South African nation, and he simply dragged everybody into that by saying that one South African nation would include the Coloureds, the Indians, the Blacks and the Whites. On that topic he embroidered for half an hour. But what did my hon. Leader really say? He talked about one nation in South Africa, one nation of 17-18 million people who were living within the borders of the Republic, and he pointed out the best methods to use in order to get all population groups to co-operate for the safety of the country and in the interests of the country in general. Then the hon. member for Heilbron went further and asked, to use his own words, “since when has our policy abroad been improving?” I am glad that the hon. member has now entered the Debating Chamber, I shall give him the answer.

No, read my reply.

I shall tell the hon. member since when the image of South Africa abroad has been improving. The image of South Africa abroad started improving when it had become so bad that it could not get any worse. It had to improve then, because it could not become any worse. South Africa’s image abroad improved when the Government accepted the plea made by this side of the House, namely that we should pursue a policy of neighbourliness, not only towards our immediate neighbours, but even towards states further north. As from that moment the image of South Africa started improving, and if the Prime Minister and the Government continue to pursue that changed policy and to enter into diplomatic relations with the black states of Africa, our image will continue to improve, not only in Africa, but also among the Western nations. But our image would have deteriorated further and we would have remained in isolation if the Government had continued with its previous policy.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the agricultural industry by saying that the agricultural industry can only render its contribution if farmers are afforded the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and to have a stable labour force, labour which will as far as possible not be migrant labour, nor squatter labour. After the labourer has been trained to play his part in the agricultural industry, he should be in a position to stay with his employer for as long as possible. I am returning to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said repeatedly, namely that the Bantu labourer will not be trained here in the Republic of South Africa to play his rightful part in the agricultural and the other industries. It is essential for the agricultural industry to have a stable labour force, a labour force that can be trained to fulfill efficiently its task in the agricultural industry, and only if that happens it will be possible for the agricultural industry to produce sufficient food for the country, not only to-day, but also in 30 years’ time.

The hon. member will pardon me if I do not try to follow up on what he has said. I think it would be an impossible task for any member, not only on this side, but also on his own side of the House, because he spoke of people and nations. He had it in for the hon. the Deputy Minister, and there is scarcely a member on this side of the House whom he did not mention. Even if I had wanted to follow up on what the hon. member had said, I would have found it an impossible task.

The hon. member made one point here which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. We know that the United Party is continually making propaganda in the rural areas in order to antagonize the farmers against the Government. They blame the Government for the unfortunate financial position in which so many of the farmers have found themselves. I regret that this should be the case, but I have every confidence that those farmers will recover. But the hon. member for East London (City) also stated that it was known to everyone here that he had always been one of the members in this House who had pleaded for the food prices not to be increased too much. He laid the blame at the door of the hon. the Deputy Minister. But when hon. members of the Opposition addressed meetings in the rural areas, they told the farmers that their position was attributable to the fact that they were unable to obtain higher prices for their produce. They blamed the Government for the low prices which the farmers were receiving. I just want to say that nobody in the rural areas can to-day give any credence to that charge against the Government. As little notice is being taken of that charge by the farmers as is being taken in this House of the accusation made here this afternoon by the hon. member. He wanted to imply here that, over the years, he has been the champion of low food prices.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to-day to welcome the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, as well as his Deputy Minister, to their new posts. We are pleased that this responsible post has been entrusted to him. Last year I also expressed my pleasure at the fact that the hon. the Minister held this portfolio, but it was a short session and there was not much time to discuss agricultural technical services. The agricultural departments, as all of us on both sides who have knowledge of farming know, is practically the lifeblood of the agricultural industry. We know how important the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, with its scientists and its information services, etc., is to the farmers of the country, and since the hon. the Minister was appointed by the late Dr. Verwoerd to hold this very important portfolio, we want to-day to congratulate him on his appointment. When the hon. the Minister was still Minister of Defence, we on this side, and even our Opposition colleagues, said that he was extremely competent as Minister of Defence. It was generally accepted that the Minister was the right man in the right position; and it is now the privilege of the agricultural industry to have the right man in the right position. We hope that everything will go well with the hon. the Minister and his Deputy in the years which lie ahead. We want to congratulate them and join with them in expressing our joy that they have been relieved of the terrible fear which the drought caused in this country of ours, not only in our agricultural community, but even amongst our town dwellers whose water supply had to be rationed. We feared the worst, and there were also predictions which could have caused one even greater fear. However, we have now, through the graciousness of our Heavenly Father, been relieved of that fear. Our dams are full, our rivers are full, the frogs are once again singing their joyful chorus. We join them in their song, and we, too, as they are doing, express our gratitude and joy. I am grateful to be able this afternoon to express these joyful words on this occasion.

Before I proceed to bring a few important matters affecting my constituency to the hon. the Minister’s attention, I want to thank the heads of the Departments of Water Affairs and the head of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for everything they have done. They are two extremely competent men. We believe that they also share in the nationwide rejoicing over the relief which the rains have brought and the fact that it has put and end to the major problems with which they as much as the two hon. Ministers were struggling. I just want to mention that as far as the farmers are concerned, they sincerely appreciate the major concessions and assistance which the Ministers have afforded the farming community in trying to restore grazing which has been lost. The farming community regards this work as a master stroke. We are grateful to them for coming to our assistance in this regard. The farming community throughout the entire country is grateful to the Government for the major financial assistance which they have afforded us. It is probably not necessary for me to mention the figures now. Hon. members are probably all aware of what is being paid to let farms and camps lie fallow so that that grazing can be rehabilitated. It is a great task which the Government is undertaking, and we are grateful to them for undertaking it.

There is another matter which I want to bring to the Minister’s attention and this matter concerns the accommodation at the institution where our young men are attending courses in agriculture and veterinary science. I have here a letter which I received from one of the parents of those boys. They are a very good family and the parents have the welfare of their sons very much at heart. Hon. members will probably agree that there is a great need for more veterinary surgeons in our country, particularly in our farming industry. I feel, and I believe that hon. members on both sides feel the same way, that we must do everything in our power to help the young men to become qualified in that direction. The letter was written by a certain Mr. L. van Schalkwyk, and for the sake of the record, I want to read the letter, which is a short one, to the hon. House (translation)—

They have to board with private people living in Pretoria, and in many respects things are not going at all well for those young men. He writes that his son is one of this number. The letter reads as follows—

For the information of the Minister and the Deputy Minister I want to say that I made a few inquiries in this regard and I can say that the situation as far as accommodation is concerned leaves much to be desired. We are living in a fine, young country. In many respects we must, we want to and we will improve our farming methods. We need the assistance and guidance of these people. That is why I think it is our duty in the first place to ensure that they are accommodated satisfactorily while they are studying and preparing themselves for the great task that lies ahead.

It is my very earnest plea therefore that the hon. the Ministers should give attention to this matter. I do not know how many buildings it will be possible to erect there. I do not know what can be done in a hurry to make improvements there. But this state of affairs is definitely unworthy of the good name farming has in our country.

Another matter I want to refer to, something with which the hon. the Minister is very well acquainted, is this quick-sickness bush which is causing thousands of animals to die, particularly in the constituency which I represent. The hon. the Minister will probably remember that I led a deputation which submitted this matter to him. Some of the most influential bodies in that constituency were represented on the deputation. If the hon. Minister would think back, he would probably remember. The position was explained to him. Certain figures were mentioned to the Minister when we addressed our representations to him. I do not want to compromise myself by mentioning a figure. Thousands of head of large and small stock are concerned in the matter. We are calling that part of the Western Transvaal the Klipveld. Nowhere else in the country can we fatten a beast sooner with the grass of the veld than in that region. However, it so happens that the poisonous bush also grows there. The farmers in those areas, Lichtenburg, Ventersdorp, Marico and as I have ascertained, as far even as Potchefstroom, have consequently been dealt a fatal blow. I feel myself at liberty here this afternoon to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider subsidizing the farmers there so that they can combat the bush by means of spraying. If this task were to be left to the farmers themselves, then I fear that we would have to write off this fine piece of land which is worth so much to our stock. It is dangerous to farm there with animals. This has been particularly true during the past year in which we have had so much rain. We who know that part of the country very well, also know that the farmers there are terrified. I just want to add that the Minister was so kind, on the occasion when this deputation went to see him, as to give instructions in our presence to the officials who are entrusted with this matter to attend to the matter immediately and to do everything in their power to try and eradicate the bushes. I want to report to him this afternoon that since last year up to the present almost nothing has been done about it.

A whole team is working on the matter.

The Minister must please reply to me just now, because this is a very important matter. Very important matters are being discussed now. As far as we know an occasional motor car comes travelling along and the person in it calls on a few farmers and then goes away again and that is the end of the matter. A research station was established to carry out research in respect of this bush and to try and eliminate it. I also had the privilege of asking the Secretary for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, Dr. Vorster, to go and open it. That was quite a few years ago. I am certain that if he went and made an inspection to see what was being done and what they had already done there, he would support my argument which I have raised in this House this afternoon. This is a serious state of affairs. It has cost the farmers thousands of rands. It is a fine piece of land. We can farm there for many years and we can breed and raise many animals there. The grazing is good, but we have this poisonous bush as enemy. Something must be done about this matter and I can think of nothing better than this. The spray which is being used for eradicating this bush is very expensive and it would be of tremendous assistance to the farmers if they were subsidized as far as the spray was concerned. I was specially requested by a few farmers’ unions to make this appeal to the hon. the Ministers so that attention would in fact be given to this matter and so that a person could see that something is being done and that that enemy of the farmers is being combated.

I want once again to wish the Minister and the Deputy Minister every success. They can rely on the good faith of the farmers. Our senior Minister is very well known in our country. He is an experienced farmer and we have great faith and confidence in him.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the last part of the speech of the hon. member for Lichtenburg was a discussion more suited to the Agricultural Technical Services Vote. I will not however quarrel with him about that. He has made a plea here for his area. I will agree with him as regards the question of accommodation. In fact, it is very refreshing indeed to find some sort of criticism from hon. members on that side of the House when we discuss agricultural matters in this House, even though that criticism is muted and even timid. I think that it is a pity that the hon. gentleman spoilt what he was saying by his introductory remarks. He seemed to set himself up as another one of these hon. gentlemen who devote the greater part of their speeches to thanking the Ministers. I do not particularly wish to quarrel with the hon. member’s desire to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. I noticed that he did not pay tribute to his colleague, the hon. Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. I must say that I cannot blame him for that. He did, however, include in his paean of praise the hon. Deputy Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. I want to come back to a few of the things the hon. the Deputy Minister said in this House yesterday and today. Among the Bantu tribes of our country any chief who is of note has in his retinue a particular person whom one might describe as a poet. It would be more correct to describe him as a versifier, a maker of verses. It is his job to sing the praises of the chief. The Xhosas call such a man an imbóngi. It is his function at public occasions to dance up and down and to extol the chief to the sky and say what a wonderful person he is. Unfortunately when it comes to an agricultural debate in this House it seems that we have far too many of the equivalent of these imbóngis sitting among hon. gentlemen on that side of the House. This morning the hon. the Deputy Minister told hon. members on this side of the House who had dealt with agriculture what a terrible time they were going to have when they went back to their constituencies and hold report-back meetings during the recess. I think that hon. gentlemen on that side of the House are the ones who should feel a little apprehensive on this score, indeed more than a little apprehensive. Those hon. gentlemen have got themselves into the position where they regard themselves as professional praisers of the Ministers. When they really in their own hearts can find nothing to praise the hon. the Minister about, they regard themselves as professional apologists for the Ministers concerned. This has brought them to the position that when important matters of agricultural policy are discussed and when they do not agree with the policy of the Government, they sit dumb there and do not speak up for their constituents. Then when hon. gentlemen on this side of the House make a plea for the primary producers, they ask us why we are doing it, because some of us represent urban constituencies. It is their fault because they walk in such fear and trembling of Ministerial displeasure that they will not get on to their feet and say what is in their hearts. For this reason, when those hon. gentlemen go back to their constituencies for the report-back meetings of which the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke, I think they are going to have a very warm time indeed. In fact, the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has experienced this in the past when he has talked to, among others, the mealie farmers. It was so much so that the late Prime Minister, in order to quell the complaints of the farming community, had to appoint this commission of inquiry which is at present investigating agricultural matters.

The hon. the Deputy Minister made some remarks here in a very derogatory tone about “bywoners” and peasant farmers. The point he seems to have overlooked is that it is the general economic policy of this Government, and particularly the price policy of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, which is turning large numbers of our farmers into “bywoners” of the State. It is putting them into a position where they will have no more financial strength. When there is some sort of crisis or setback due to drought or low profitability, they have to go hat in hand to the State to ask for assistance. Do not take my word for it, Sir. The chairman of this commission which has been appointed to investigate the agricultural industry, very recently said something in this regard. In fact it was as recently as the first of this month. Dr. M. D. Marais, the chairman of the commission, was referring particularly to the Karoo farmers. He was reported as follows:

There you have it in a nutshell. We have heard much this Session about inflation, but I think that if there is one section of the community which cannot be blamed for causing inflation in this country, having regard to the economic setback that they have suffered due to drought and also due to the low profitability of their enterprises, then it is the agricultural community. They are suffering to just the same extent as, if not more, than the rest of the community. They themselves are consumers and like any other consumer they are subject to the hardships which the ever-rising cost of living is imposing upon them.

They are subject to it as producers as well. Last night the hon. member for Newton Park referred to the ever rapidly rising cost of spares and of implements. To-day these constitute one of the major components of the farmer’s cost structure. What is the Government doing about this? They appear to be doing nothing whatsoever about it. It is going on year after year, eating into the profits of the primary producer. Who has caused this inflation, apart from the adverse effects which have been pointed out by the chairman of this commission into agriculture? What did Mr. R. K. Parsons, an economist, have to say when he addressed the South African Federated Chamber of Industries in Cape Town on the 7th March? He was talking about the causes of inflation. He was reported as follows:

The Government, having caused a great deal of the inflation itself, is now exhorting other people and other bodies to fight inflation.

Apart from the inflationary situation, I think the second thing of importance to the agricultural industry that has happened this Session has been yet another instance of the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing’s attitude when it comes to the determination of prices for primary products namely those prices which are controlled. Here again I am referring to the mealie price. The hon. the Deputy Minister tries to take members of the Opposition to task because we criticize the fact that the Government had lowered the mealie price. He tries to take us to task about this. But we do not have to go any further for criticism of the Government’s action than to the Mealie Board itself. This is one of the marketing boards the Deputy Minister was talking about.

And Sampi?

I am not going to discuss new organizations like Sampi. I am not even going to quote what the Director of the South African Agricultural Union has said about it. I want to quote what the Board itself has said in its official organ, Mielienuus. I want to quote from the latest issue of that organ, namely the May issue. If ever there was a more damning indictment of this Government’s agricultural pricing policy, it is this issue of Mielienuus. This is the official organ of the board of which one of the hon. members who sits on the opposite benches, is the chairman, namely the hon. member for Ladybrand. Listen to what is said on page 3, in paragraphs 33 and 34, of Mielienuus. Before I go further I should like to remind you, Sir, that that hon. Deputy Minister said that they had given the farmers some sort of bonsella last year. That was not the word that he used, but he said that it was almost like a subsidy. This is what Mielienuus has to say:

Yet that Deputy Minister says that we are going to have trouble explaining things to our constituents when we go to our report-back meetings. The hon. the Deputy Minister took us to task because we spoke about consumer prices as well. I want to talk about consumer prices of mealies this afternoon. Although the producer’s price was lowered, what has happened to the consumer price? It has stayed exactly the same. For years and years the beef producers of this country have said to the Government: The only way we can increase beef production appreciably in this country is by increasing the turnover and by feeding our stock better. The basis for the feeding of the stock is maize. We know what the position is. We know why we cannot feed maize profitably to our beef cattle, while the American producer can. It was summed up by Mr. S. B. van Wyk of the Division of Agricultural and Economic Research, who is reported to have said in August of last year:

That R3.50 is exactly the same this year—

There you have the position summed up as to why it is difficult for us to increase our beef supplies and to take advantage of the export market in beef, which is profitable. It is because of this ratio between mealie prices and beef prices. But what is the Government’s policy in this regard? They allow our mealies to be exported, in most years, at a loss, not to themselves but to the producers, i.e. at the expense of the producers’ stabilization fund which has been built up over all these years. If you ask them why they do not rather, if they are going to sell it at a loss, sell it on the internal market, they come up with the excuse that you will not be able to discriminate between mealies for human consumption and mealies for stock. Surely it is now time that the Ministers of Agriculture stopped trotting out this excuse. It is time that they think about it a little and do something positive. Why do they not go to somebody like the C.S.I.R. and ask them to lay on a research programme so that they can find something which can be mixed with stock feed, which will make it unpalatable for human consumption but palatable to the animals? It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister shaking his head. He will go on year after year allowing mealies to be exported at a loss, at the expense of the stabization fund built up by the producer, instead of allowing it to be used for the benefit of our own economy and in the long run to the greater benefit of our exports.

During the session there has been one further example of the general attitude of the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing towards the producer, namely that the farmer is the man who must always pay the price. That was when the Abattoir Commission was set up, and although the producer has been given no representation whatsoever on that Commission, which is a Government Commission appointed by the Minister, yet the producer, the supplier of livestock to the abattoirs, is the only one who will be taxed to pay for that commission by way of levy. I am not going to pursue that matter anymore. We debated it at great length. But I want to get back to the question raised here by the hon. member for Newton Park, namely the white population of the platteland. Is it any wonder, when we have this agricultural pricing policy of the Government, that the white farmers are leaving the land at the rate of about 2,240 per annum, which is the rate given in the Economic Development Programme? I think the most disturbing aspect of this is that their places are being taken by non-Whites. In 1965 there were, in fact 1,739,400 non-Whites engaged in agriculture, and by 1971. according to the Economic Development Programme, there will be 1,915,400. By then, if one looks at Table “C” and one sees that the number of Whites engaged in agriculture by 1971 will be down to 96,000, we find that for every White engaged in agriculture in 1971 we will have 20 non-Whites. Yet the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and the Minister still talk about reducing the number of non-Whites. But the economic development programme of the Minister of Planning shows a rising trend in the number of non-Whites employed in agriculture.

What is the cure for this white depopulation of the platteland? The Commission of Inquiry which investigated the European occupancy of the rural areas reported at length on this matter on page 50 of their report, where they make their recommendations. The preliminary remarks are as follows—

Then they make various recommendations, and amongst other things they recommend a rural electrification programme which makes for more pleasant and comfortable farm life. That, if anything, is a very great understatement, because a rural electrification programme in our country will not merely make for a more pleasant and comfortable rural life, but it can considerably boost the output and raise the efficiency of our agriculture. I want to quote again the figures I quoted before in regard to what has been achieved in America by proper rural electrification. I quote from a report submitted by Dr. Le Clus, who was then a director of the S.A. Agricultural Union—

I have spoken on this subject in the House before, and the reply I got was that Escom was too busy with other developments. But nevertheless it remains a fact that the Government has never applied the provisions of the 1958 Act to Consolidate the Law relating to the Supply of Electricity, whereby they could subsidize the supply of rural electricity. We still have the position, according to Escom’s latest report, which goes up to 30th May, 1966, that only 11,064 of our farms are supplied with electricity in this country. If we take the figure of 105,000 Whites employed in agriculture, it means that only 10½ per cent of our farms are equipped with Escom electricity, whereas in the U.S.A. no less than 90 per cent of the farms have electricity. Here again, we have an illustration of the way in which each Government Department works in isolation. Very recently the Chairman of Escom, Dr. Straszacker, said that for it to be possible to link the Escom grids in the Eastern Cape with those in the Transvaal, in order that the power being generated by the big new power-stations in the Transvaal may be fed down the grid to the Eastern Cape, the Railways would first have to take a decision to electrify their lines running to Port Elizabeth and, I presume, to East London as well. But when the Minister of Railways recently decided, and very rightly decided, to replace the steam traction units on the Cape Midlands line, he did not go over to electrical units. The reason which he gave was that electrical units were more expensive than diesel units. He went over to diesel units at a cost of R90 million. Sir, at a time when we in this country are having to stockpile oil because of the unsettled international situation, we find that there appears to be no co-ordination between an important body like Escom and an even more important Government Department like the Railways. The Minister appears to have been deaf to pleas made to him by, amongst others, the Eastern Province Coastal Agricultural Union. We have lost a golden opportunity of building a grid which would enable that power to be brought down from the Transvaal, instead of which the Minister has spent some R90 million on diesel locomotives. The tragedy of it is that at some time in the future that grid will still have to be built if the hydro-electric schemes under the Orange River project are to mean anything at all. Sir, this is an example of how this Government is failing to provide for the future needs of the rural areas.

It is all very well for the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agricultural and Water Affairs to say that the cure for rural depopulation is the development of border area industries. I want to know how the Government is setting about the development of these border area industries. Let us look at it a little more closely. When the concept of border area industries was originally mooted, we were told that the right place to establish those industries was where there were lots of Bantu labour and lots of water. But one of the biggest border industrial areas to-day is Rosslyn situated 12 miles from Pretoria, near one of the fastest expanding cities in the country. In fact, the hon. member for Sunnyside, who is in the House this afternoon, spent some 10 minutes telling us on the Planning Vote how much they already had done in Pretoria. Rosslyn, instead of having lots of water, was established on the basis of boreholes, and then when they found that the boreholes did not provide sufficient water, they extended the area of the Rand Water Board and to-day Rosslyn is being supplied with water from Vaal Dam. Sir, these are the same gentlemen who criticize the further development of Johannesburg because of water shortages. They say that the water is not available and yet at the same time that same Government extends the area of the Rand Water Board to Rosslyn, and in fact it has gone even further and—I see the hon. member for Rustenburg smiling—extended it to another border industry area, namely Rustenburg. Sir, this is not merely a question of industries being taken from an existing metropolitan complex to a border area. Do you know what has happened with regard to motor assembling up there? One of the industries which they established there was the Datsun-Nissan motor plant. [Time expired.]

In the first instance I want to say. with references to the hon. member for Albany that I accept that he always makes a proper preliminary study of the matter he wants to deal with before discussing it in this House. I do not intend discussing the mealie industry now, but I nevertheless feel that I must present a few facts in the correct light. The hon. member stated that the consumer price of mealies, for both human and animal nutrition, is the same, and that the Government refuses to make any distinction. Is that correct?

I said that the consumer price is the same this year as it was last.

There has always been a fundamental difference as a result of the subsidy which is being paid by the State. To-day one can buy yellow mealies which the consumer uses for feeding purposes for 307 cents, which is less than what the farmer receives for his mealies. That price has been made possible by a State subsidy. For human consumption one can purchase white mealies for 337½ cents, only 2½ cents more than the price which the farmer is receiving. But then the hon. member made a second error. He stated that the stabilization fund consisted of money which had been collected from the producer only, but that is not correct. The hon. member was wrong in the second place as well. During the past year the State contributed R2 million to the stabilization fund. The State has been the only contributor during the past year. The producer did not contribute a cent, nor will he make any contribution this year.

The third point I want to make is the following: For the purposes of calculating the price this year there was an increase of 10 cents per bag in the production costs and that was determined according to the yield per morgen, as calculated by the Economic Research Bureau.

That is according to the Department, not according to the Board.

That 10 cents was taken into account very thoroughly in the determination of the price. If the hon. member had made a proper study of the newsletter circulated by the Mealie Board, he would have been aware of this fact. But it is unfortunately so that just as a bee and a spider, the one man will draw sweetness and the other poison from the same blossom.

Mr. Speaker, this Session which is now approaching its end has apparently been one of the shortest sessions in terms of sitting days, but at the same time it has probably been one of the sessions in which we have passed the most Bills. I think that we have dealt with approximately 112 measures during this Session. I think that normally sessions last approximately 100 days and that usually approximately 90 Bills are dealt with. I think that this achievement has been attributable mainly to the co-operation between the Leader of the House and the Opposition. At the same time, Sir, you will remember that the Government was accused at the beginning of the session of being incompetent and inept. I say again that I am grateful for the wholehearted co-operation which has existed during this Session between the Government and the Opposition and for the success which has been achieved. The reason why we have been able to deal with such a large number of Bills is of course that the Opposition agreed to most of the measures and did not oppose them. You will recall that a large number of agricultural Bills were passed here. I felt how uncomfortable the hon. member for Newton Park subsequently became each time he declared that they fully supported the Bill in question. Since the introduction and the passing of legislation in this Session has taken place so smoothly it would appear that this Government, whose fundamental task is that of legislator, has not been so tremendously incompetent. The Opposition has, by accepting its legislative measures, accepted that this Government is both competent and efficient. That is merely the first statement I want to make. In addition I should also like to refer to the agricultural legislation which has been passed. If we were to consider what legislation the Opposition has objected to, we would find that it was merely that legislation in which a little colour was involved, a little Bantu colour. In the case of all such legislation they all, with a few minor exceptions, have their backs up.

I should like to return to the agricultural legislation which has been passed during the course of this Session. I have here in my possession the so-called policy of the United Party in regard to agricultural matters, which was published in 1964. Here the United Party laid down that they regarded the Marketing Act as the guarantee for the farmer. Here they repeated the statement that the principle of costs-plus is contained in the Act. We have told the United Party repeatedly here that that Act does not make provision for that. I assumed that on an occasion such as this when that Act is being reconsidered the United Party would at least have taken steps to have that included in this legislation. But I want to refer to the policy of the United Party for rehabilitating, as they put it, the agricultural population, and compare it to the plans and steps which the National Party is taking and has already taken. In this regard I do not want to delve far back into the past, I want to confine myself to this Session, and in particular I want to confine myself to the main theme of the two hon. members, namely the hon. members for Albany and Newton Park, in regard to the depopulation of the rural areas. In this regard the hon. member for Newton Park quoted certain figures. He furnished certain figures in regard to the ratio between the population groups and indicated that the ratio had decreased from 18 to 16 per cent. Why did he not take the goldmines into consideration? Then the percentage decrease would have been greater. Why did he not take the diamond mining industry into consideration? Then it would have been even greater. We must remember that originally the population of South Africa consisted solely of farmers, and that the other industries developed gradually, so that the ratio must consequently diminish. In this way the ratio in respect of the goldmines has diminished.

Let us now accept that a depopulation of the rural areas is taking place. In this regard I want to refer to their figures. In the United Party publication which I have available here, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition talks of 2,500 per year, whereas the two hon. members spoke of 2,400 per year. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaks of 50,000 people who have left the rural areas during the past nine years. If these figures are correct, we should, over the past nine years, have almost 25,000 farmers from the rural areas. The hon. member referred directly to farmers. However, let us consider the position as it really is. The amount of land available for agriculture has decreased from 142 million morgen to 102 million morgen, and then one must also bear in mind the fact that roads take up an area of approximately 11 to 12 million morgen. I am omitting to mention the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who does not even want to build more roads for the process of development in South Africa. If these roads were to be included then there would be only approximately 90 million morgen land left. Of this amount 15 million morgen is agricultural land. When one subtracts that, it leaves scarcely 75 million morgen for grazing purposes. The hon. member for Newton Park also complained about soil conservation. On this 75 million morgen 40 million sheep and 12 million cattle have to be carried. What it amounts to therefore is over-grazing. But what does the hon. member for Newton Park want to do? Suppose the soil can accommodate that number, then he wants to divide the 40 million sheep and the 12 million cattle amongst an even larger number of people seeing that he wants the people to be brought back to the rural areas. The hon. member said that he wanted to bring a stream of people back to the rural areas. I have made a note in this regard. But that is not the worst. On Monday we had a case in this House where a farm was withdrawn from the Department of Forestry and made available to agriculture. The United Party asked for a division on a motion that this land should not be made available to agriculture but should be allocated to the provincial departments and authorities. The United Party argued that this land could not be used for agriculture as long as it was required by a Department. In this case extra land was made available to agriculture since the Department of Forestry did not need it. That is the policy of the United Party. They complain about the depopulation but if additional land becomes available for agriculture the United Party refuses. If there is an opportunity of making additional land available to agriculture, then they do not want to do so.

I should like to refer to another of the blunders made by the United Party during this Session in regard to the rehabilitation of farmers. I do not want to accuse the hon. the Minister of Finance, but last year a tax of 1 cent per pound was imposed on sorghum malt. Did any of those members go into the question of what significance the sorghum market had for farmers? The sorghum market colapsed. Subsequently the Mealie Board and our farmer members here considered whether, as in the case of the wine farmers, the tax should not be imposed on the original product but on the end product so that we would not be discouraging production. There is not one of these industries which, as in the case of sorghum, has to pay a tax of 180 cents per bag on the raw product. The hon. members of the Opposition have this new idea that the tax should be imposed on the end product, and opposed to the limit what the hon. the Minister agreed to do. Is that correct? Those are the champions of agriculture in the rural areas. Those are the people who are trying to protect agriculture and who say that they wanted to save agriculture. But let us consider another matter. I am thinking here of the question of the decentralization of industries. In the policy of the United Party which I have the policy of the Party in this regard is stated as follows (translation)—

Who are the people who centralized the country schools? The United Party closed one school after the other.

But let us come to decentralization. Who are the people who, during the past week, when the hon. the Minister of Planning was empowered by legislation to give effect to’ the policy of decentralizing industries, opposed that measure?

But I should like to return to the Marketing Act and the guarantee the United Party wanted to give the producers. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested the following (translation)—

We would like to ask the United Party to furnish a few explanations in regard to this matter. On what must one base a fixed price to guarantee every farmer his production costs? Is it to be based on the average yield per morgen, or upon the man who only produces two bags per morgen? On what is the United Party going to base dairy prices—on the costs of the dairy farmer in Vryburg who produces cream from the veld or on those of the farmer in the Western Province whose cattle are in stalls? How is one going to set about determining the average production costs, or the costs of every farmer? But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to guarantee it for every farmer. How many prices are there going to be? What is their method going to be? It is unfortunately the case that the Opposition become wildly enthusiastic about a statement made by somebody or other and then present it here as the gospel truth. As a matter of fact I have quite a good deal of confidence in the hon. member for Newton Park. I think he has the mental ability to make a study of these matters. But what does the hon. member say? He says, that, according to Die Beeld, two National Party members resigned in Standerton. Did the hon. member check to see whether those people were really Nationalists? We deny it, according to the information in our possession. Let me now refer the hon. member to three eminent people, for example Johan Theunissen, who is an outstanding and well-known farmer in this country, who not only resigned from the United Party, but also, a few weeks ago, joined the National Party; or a man such as J. du Plessis, who is a leading farmer. But this will bring us nowhere. Let us rather, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, state policy against policy. Let us go to the rural areas and proclaim the policy which the United Party advocates for the farmers and compare it to the policy of the National Party. The United Party does not itself—and that is their problem—suggest a solution. They try to create an impression by means of newspaper clippings and similar triviliaties. As far as that is concerned, I want to take the hon. member for Albany as an example. He has never made a study of the mealie industry; neither has the hon. member for Newton Park. They know nothing about that industry and consequently their statements, from start to finish, are incorrect. We try to give them all the information we possibly can. It would be a privilege for us to discuss and to argue out these matters with the Opposition, but only after a thorough study, so that we can deal with the matter on merit. In just this way the hon. member for Albany suggests that the most important task of a member of Parliament is to make a speech and then proclaim through the Press that one has the interests of one’s voters at heart. The work of a member of Parliament entails much more than merely making a speech in this House. His work lies behind the scenes, to negotiate there and to carry out a task there. I am not criticizing my Government here, because I have no reason to do so. I have negotiated with the Government and have, as far as possible, succeeded, and every matter has been dealt with according to its merits behind the scenes where we held our discussions. Those doors will always remain open to them. But that attitude signifies to the Opposition publicity and the opportunity of expressing criticism. They can express that criticism, but we just want to ask them to base it on a firm foundation. Up to now that foundation has been non-existent.

We are returning home after one of the shortest Sessions but one in which we have done very successful work. I think the Prime Minister in particular is deserving of our special thanks. He has nine months in that capacity behind him. He has distinguished himself in these nine months, in which major international problems cropped up, as one of the greatest diplomats this country has ever had. What is more he had to deal with major international difficulties where the United Nations revealed itself time and again and to an ever-increasing extent as a body which is working for world government. Its voting strength is preponderantly in the hands of the non-white states. We had nothing to do with what happened in the Middle East, but we can be grateful to the Almighty because he causes something to happen in the world, each time our gravest problems crop up, which we cannot do much about but which has far-reaching consequences for us. In addition I say that the Prime Minister has during these nine months revealed himself as a great diplomat. I am referring only to two cases in particular. When the Franklin D. Roosevelt touched on here, the American Government was placed in an uncomfortable position. I am referring in the second place to the United Nations Commission on South-West Africa and Ovamboland. I repeat that we owe the hon. the Prime Minister a good deal of thanks. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not a farmer, and I do not propose to follow the hon. member in his excursion as to what has happened to the mealie price. But the hon. member did generalize a lot about what the United Party has done about the schools that it has closed … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I have accidentally knocked over a glass of water and now hon. members laugh and say: “Ek het nat geword”, but unfortunately that is only as far as my suit is concerned. But perhaps this is a sign that I should not follow the hon. member for Christiana any further.

So, I wish rather to direct the attention of the House to the future of South Africa so far as its researches, education and, especially, the braindrain is concerned.

We, Sir, are on the verge of a new era. The world is on the verge of a new era. And we have to be part of that world. We have to be qualified to take part in that world which is upon us. If we do not go into the 1970’s properly equipped to deal with those educational and scientific matters in order to keep abreast of scientific developments, then we are not going to be the country which our potential expects and which we expect from our country. Let us take one of the media of education as an example. A lot of strange things were said about television. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs referred to it as simply a small house bioscope through the medium of which one is able to present bioscope programmes in people’s homes, or a powerful force to determine the way of life and the social pattern of a country. It is simply that according to the hon. the Minister. Let us make no mistake about this. All this nonsense that has been spoken about television about the undermining of one’s morals, etc. … [Interjections.] Let the hon. gentlemen over there remember one thing and particularly also the hon. member for Koedoespoort who makes the noise here.

You should not quote only one sentence.

That was just one sentence and there are many similar attitudes. New, let me tell the hon. member for Koedoespoort that the question of television in South Africa is dependent on two Acts, namely the Radio Act and the Broadcasting Act. No one may introduce television except through the aegis of the Government. One of the objects of the South African Broadcasting Corporation is to produce television services. And if we get television it is going to be directed by the S.A.B.C. because the law says so. All this nonsense about the deprivation of our morals is not the real reason for it. I want especially to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister of Planning and the hon. the Minister of Education to the plea which my hon. Leader made for closed circuit television for teaching. Do you realize, as my hon. Leader has pointed out, what a tremendous shortage we have in South Africa of qualified mathematics teachers? The qualifications of some of the mathematics teachers are so bad that one wonders where they were in fact taught mathematics of the standard that is taught to-day. Here is the perfect machine for doing just that in view of the great shortage that we have. Here is closed circuit television for teaching modern mathematics. You realize of course that when one teaches modern mathematics to-day, one has to teach the parents as well. The parents have to go to school and hon. gentlemen who have children who are doing modern mathematics will appreciate that they have to learn it themselves so that they could help the children with their homework. Leading educationists in the United States and Great Britain believe that closed circuit television is going to become an integral part of every school and of all education programmes. And that is the position in countries like that where they spend an enormous amount of money on research, projects and the training of teachers. The generosity of the state and of private institutions towards education is such that they are able to provide the teachers. The point is that it is not instead of a teacher, but that it is a necessary ancillary to the teacher. We have to deal with the problem of our own platteland and the areas which are being depopulated, which was dealt with by the hon. member for Christiana. You will not get many of your teachers to go there. You will not get across to these people the sort of education that they should have in the modern technological world in which we live. The result is that without these media we are falling behind. We are falling behind and we are at a disadvantage compared with the rest of the world. We are falling behind in the sciences particularly. This is not good enough. Why should we fall behind and why should we put up with this? Why should the children of South Africa be denied not only these facilities but also the opportunity of having the education that they must have to keep up in this world, not just the instrument, not just television, but denied in the end the opportunity of doing so. Because if they cannot do it in Great Britain and America without using the medium of television in closed circuit, then we are not going to be able to do so in this country.

One of the other things that should disturb every hon. gentleman is the question of the braindrain that is taking place. We invest in extensive education for our young men and women. And then we lose the best scientific brains that we have. And I think there are two reasons for it. The first is that there are not sufficient teachers and not sufficient knowledge for graduate students to benefit from remaining in South Africa. That is the position that we have to-day. There is not sufficient knowledge for them to benefit by remaining. If they wish to increase their knowledge they have to go out of this country. I lay this firmly at the door of the Government. And I shall develop this theme. The second is that the salaries, in the academic field particularly, are not high enough. The salaries in the academic field and particularly at the universities where all the research should be taking place has been pegged by this Government. And as long as that is done you cannot get the best men. Not only that, but one finds that these facilities for research purposes are also inadequate. Some of these facilities are hopelessly inadequate. It is quite true that the salaries offered in South Africa in the industrial field are not as high as they are in Great Britain and America for example. We have lost lots of our people in the industrial field. I want to turn the attention just to the question of the research by universities. And let me say that the place for research is at the university. As my hon. Leader said when he moved his amendment to this debate, the place for this development is the universities, and we must, as the Leader of the Opposition said, restore the universities as centres of learning and research. They should not be places, as my hon. Leader indicated, where people merely learn something and then write examinations about it.

We must spend more.

Of course we must spend more. We must spend more on this which is the best investment that there is. These are the proper places for research. The atmosphere of the university is right. It is the Droner place for research. It has the necessary independence. It has the necessary spirit and feeling of independence of mind and thought. It is the place where this research which is necessary can properly take place. This is the key to planning in the 70’s. The key to planning in the 70’s is research. And there are many fields. There is the field of marine biological research. It is terribly important. And there are two places where this is done in an institution such as we have in Durban and Sea Point. Research at the latter centre is undertaken by the Director of Sea Fisheries. We have in Durban this institution namely the Oceanographic Research Institute, the Centenary Aquarium and the Association for Marine Biological Research. This is run by and was founded by public funds, by public subscription. The Durban City Council makes its contribution. It gives the land at a nominal rental and the C.S.T.R. also makes a large contribution towards the work. Here was the ideal laboratory for such research, associated as it was with the Natal University and with the C.S.T.R. and drawing its funds from all over. This Institute was fortunate enough to get a scientist of the class of Dr. David Davies, who was unfortunately killed, and then another Director was appointed after a search throughout the world, Dr. John Morgans. Here we have the opposite of the brain drain. This man was a South African who left this country because facilities for this research were not there. Then this job became available and he was found and was brought here, and he was employed as a director of this Institute. As such he was regarded as a professor at the University. I want to stress that he was employed as a scientist. He came from New Zealand, and after he had been here for six months he was sent to America. He went there on behalf of the Institute, backed by other societies. He came back, and the day after he arrived back he was informed by this Council that he had to go, and the impression one gained was that he had done something wrong. You do not do this to a scientist; you do not just tell a scientist that he must now go. So he inquired. He told them that this sort of thing was not done, unless one had done something illegal or something immoral, but he was told that it was not that; they just did not want him any longer. Well, in law they had the power to do so, but why was it done? I want to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that this was properly done. Here is a scientist who is discharged by a bunch of laymen who have control of an organization which is supported by money which we vote in this House. One would like to know why this has happened and whether the Minister is satisfied that in fact this was properly done. The question is not what happened in this Association. I do not want to deal with that. A letter has, I understand, been written to the Attorney-General, and so obviously I cannot deal with it. In any event, the Association’s affairs are matters for members of the Association. But we vote money for this institution and this is a terribly important institution. It does shark research, a matter of vital importance to Natal and to our tourist industry. This is an example of what is happening. You cannot in this way intimidate university staff doing research. They must be the people who determine what research projects are tackled. That is why I say that these scientists, these university men, should be encouraged to do their research at a university on projects in which the interest of the State should be merely to give money and to make suggestions as to the direction in which it wants the research to go.

This is the second time this sort of thing has happened. It happened in Port Elizabeth also some time ago, and all the members of the University were up in arms about it. They are all up in arms about it again. The Zoological Society has voiced its protest. This does not help us to keep scientists in this country. If a scientist, employed as a scientist, can be dismissed from his job without there being some proper control, we will not get anyone else to come here and to take a job like this again, unless he knows that he will be treated properly as a scientist. It certainly does not encourage others to come here, but it certainly encourages people who are here to go elsewhere.

My hon. Leader has said that what this country needs is proper and realistic planning, and research is the key to that planning. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Planning, who has just taken over this portfolio, will see to it that the research is done through the universities in the proper way wherever possible. The Government should endow chairs at the universities for these research projects, especially in the field of water, the most important of our resources. The Government should endow chairs and leave it to the universities to do the necessary research. That is the atmosphere and the place in which this research can properly be done. We have to keep our brains. Unless we keep the brains we have and build on that basis, there will be no hope for us in the 1970s. If we wish to keep the brains and if we want to progress along the technological path which we will have to follow, we will have to provide more facilities and a lot more money, and with it we have to encourage the independence of these great institutions, our universities, to do that research in the interests of science, and to do it with money and facilities which we provide them with. We must encourage them to get on with the job.

The hon. member began with a plea in regard to education, which he also associated with television. I do not intend following the hon. member along those lines. I would just like to draw his attention to the fact that in this very Session legislation has been passed which is going to cause the educational pattern in South Africa to fit in better with the requirements of our country. In this Budget more provision was made for educational facilities at a university level than ever before, and during the last two years two new universities have been established through legislation. But at the same time I want to show the hon. member the other side of the picture, namely that the argument with which his side of the House has been concerned since the beginning of this Session was that the Government has been combating inflation in the wrong way by not cutting down on its own expenditure, and this has caused them to fall into the trap set by their own words time after time, because here they have emphatically been advocating increased expenditure.

On this occasion I should like to point out that, judging from this debate, and particularly the contributions made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition has displayed its inability to form the alternative Government of the country. I am saying that because the further we progress the more contradictory statements in regard to policy and practical matters such as the handling of our financial affairs are made. It does not need a person with very good eyesight and other perceptive faculties to realize that there are no such things in the country as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated in his amendment, namely inadequate measures to promote the security, prosperity and happiness of the population, because the truth of the matter is that there is racial peace in our country. Just compare our position in the field of racial peace with what is happening at the moment in America. There is not only racial peace here, there is also an increasing acceptance, by the non-White group as well, of the Government’s policy of separate development. There is, in contrast to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition intimated in his amendment, domestic security in South Africa. There have been a few incidents involving terrorists within our borders, but the actions on the part of the Government through the agency of our Police, and thanks to legislation previously passed, have been so efficient that we may live in peace and quiet. In spite of what the hon. Leader insinuated in his amendment there is international stability for South Africa to-day and South Africa is at present no weaker as far as security in the world at large is concerned as any other country. We have made such good progress in this field that we have witnessed the spectacle of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition supporting step for step and piece by piece the sensible policy of the Government in respect of foreign relations. The hon. the Leader made mention of that fact here when he made an appeal to the Prime Minister to take the lead in trying to reform the United Nations, but what he was actually doing was simply to echo what the Prime Minister had already said the previous week-end. In his motivation the hon. Leader of the Opposition also mentioned the occasion on which the late Dr. Malan had taken the lead at a Commonwealth leaders’ conference by creating the pattern whereby India could become a republic and still remain a member of the Commonwealth. It was with satisfaction that he mentioned that matter. One need not have a very long memory to recall the debate which took place in this House after Dr. Malan’s return from London.

You were still a baby then.

No, I was here in the Press Gallery and I heard that debate, and the then Leader of the Opposition moved a motion in which he intimated that it was impossible in practice for a country to become a republic and still remain a member of the Commonwealth. But step for step, many years later, the members of the Opposition are realizing the good sense and good judgment of this Government. There are also signs that our point of view in regard to the maintenance of peace amongst the races in South Africa is gaining ground in the international sphere. We have had a great many successes during the past year, not because this Government knuckled down to the onslaughts which were made against it, but because it complied with requirements made of it, because it persisted and adhered to its standpoint, because it believed that its point of view was both correct and just. That is why good neighbourliness is developing with our adjoining black states who have obtained their independence. There has been, in spite of what the Leader of the Opposition implied in his amendment, an economic growth in South Africa which has been unprecedented in our history, and I almost want to say unprecedented in the world. There are today good prospects for every South African who is not too lazy to work. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has no right to suggest that there is no welfare or prospects for the population of South Africa. If the hon. Leader wants to imply that, should he not bow his head in shame when a publication which appeared in America and which was writing on the prospect in South Africa had the following to say in regard to the prosperity of South Africa? it stated—

Then the hon. Leader of the Opposition states that there is no security or prosperity in the country—

With whom is this comparison being made?

It is being made with other states in Africa, and there are many of them, but the person who wrote this is not so blind as that hon. member who cannot appreciate to what extent we have had prosperity and progress.

I also want to mention that under this Government a military strength has been built up and a spirit of unity has grown in our Defence Force, and that there is a spirit of unanimity in the Defence Force such as there has never been before.

Now you are talking nonsense.

The hon. member was a soldier and surely he is very well aware of what conditions in our Defence Force were like. Must I elaborate now on this matter and remind the hon. member of the traditions of a foreign power to which he willingly subjected himself but which are no longer present in our Defence Force? Must I remind him of the resentment and discord which existed in our Defence Force precisely as a result of that?

Not within the Defence Force.

Yes, within the Defence Force. Sir, the success of a Defence Force depends upon the degree in which the population of a country supports and accepts it. The hon. member was himself in the Defence Force. Is he a Rip van Winkle that he does not realize that the population of South Africa was divided over the image which the Defence Force created in the past? But I do not want to dwell on that, I want to proceed. I want to say that there is a growing understanding within South Africa between the two sectors of our population. True national unity is developing. The hon. member for Yeoville may pull ugly faces if he wants to, it will not help him.

I am not listening to you.

Sir, you can ask anybody outside this House, and he will confirm what I have just said. National unity is developing, in spite of what the hon. members of the Opposition may allege here.

Without the help of the Government.

No, precisely as a result of the climate which the Government is creating, a government which is according equal rights to both language groups in the country as a basis, and which is honouring and implementing those rights all the time; that is why national unity is growing. National unity is developing because the realization has penetrated to every member of the population that the wild stories with which the hon. member and other hon. members of the Opposition have for so long been stampeding the people are unfounded.

In spite of these proofs of another side to the picture which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned we are engaged in a struggle in this country, namely the struggle against the problem of inflation. But when we speak of inflation then I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Queenstown said, i.e. that inflation is only one aspect of our economic situation. The growth which has taken place, is so much more important and so much more worthy of emphasis. Sir, hon. members of the Opposition have probably also had experience of depressions. A simple farmer recently said: “I have known depression and even if there are a great number of disadvantages attaching to a state of inflation I still prefer it to a state of depression.” This Budget which the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced this year and which we are now going to finalize by means of legislation contains in my opinion a very effective weapon against inflation, and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on his attempt to counter inflation successfully, precisely because he has deliberately made straight for the greatest source of inflation. I am not saying this in a derogatory fashion, but it is a fact that the greatest creators of inflation, are our major companies and that is why I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister in having the courage to tackle the evil at its source. Sir, yesterday we learnt from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here that the Government had not yet done enough to curb its own expenditure. We have repeatedly asked hon. members of the Opposition to mention the spheres in which it will be possible to cut down further. [Laughter.] The hon. member is laughing, but that is no reply. The hon. member must tell us where the Government can cut down. An Opposition member has in this House this afternoon pleaded for increased expenditure in three different fields. That only goes to show how they fall into the snares of their own propaganda. We heard the hon. Leader of the Opposition making the profound statement that all Government spending is unproductive. Mr. Speaker must we, as grown up people, still argue about that? Hon. members of the Opposition stand up in this House and make pleas for the expansion of the infrastructure in this country, the expansion of essential services without which our economy cannot grow, but then on the other hand they allege that the Government expenditure in that regard is unproductive. We heard the further profound statement that productivity in South Africa can only increase and improve if unrestricted use is made of non-Whites as labourers. I want to concede that if we were to act in accordance with purely economic laws then we would draw as many non-Whites as possible into the economy, but the Government of the day has the task of looking after other interests than merely those of economic laws. It may not become a slave to economic laws merely for the sake of prosperity alone. That is why the Government has the courage of its convictions to see to it that there is peace and quiet and order in the country as well. But I want to apply another test this afternoon which is to reverse the amendment moved here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and apply it to the Opposition itself, and to see how it would compare if the United Party were governing to-day. Mr. Speaker, I come to the first point, namely the racial peace which is prevailing in South Africa. Just before the United Party gave up the reins of government in 1948, the tension was such that the United Party Government was at loggerheads with the then advisory Coloured body.

You were the inciters.

The hon. member for North Rand must not think, if he invokes shocks from abroad on our country, that he will succeed in shocking me. The United Party Government was at loggerheads with the advisory Bantu body of that time. There were uprisings throughout the country. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, what a condition of racial tension there would have been in the country today if the United Party Government had remained in power and if they had continued with their policy of integration. I come now to the second point in respect of our domestic security, and I want to associate it with the federation ideas of the United Party. Initially they spoke of race federation but recently they have come forward with the idea of a federation on a racial and geographic basis. This policy of the United Party has been totally rejected by the population time and again, but under that policy they want to allow large numbers of non-Whites, not only to come to our White cities, but also to possess land, to acquire proprietary rights here. They also want to grant them political rights. Sir, if one puts this point to the voters of South Africa then they examine all the ideas which are circulating amongst hon. members of the Opposition. The hon. member for Yeoville and his Leader have on occasion spoken about a certain number of Bantu representatives in the Parliament who will ultimately be Bantu. Recently they have changed their attitude and have stated that the pressure has now relaxed, but in the meantime the hon. member for Karoo went to the Coloureds with a document in which he practically prescribed to them what he wanted to present as their ideas and in which he adopted this same attitude. In respect of the Coloureds they want to draw a distinction between the Coloureds of the northern provinces and those of Cape and Natal. They want to create two kinds of Coloured voters, and in any case they want to give the Coloureds the right to sit in this House. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what a chaotic situation in respect of relations politics it would have led to if the United Party had been in power to-day? The hon. Leader of the Opposition states that there is no danger that the Bantu representatives which he envisages will be black people because they will hold a referendum before proceeding to do anything like that. But I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville to-day, since his Leader is not here, whether they have yet given serious thought to this referendum story? A government holds a referendum if it wants to test the nation on a matter about which it feels strongly.

Where do you get that hypothesis from?

Any member who was present in this House a few years ago, or even sensible people who are not members of this House, realize that a Government is not going to organize a referendum in regards to a matter unless that Government itself is in favour of such a move.

What attitude are they going to adopt?

What attitude are they going to adopt? If the United Party is itself opposed to Bantu sitting in this House, why are they holding out the prospect of a referendum? Surely there is no need then for a referendum to be held. This referendum story proves to me how unthinkingly hon. members of the Opposition and their Leader act in regard to this matter.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, in respect of our international position the United Party alleges that there has been an improvement as a result of the pressure which they have been exerting on the Government, but do you still remember the days when the hon. member for Orange Grove, after we left the Commonwealth, said that if Sir De Villiers Graaff had been in London then we would still have been a member of the Commonwealth? Sir, in the economic field, in a time when we are experiencing inflation, which is an inevitable result of prosperity, how would the United Party have handled the situation? Just listen to all the contradictory proposals which have been made here from that side of the House in regard to how inflation should be combated. The one contradicts the other. I do not want to go into details, but I just want to point out that in a time where one is having to cut down on State expenditure, they are pleading for television, which will cost this country millions. They are prepared, at a stage when one must in fact offer the country only what is most essential, to offer a luxury, and not only television, but a State lottery and all those kinds of pleasant things—a live-well policy. [Interjections.] Yes, television is a luxury service, as the hon. member will know. Mr. Speaker, in respect of national unity, what would the position have been if that Party had still been governing the country, a party which did not in practice afford equal treatment to the two language groups? We know that story. One can see in the speech made by the hon. member for Wynberg here yesterday what the pattern of national unity under a United Party Government would have been. She leveled the accusation that Cabinet members had, up to 1960, when the referendum was held, often referred in speeches to dissenters and enemies of South Africa. What is wrong with that? Surely there are dissenters. Surely the hon. member for Yeoville and myself do not hold the same opinion on matters.

I hope not.

It is obvious that we do not hold the same opinions, but would it be spiteful or derogatory on my part to call the hon. member for Yeoville a dissenter? What would be wrong with my calling a person who sought the downfall of South Africa an enemy of South Africa? [Interjections.] I will not even call the hon. member for North Rand, who so much wants shocks from outside in South Africa, an enemy of South Africa; he need not be afraid that I will do that. I regret that the hon. member for Wynberg is not present here this afternoon. I told her that I was going to refer to her speech, but I know that she has been prevented by circumstances from being present here. I am quoting what she said—

I say that for a thing like that to be said in this House is disgraceful. It is disgraceful that a member of this House could make such an allegation here without substantiating it with a newspaper report. I know the character of the former State President. He was a hard fighter for his cause, but he would never have said that sort of thing which, according to the allegation of the hon. member for Wynberg, he is supposed to have said. I find it reprehensible that she should, in these circumstances, after his retirement as State President, come forward with this type of scaremongering in order to create dissension between Afrikaans and English-speaking people.

In conclusion I should like to refer to a Provincial Council member of the United Party who is travelling about the countryside establishing branches, of whom the English newspapers wrote last year that as a candidate of the United Party he had only tried to do good to people; that he was cooing like a dove. He has been travelling around making this kind of allegation which he made the other day at Calvinia [translation]—

There is an hon. member on the opposite side who is laughing. That proves on what level public debates are held by hon. members on the opposite side. My appeal to them is that they should join us in trying to keep the level of public debate in this fine country of ours as high as possible. My information is that the provincial council member in question has also, in meetings of that council, made statements of that ilk. I want to make an appeal to hon. members on the opposite side to keep those kind of people in check. They are people who are actively participating in the affairs of the United Party. My appeal to them is to join us in keeping public debate in our country on a high level. Let us deal one another hard blows. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to deal out and receive hard blows. But let us do it in a decent way. Then we will achieve that for which this Government is creating the right atmosphere—i.e. national unity, a unity which has nothing to do with party political unity, but which is as important for us in the phase in which we find ourselves.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch, who has just resumed his seat, obviously does not expect anybody to reply seriously to what he has said, because he scratched around rather like a chicken—he scratched here and he scratched there without having a good scratch anywhere at all. But let me disillusion him. He has no monopoly as far as national unity is concerned. I, for one, resent being preached at by hon. members like him who at every opportunity they get in this House preach national unity at us. Let the hon. member rather do some heart searching in the particular sphere in which he operates. Then, after he has done that, let him come and talk to me and my friends. Let him first see what contribution he and his friends are making to national unity and let him then compare it with the effort I and my friends are making towards the same end. When he has done that, let him come back and talk again. I am sure he will then speak in a rather different tone. He will not then level accusations at me.

But I want to deal with two particular aspects of our national life and our economy aspects where this Government has failed as much as, or even more than, in respect of the other aspects of our national life where this Government has also failed. I want to deal with the shipping industry in so far as our harbours and ship-building facilities are concerned. Let me, first of all, deal with the port of Durban, a port which handles more cargo than the other ports combined. In this connection I should like to address my remarks particularly to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and to the hon. the Minister of Planning. These two hon. Ministers shall have to realize they have to play a far bigger part in this field if we do not want to walk into greater difficulties than those we are experiencing now. They seem to have capitulated to the hon. the Minister of Transport to whom they have surrendered all their duties and rights. The hon. the Minister of Transport is running everything to do with shipping whether it concerns him or not. What is more, his colleagues seem to be afraid to question his rights to do all this. I think the time has arrived when those Ministers, who are responsible for planning, for commerce and industries and for our exports and imports, must assume the responsibilities which are theirs and face up to the facts of the situation as it is at the moment. In Durban and Cape Town—I want to talk about these two ports more than about the others—we are facing increasing delay to our ships. Shipping companies are building faster and more costly ships, but these ships are experiencing longer and longer delays. What is going to be the effect of this on the freight rates? I want to warn the hon. the Minister of Finance that these rates are being reconsidered at the moment. Shipping companies are reviewing freight rates at the moment in the light of these delays, delays of which they are now taking account as an integral part of their costs. The result is that these freight rates are going to be loaded if something is not done about it soon. We are boasting to the world that we can take all the traffic diverted from the Middle East and yet we cannot even cope with the day to day shipments of our imports and exports. So I should like to know what these hon. Ministers are doing to rectify the position as we find it to be to-day. Take Durban as an example. The hon. the Minister of Transport has promised industry that a second jetty at Salisbury Island will be continued the moment the first one is finished. That industry has accepted. But I want to question whether in fact that is so. I want to question this because the dredging contract for the second pier has been put off for two years. Are these hon. Ministers satisfied that we are going to be able to keep up with the demand that is going to be made on the port of Durban? I am worried about this because it seems to me as if the hon. the Minister of Transport is taking every opportunity to wriggle out of his obligations towards the shipping using the ports of this country. Therefore, I should like these two hon. Ministers to apply themselves to this matter, as should the hon. the Minister of Finance, because he too is vitally affected.

Let me now come to the shipbuilding industry. During the discussions on the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs, I questioned him on the R1 million provided as a subsidy for the shipbuilding industry. But the answers I managed to elicit were completely inadequate —as a matter of fact, he did not deal with the subject at all. Therefore I want to raise it once more, this time in a rather different light because I want to give some of the answers to these questions myself. First of all, let us review the situation. The Norval Commission directed the shipbuilding industry to Durban in the first place, as the hon. the Minister of Finance will know because he handled it at the time. The shipbuilding industry was directed to Durban with a recommendation that a consortium should be formed to handle the shipbuilding industry in South Africa. But this has not been done. Why not? I think I can answer that question for the hon. the Minister. They have not done it because the Government seems to be favouring only one company; so the other companies were loath to get involved and because they did not have the opportunity. But even if they had formed a consortium I believe they would have had to go in on the terms laid down by the new company, a company which the Government tended to favour. These are facts which have emerged from an investigation of the lack of progress in the shipbuilding industry in South Africa. Let us look at the facts relating to this particular company which have been pushed, and is now being publicized as being the shipbuilding company of South Africa. I do not believe it, because I believe some of the older companies can compete. I also believe there are other overseas companies who are interested, companies which could have put us on a much better footing than we are to-day with regard to shipbuilding. In any event, let us take what we have. Let us take Barends shipbuilding yard. I believe that by gearing the development of our shipbuilding industry to Barends yard—all indications are that this is what the Government has done—we have stifled the development of a shipbuilding industry in South Africa. It has been slowed down and we have lost many years of progress in developing our shipbuilding industry. What guarantees can the Government give that this company is going to succeed, that it can recoup I what has been ploughed into it? Let us take i the position at the moment: they started off with R5 million in the kitty and they are now raising a further R2 million, R1 million of which will pay off a loan while the other R1 million will go for working capital. Well, they have developed their slipway and R2.3 million is gone. The rest is in capital equipment, slipways and the like. But now they announce proudly that they can build ships up to 6,000 tons and shortly they will be able to build them up to 30,000 tons. But where are these orders to come from? What steps has this Government taken to ensure that the orders for these 30,000-ton ships will come forward? Have they, for instance, investigated the shipping market? What they have done is to issue a document to all people setting out the basis on which they are going to subsidize the shipbuilding industry—how they are going to give 35 per cent on certain aspects and certain types of ships; how they are going to finance them with interest on 80 per cent loans on the building of ships, and all that. But that does not bring the orders. It is true, this is one of the factors that is necessary. But what about all the other necessary factors? The Government to the best of my belief and knowledge has not yet supplied these factors. They must get on and do it because if we are going to establish a shipbuilding industry then every possible facet must be investigated. The dice must be loaded in favour of orders being placed here in South Africa. But at the moment they have only established a yard in Durban and have told shipbuilding interests that they must form a consortium. Now they are sitting back and waiting while nothing is happening. Small ships, yes—the South-West Africa Administration has given an order. The C.S.I.R. has ordered a research vessel and a few fishing vessels have been built. But that we have been doing for years. It is not, therefore, a sign of a new shipbuilding industry. All it is is a diversion from the other companies to a new company. But that is not the answer. It is not shipbuilding as we believe it should be. I should like to have some answers to my questions about Durban. The development is there; all the factors are there. The companies who are prepared to take part are sitting waiting for a lead from the Government. But the lead is just not forthcoming.

Let us now move to Cape Town where, according to the latest report, there has been the greatest increase of tonnage of cargo handled —an increase of 966,418 tons as compared with 624,000 for Durban and 423,000 for Port Elizabeth. So, Cape Town has experienced the largest increase of all the ports. In addition to that the war in the Middle East has highlighted the importance of Cape Town once more. You see, Sir, we have to have a crisis to start people thinking. One of the interesting facts about this is that for the first time local shipping interests have been given V.I.P. treatment and have actually been consulted about the steps to be taken to meet this crisis. They cannot remember that ever happening before. They believe it might have something to do with the Opposition’s insistence that the Government do something. Well, they might well be right. However, what are the shortcomings and what are these two Ministers going to do about the shortcomings of Cape Town harbour? Are they satisfied with what the hon. the Minister of Transport is going to do for their shipping industry in the way of the provision of further facilities? Are they satisfied that the new developments in Cape Town Harbour will be the answer to the questions they have in their minds? Are they going to supply the berths? A while ago the then hon. Minister of Planning made a statement about abandoning Reitvlei as a harbour. He said—

In other words, it was envisaged that there would be a large shipbuilding industry based on Rietvlei. The report states that the then Minister of Planning, Mr. Haak, said that plans for a commercial or tanker dock at Rietvlei had been abandoned because the water there was shallow. I want the hon. the Minister to remember this “because the water was shallow”. The Minister said that the Railways and Harbours had decided to abandon Rietvlei and to concentrate on largescale extensions to Table Bay harbour at Woodstock instead. I should like the hon. the Minister to remember the word “Woodstock” because these facts are wrong. No harbour is going to be built at Woodstock. In reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister of Transport he only referred me back to his Hansard statement. However, the newspaper report said that a R40 million scheme for the Woodstock beach front had been abandoned. Of course it was. But yet the hon. the Minister of Planning at the time said this was where the harbour was going to go.

His facts were all wrong. He said the water in Rietvlei was too shallow. Of course, you can get the depth of water you need for a harbour. You might not be able to service the huge tankers of } million and i million tons when they are loaded. But you can do everything else. You can provide the berthing. What I want to know is this: Are these two Ministers satisfied with the scheme that is going to be provided to accommodate the ships and shipping for which they are responsible here in Cape Town? Are they going to be satisfied that after some six years have passed and R30 million have been spent, they are going to have six or seven berths, according to the Minister of Transport? They talk about six years’ time. Well, the first one will not be available for six years. A pier has still to be built of 12,000 feet across the harbour mouth coming ashore around Salt River, which is going to cost some R30 million. Are they satisfied with this? Is this Minister satisfied with the expenditure of that money to provide an extra six berths when Rietvlei can provide 21, when Rietvlei can provide for the shipbuilding industry that South Africa so needs? Surely to goodness the importance of the Cape at this time has made it more important than ever that facilities should be provided for the servicing, the repairing and the surveying or ships. This is going to be an essential part of the new harbour because the number of ships diverted here will be high. If the hon. Minister cares to look in one of the recent publications he will get the figures of the number of ships diverted round here during the last Suez crisis. That is when the last discussions took place about doing something—that is the event that spurred them on. Now we have the position over again. I sincerely hope that we will have longer rowells on our spurs this time and that we might dig them in a little further and get something done. For the point is that to the best of my knowledge and belief the investigations done by the C.S.I.R. into the harbour at Rietvlei and its possibilities showed the position there to be perfectly satisfactory. There is 60 feet of water in that harbour. There is a little rock at the entrance which can be blasted away. When that has been done and the channel deepened we will have 1,200 acres of harbour water and harbour area, plus another 2,000 acres for the ancillary plant that goes with the servicing of these ships and the handling of the cargoes. I want to know from the Ministers whether they have consulted with people who know about these things? By whom were they advised? Have they consulted with Mr. Moffat? He is the authority whom the Minister of Transport quotes all the time on Durban harbour. He is reputed to be the finest authority in the country, and he might well be. I wonder what he thinks about Rietvlei. I am prepared to have a little bet with this Minister that Mr. Moffat favours Rietvlei instead of the half-baked scheme which is going to be embarked upon here in Cape Town harbour. All that is going to happen for shipping here in Cape Town harbour is this: We are going to double the troubles that we have with the present basin. That is what is going to happen. We are going to enclose the berths for handling of tankers and the bulk oil products in the middle of a commercial harbour. It has just been completed, and now it is going to be rubbed out by being put in the middle of a commercial harbour against all the practice throughout the world of handling oil cargoes. This is but one of the features.

Range is another feature. Range which we saw last week chase a big fishmeal factory ship out to sea because she broke every mooring rope that she had. She went and anchored at Robben Island. It sank a Fisheries research vessel in the harbour during the past week. We are going to have that, but in greater measure, in the new extensions here.

Do the Ministers want to provide facilities like that for handling our cargoes? No provision at all is made with that addition for the shipbuilding industry, for the surveys of tankers which will only call at ports such as the Cape in their passages from the Middle East to South America and the countries of Europe. This is one of the only places in the world where they will pass and call in. What a wonderful opportunity to bring the trade which they bring to a port such as Cape Town. I believe something must be done about it and I believe these hon. the Ministers are asleep. They must not throw away the rights and the duties they have and let the Minister for Transport alone determine what he is going to do with the harbours. His job is to work the harbours, not to plan them. Surely the hon. the Minister of Planning is supposed to plan where we are to have them, and he has to see that they are established in places that will serve the industries that they are designed to serve. Is that not his job? If it is his job, I want him to get on with it, I want him to make sure that the harbours are not only established at the right places but serve the industries they are designed to serve.

Let me quote a couple of particulars of these two schemes here which are designed to serve the shipping of the Cape. The proposed extensions to the present basin will entail 12,000 feet of protective work. That is not berthing space, it is just a protective wall to protect the ships from the storms and the range, and to make the harbour at least reasonably safe. It is going to take six years before the first berth is provided. Can they wait that long? Can ships and shipping wait that long? It is going to cost R30 million for the wall. After that, if we are lucky, we will have one berth provided, and the others will later be added to that. It is going to destroy the existing tanker facilities. I do not know what other provision, if any, has been made, because I am quite sure we cannot service ships within this harbour. We will have just the same range problems as we have in the existing harbour.

As I have said, Rietvlei will give us all the facilities we want, and I want to know what the Ministers are doing about it.

Then I want to touch briefly on another aspect. A thing called “containerization” is with us, and that might well be a part of the solution of the problems here in Cape Town. What investigations have been done for the provision of container berths in this harbour? We have heard from the Minister of Transport that he is going to make certain provisions at Salisbury Island in Durban. We are glad to have it in Durban, very glad indeed, but that does not do much good here in Cape Town. If the Ministers will catch up on their reading and see what progress has been made and what types of ships have been built to deal with the question of containerization, they will be surprised. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that containerization is designed to effect a speedier turn-round of these expensive ships which bring our cargoes. But this Government must co-operate. It is not good enough to see 18 ships standing in the roadstead. The figures we get of the number of ships awaiting berths of course do not reflect the number of ships that are there, because once a ship has transferred cargo outside of this port it is no longer considered to be awaiting a berth. So many ships stay outside that really want berths. That is money which is lost to the Administration because they do not pay wharfage and they do not pay port charges. They should pay those charges, therefore the port must be designed to accommodate them all.

These are things concerning which we want to know what provision has been made for this new type of cargo handling. What provisions are being made to speed the turn-around of ships and save South Africa millions of rand a year in what is, on the Railways, called demurrage? Demurrage on ships is far more costly than demurrage on railways. I want this Minister to have something done about this to challenge the hon. the Minister of Planning, for example, to bring one harbour planner who agrees with the plan that is going to be implemented here in Cape Town harbour. I should like him to bring one harbour engineer concerned with the development of Cape Town harbour who agrees with the suggested plan. If he may find the odd one who for some reason or other believes that it should be done as it is proposed by the Government, well, I say that is all he will find, because everybody who understands the position here, I am reliably informed, is very much against the present scheme. They all say that the development must go to Rietvlei immediately. Unless a start is made I do not know how we are ever going to cope. We will never catch up, let alone cope with future demands and requirements. The Cape is important; it is important as Durban is important. There is no sense in having fast ships bring out cargo quicker, when they have to lay outside our ports, whether it be Durban or Cape Town or any other port, for days on end awaiting a working berth. It is the job and the duty of these Ministers now to do something about it, and to do it quickly, so that South Africa can remain a country whose ports can handle the necessary imports and exports.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the speech made by the hon. member in so far as the technical analysis and the technical details and the technical grounds were concerned on which he made his representations to the hon. the Minister. I think the Minister will be quite capable of and equipped for replying duly to those representations. However, there is a second aspect of his speech with regard to which I have some misgivings. In the course of my speech those misgivings will become clear.

The Session is drawing to a close. I think it is our duty—not only mine, but that of all of us in this House—to make a survey and to draw up a balance sheet, in the light of what has happened during the past session, of what has actually happened here.

One fact is as plain as a pikestaff, and that is that the National Party has not changed at all. On the other hand the United Party is undergoing a complete metamorphosis. This is a basic feature of what has crystallized out during this Session. With reference to our history I am now going to demonstrate that the National Party has not undergone a single change in its image to the outside—and I mean outside this House—and in its image to the outside world. This outcry about the outward movement in which the National Party is engaged at present is indeed a hollow cry which has no meaning and no significance.

Before me I have Piet Retief’s manifest. I do not want to mention all the items contained in it. I just want to read three items. Item 5 of the manifest reads as follows (translation)—

If one analyzes the use of this word “freedom” by Piet Retief, its meaning is directed to the inside—it means the freedom of the nation itself—and it also has a meaning to the outside in the sense that it grants others their freedom.

Item 6 reads as follows—

Item 8—

These were the words of Piet Retief, and the words used by that great man when he left the Colony and drew up his manifest as a document for succeeding generations, we hear day by day from the lips of our present-day leaders, as in the past number of years. We want to live in peace. We want to proceed peacefully. We grant everybody a right of existence. We grant everybody what we grant ourselves, namely freedom. Freedom to the inside and freedom to the outside. This manifest of Piet Retief’s was a tract or a contract. The Zulu would stay north of the Tugela and the Trekkers south of the Tugela. And this manifest, together with the development and the unfolding of subsequent events, was in fact the basis of negotiations between Piet Retief and the Zulu. It implied demarcated territories and respect for reciprocal treaties with the Zulu. I want to mention further examples from our history. Potgieter concluded an agreement with Makwana, the Bataung chief. He then bought a tract of land from Makwana between the Vet River and the Vaal River. He paid him 49 head of cattle and he promised him protection. And in these negotiations there was no theft of land on the part of the Trekkers. It was an honest, well-intended and equitable agreement between Potgieter and Makwana. On 30th July, 1887, President Paul Kruger concluded a treaty of perpetual peace and goodwill with Lobengula, who was seated in Bulawayo. In 1888 Kruger confirmed this treaty by sending Piet Grobler to Bulawayo as a plenipotentiary, Piet Grobler went to Bulawayo in June, 1888. That was the same month as the present one, 79 years ago. He was the first white plenipotentiary appointed by the old Transvaal Republic and had his seat in a state to the north of our borders. The name of that person was Piet Grobler. Piet Grobler subsequently returned and on his way he was murdered by another Bantu tribe. Because that Bantu tribe was envious of the fact that Kruger had concluded a treaty with its enemy, Lobengula, it murdered Piet Grobler from jealousy and envy. That is history. Now, what do these three things mean? These three things have this inherent significance, namely that the old Transvaal Republic, the Trekkers and the first Voortrekkers, one after another in historical sequence, arranged their foreign relations and their relations with black states as independent, recognized states through treaties and agreements and that they even appointed a plenipotentiary in the person of Piet Grobler. In other words, here the original and initial inter-state relations politics was laid down by the Trekkers. This process was interrupted by the imperial era. The National Party is therefore, in its political concepts and in its political policy, as regards its relationship with other states to the north of our borders and as regards the black states, by no means a newcomer on the scene. The National Party policy is merely the continuation of what existed before the colonial power in the name of Britain came and disturbed the peace in the process. And for that reason the National Party is not a new exponent of inter-state relations. We have always said, in and outside this House, that the day would come when the climate, the spirit and the atmosphere would be right and the circumstances appropriate and feasible to enable us to resume our relations with our neighbouring states on the same basis as before the colonial period. I am consequently justified in saying that we are not engaged in a new outward movement. The National Party is not engaged in a new manifestation of a novel political concept. The National Party is merely engaged in the continuation of what is inherent in the Afrikaner, and in accordance with which it acted as a leader in the political field in the past and will still have to act in future. The National Party has merely reverted to a period which existed previously. For that reason I do not like the United Party in the form in which it has manifested itself during this Session; namely this attempt to follow in the shade of the National Party. I think that if there is one outstanding feature of this Session, it is the attempt of the United Party to follow in the shade of the National Party like a child behind its mother. I shall later emphasize this aspect even further. This sycophancy of the United Party, this romance they are trying to form with the National Party through their Press, this apparent and obvious flirtation, makes one sick and tired. I reject this flirtation and I want absolutely nothing of that romance. If it were to result in an engagement or a marriage, it would be an unholy alliance. Mr. Speaker, I may just read to you what the Minister of External Affairs said in 1959 in respect of this so-called new outward movement. And then the hon. member for Constantia agreed with us. Minister Louw said the following—

Mr. Speaker, I may read here what was said by several of us while we were still on these backbenches, during those times when this matter was under discussion. We pointed out —it may be read in Hansard—that under the conditions prevailing at that time, when these black states were in the grip of confusion and immaturity, we could not clearly manifest, exploit and develop our political concepts in respect of interstate relations with those emergent neighbouring states as we would have liked to. The National Party was and also is the only Party which reverted to the past, which developed nothing new, but which retained what was basically correct and basically wise. The National Party was the first party to come to grips with colonialism in Africa. I may tell you to-day that history proves that Afrikaner nationalism was the first nationalism to awake on the continent of Africa. The Egyptians also experienced a national awakening, but the awakening of their national sense started only in 1888. The National Party may teach the black states of Africa a lesson today. That lesson is how to fight colonialism, how to sustain the striving for independence, and in that striving, how to sustain continuity without lapsing into chaos or making a farce of law and order. That is a feature of the National Party. In speaking of the National Party, I am referring to a Party which is saturated and interwoven with something which has lived in the soul of the Afrikaner through all the years since the founding of our nation. The National saw the final disintegration of colonialism in the declaration of sovereign independence and the stabilization of our Republic. I think this is due to the National Party, namely that it is and was the first party and the only white party in the world to take politically unemancipated nations which had been subject to colonial pressure for years and to be leading them to political emancipation; a party which did so without surrendering its initiative. I think this is an achievement which is a world record. Here the National Party is in the process of emancipating the Bantu politically, and it is not surrendering the initiative for one moment. It is leading. The leadership provided by the National Party, as other speakers said here yesterday, is being accepted to an ever-increasing extent because the influence of the party which advocated the old colonial structures is waning more and more in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. In the process of emancipation in which the National Party is engaged and in which it has the initiative in hand, it differs substantially from all colonial powers which have operated in Africa throughout its history. I want to tell the black states the following to-day: If they point a finger at colonial powers against whom they entertained grievances and hatred, they should not point it at South Africa. Because South Africa’s emancipation is tied up with and is founded in what was inherent in Piet Retief’s manifest, on what was inherent in the aims of Paul Kruger when he sent Piet Grobler to Bulawayo, namely peace and friendship. We have no colonial aims. We entertain no economic imperialistic aims or exploitation. But we appreciate that one cannot concentrate political powers in the hands of immature people without enabling them economically to share and exploit the fruits of that political gain of power. For that reason I want to say that this romance which the United Party and its Press is starting with the National Party, and with which they are conditioning the public opinion, to the effect that the United Party is not such a harmful party and that it may serve as an alternative Government at any time, I reject totally. There is no historical vision in the United Party. The history of a nation is merely a transition from one condition to another, a steady development. But there are two constant historical factors the United Party has never appreciated, and throughout the 13 years I have been in this House that has been the outstanding feature of that party, which is now courting the National Party’s policy and which is trying to pose in our shade. The first constant historical factor they have failed to appreciate is a fundamental motive in the entire gripping drama of our South African politics and history. It is the continual progress towards national independence. But what is the image of that party, and what is their record in this respect? It is a sorry record. It shows a most unfavourable balance sheet. Such a balance sheet would have any man declared a bankrupt. Why? Because they have persistently ignored this basic motive in our history, or have failed to appreciate it, or have misjudged it, and have fought everything done in this House to put those basic principles into operation. For that reason reconciliation between my party and me and that party is unthinkable and could never take place.

The most dangerous aspect of that party is that in seeking national independence, not only for us as Whites but also for the Bantu, it wishes to include a power factor on the level of authority of the White. Essentially their policy of integration, no matter what mould they cast it in and how they phrase it, and no matter what garment they want to clothe it in, is the introduction of another power, the Bantu power, on the level of authority of the White; and here, where we have the Coloureds, whom we may regard as a second political power factor in this country, they want to hamper us through their policy of introducing a third power factor into our political scene. That is why we are directly at cross purposes and will in future always be directly in conflict. because we differ as East and West, and never the twain shall meet.

But they have also lost sight of or failed to appreciate a second constant historical factor, and that is that no nation on earth would ever make its interests subservient to those of another country. It is on this level that the United Party and the National Party have in the past never been able to meet each other.

There is the hon. member for North Rand. There they are, one after another. I recall how through the years they wanted to commit South Africa to foreign international relations. It was the “shock from outside”. It was glamourizing of the U.N.O., and in this Lobby it was said by them that it was a catastrophe when we left the Commonwealth. It was the rejection of our own, our language, our flag and our national anthem. We could never find each other on this level, which contains the second basic constant historical factor in the history of any nation, namely its striving never to be subservient or subject to anybody. What record is as black as that of the United Party? Indeed! I want to ask the United Party to take one message home with them after this Session. Our ways are irreconcilable. Our records testify to that. The United Party must go home and develop historical insight, because — and now I want to address myself to the Leader of the Opposition — a political party which cannot see history correctly could never take over the government of a country like South Africa. As a party with a sound historical sense the National Party has sustained its continuity of concept and of principle despite changes. No matter what changes may take place, the National Party will not surrender its principles in that process of continuity. That is the difference between us and that side, which throughout history is branded and marked as a bunch of progressive liberalists. [Interjections.] When the annexation of the Transvaal took place in 1877, Gladstone was the man who repudiated it, but what did he do afterwards, in 1880? Nothing. When the bunch of liberalists in England screamed to high heavens when the Boer Republics were conquered in 1902 and said that it was the greatest injustice ever committed, they did not raise a finger for its reparation. There are the progressive liberalists over there, and no matter what garb they assume, I shall not believe them and I shall not accept them, and no matter what flirtation they launch. I want none of their courting. The National Party stands unblemished in its striving and its development which is proved irrefutably by historical facts. How beautifully the National Party illustrates the historical fact that something which is vital can sustain the continuity of the past without surrendering principles. If we recall the past, we see that we have built on political concepts which were viable in the past, and after we had removed the obstacles and kept the initiative in our hands, we reverted to the past in confidence. This new dispensation, as they call it, of making contact with our neighbouring states on the level of trade and diplomacy, is inherently interwoven in the history of South Africa. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down need have no fears about our ever wanting to accept his political philosophy. I should like to say to him that, interesting as it was to listen to his historical tour, we of the United Party are a party of to-day and of the future. We are not prepared to join the hon. member in delving back into history, seeking the bitterness which divides us. [Interjections.] We look to the future, a future which we wish to build, and we reject out of hand the philosophy of that hon. member which draws out of the past those things which divide and tries to apply them to the politics of to-day. Then that hon. member has the never to talk of contributions to the history of the growth of our nation and to say that to this party, whose founder and whose first leader was the father of this country and this nation of ours at the time of Union … [Interjections.] I say that if you want to look at the history, it was this party and its forerunner which was responsible for the creation of the South African nation. That is the nation to which we belong and for which we work, and no other nation. The South African nation was born in 1910 when the people of South Africa came together to create a country and to found a nation. [Interjections.] Obviously, by the rejection of that statement that the South African nation was born in 1910— and the Deputy Minister apparently rejects that statement that our nation was born in 1910 …

Long before that.

To the Nationalist Party the South African nation is not the nation which came together in solemn compact to create the one country of South Africa. To them the South African nation is the sectionalism of the past before it was sullied and dirtied in their eyes by the coming together of the other sections to form the South African nation. We believe in a South African nation built out of the differences of the past and founded at the coming of Union. So that hon. member need have no worry that we want to join him in going back … [Interjections.] He talks of an unholy alliance. Can he talk of his party and some of the strange alliances it has had? I want to quote what a Nationalist said—

And what did they do with the writer of that letter? They made him a Nationalist Senator. Talk of unholy alliances! Then that hon. member spoke about Piet Retief. Piet Retief would turn in his grave if he knew what this Government is doing to dishonour the blood which was shed in bringing civilization to this country. The Trekkers who gave their lives to bring White control and leadership and a spirit of Christianity and civilization into the darkness of the interior of Africa, would turn in their graves if they knew what this Government was doing to deny everything for which they sacrificed and gave their lives. And then that hon. member, Sir, talks of Piet Retief and the blood he shed. He talks of the agreements they made, but he stops there. He did not talk of the breaking of those agreements. He did not talk about the bloodshed that followed; he did not talk of the bitterness and the tragedy which followed because agreements were made which just did not work. He wants South Africa to go back and seek its future in that policy of tragedy and murder and war. He accused the United Party of following the British system. Sir, what about the Kaffir Wars? Was that not the effect of partition, of trying to draw a line? He talks of Piet Retief but he remained silent about the murder and what followed. Sir, this Government now comes with the policy of handing over South Africa to independent Black States, and that hon. member brags that they are following the policy of the past.

Sir, I want to return to some things which were said by the hon. member for Stellenbosch who attacked the United Party and made statements about national unity, but before doing so I want to return to a statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this debate. He repeated the challenge to us to name one single incident where there had been any language discrimination in favour of one or other language in Government Departments. I accept his invitation. Let me quote from a signed instruction from the Department of the Minister of Finance to members of his Department; this instruction refers to correspondence—

Sir, here we have an instruction that in that Department all inter-departmental correspondence shall be in one language.

Why not?

Sir, I want that interjection on record. Hon. members opposite say “why not?” This Government’s idea of equal treatment—and here I come back to the hon. member for Stellenbosch—is to say “why not?” when one of the languages is treated in this way and members of the Government Public Service are not allowed to use it …

On a point of persona] explanation, the hon. member is wrong in alleging that I interjected “Why not?” I did not use those words.

Sir, I did not charge the hon. member for Stellenbosch. I heard that interjection from two hon. members on that side. Sir, I said that I was coming to the hon. member for Stellenbosch who talked of tolerance and of the new unity. I have here a cutting from to-day’s Burger. I tried twice, while the hon. member was speaking, to ask him whether, when he was considering unity, he also had in mind respect for and acceptance of the traditions and habits of those of the other language group? The hon. member says “yes”. I have here a report of a speech made by a member of this House, reported this morning in Die Burger, in which there is a violent attack on certain organizations, namely Rotarians, Lions International, Round Table and others.

Why not?

Sir, I raise this because a similar attack was made recently by a member of a cultural organization. The Provincial Secretary of the Nationalist Party in Natal launched a vicious attack on the Provincial Councillor of my constituency who had raised this matter in debate and he denied that that was the attitude or the policy of the Nationalist Party. He said that that statement had been made by a cultural leader and had nothing to do with the Nationalist Party. Therefore I want to put it on record that a similar attack to that which was repudiated in Natal by the Leader of the Nationalist Party in the Provincial Council of Natal, who denied that that was Nationalist Party policy, has now been repeated by the hon. member for Worcester who, according to Die Burger, said the following—

Sir. I put this on record because this matter will not rest here. This indicates the double standards which are applied when members talk in this House of unity but you get a completely different sort of unity when they get outside and talk to their faithful supporters. Sir, let me quote to you from Handhaaf. the official journal of the F.A.K., of March this year. These are the rules laid down for a F.A.K. Club.—

1. (1) Afrikaanse kerkverband.

Religious intolerance—

1. (2) Ondersteuner van die Nasionale Party.

   Political intolerance. Sir, this is a cultural organization but it accepts only members of one language group, one religious denomination and only supporters of one political party— And then—

2. (3) Geen affiliasie met internasionale organisasies nie.

In other words, when it comes to culture, when it comes to sweeping up feelings outside, then there is only one Afrikaner nation, one South African nation, which excludes those who believe that good is done through organizations such as Lions International, Rotary and Round Table, charitable organizations working for the good of mankind. No wonder, Sir, that in April of this year we had the pathetic cry from one of the rare English-speaking Nationalists: “I will not quit”: says Blythe Thompson. He will be forced out but he will not quit. That is what happens to people who are taken in by promises when they come to meet the reality of the situation in the intolerance of which I have just quoted examples here.

Sir, my hon. Leader, in his opening speech, attacked the Government for inefficiency and bungling. There was laughter and an outcry from Government members. I must assume therefore that I must accept that these Government members who reacted so strongly are satisfied with the efficiency of the Government.

Of course.

I have just taken at random a few issues which set the standard which satisfies Government members. I want them to go back to their constituencies next week and say: “I am satisfied with the standard of efficiency of the Government.” This is the sort of standard that satisfies them. [Interjections.] Yes, they can take a copy of my Hansard and show their people what sort of things satisfy them. Let me take as example the Department of the Interior. I have certain correspondence here and this is just one example out of many. Here we have an example of the sort of delay which you get when you deal with Government Departments. This was an application for race classification, dated 24th August, 1966. An application was sent in together with affidavits and a cheque for a third-party reclassification. I am sorry, the letter was sent to the Department on the 25th August; the affidavit was dated the 24th August, 1966. A receipt was immediately sent for the cheque. Despite inquiry after inquiry, it was not until I took the matter up in April this year that we suddenly got a reply from the Minister to say that they had never received the application, that no such application had been submitted. When it was pointed out that they had not only received it but had issued a receipt, then it was said: “Oh, we got the money but we never got the application.” Sir, the letter and the cheque were posted in the same envelope. Does the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs take out the documents and leave in the cheque? How did they know to what address to send the receipt?

Order! What is the hon. member insinuating?

I said that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs …

No, that is not what the hon. member said.

I am sorry, I withdraw what I said. What I mean is that it would be ridiculous to imagine that that could happen. Obviously no envelope will be opened, the letter taken out and the cheque left in. Secondly, how did the Department know to whom to send the receipt if they had not got a letter with the address on it, if they simply receive a cheque without an address? Sir, the matter has now been dealt with after the passing of amending legislation this Session, legislation which is going to affect this applicant adversely. Sir, I could go on like this. I mentioned the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I had a personal case the other day of a letter sent from Durban by registered express mail, on the 10th May. The letter arrived in Cape Town on the 18th May, eight days for an express letter from Durban to Cape Town! I wrote to the hon. the Minister; I had a polite acknowledgment and I assume that I may or may not get an explanation some day. I think that what happened was that the runner with his split stick must have got a split in his toes or he must have followed the Egyptian example and taken his boots off; that is about the speed with which that letter got here. Sir, it is a funny thing that when you post a letter and pay express mail rates, it takes eight days to get from Durban to Cape Town but when I asked a question as to when a request had been made by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to Public Works for a post office in my constituency, the answer to my question indicated that the request had been received, I think, three months before the post office actually asked for it. You get very fast service there. But let us take the Department of Information. A letter was addressed to the Minister of Information on the 6th January. Eventually on the 1st February I asked whether the letter had been received and replied to. My question was answered on the 3rd February, and strangely enough, the reply was sent on the 1st February. In other words, from the 6th January to the 1st February that letter had been hanging around either in the post office or in the Minister’s “in-tray” or somewhere in his Department.

But, Sir, that is not the only example; there are others. A person wrote to the same Minister in his capacity as Minister of Education, Arts and Science in November last year. When I asked a question as to whether it had been received the answer was: “Yes”, but it was not answered, because they were waiting for the universities to open. As far as I know there has still been no answer to it. And so one goes on, Department after Department. This is the standard of efficiency that these hon. members accept. I have here advertising material issued by a former public servant advertising his services in a commercial capacity, to start from 1.3,1967. I asked the hon. the Minister of Police whether this officer had resigned from the service. Now, this person was advertising that he was available from the 1st March. On the 21st March I was told, “No, he has not resigned from the force but is retiring on pension in the near future”. Either this reply was wrong or else this person was serving in a commercial capacity whilst he was in the employ of the State. I believe myself that he had in fact retired, that he had in fact left the service, in which case the Minister was giving me incorrect information. One or the other must be right.

Was he not perhaps on long leave?

Even if he is on long leave he is still subject to the regulations, he is still a public servant, and he should not be receiving money for employment concerned with Government affairs. And so one goes on; I have case after case of delays, of inefficiency, blunder after blunder. We have the Minister of Transport who claims to be so efficient. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member should not take any notice of these interjections.

I will try not to, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] I took up the case of an employee who had resigned from the Railway service after a number of years and who had due to him 56 days’ leave. He changed his mind very shortly afterwards and within three weeks he applied and was re-accepted into the service. But because he had resigned, the regulations forbade that he should be granted condonation in respect thereof despite the 56 days’ leave and be given continuous service. I accept that there are regulations that must be observed, but it is this sort of stupid thing which creates ill-feeling and which drives people out of the service. Yet the Government complains that it is short of manpower, that it cannot get the people it wants.

I do not know if you know, but my cat got kittens.

I make no allegations against the hon. the Minister. I am not aware that he was concerned in the affairs of his cat … [Interjections.] I do not blame him whatsoever.

Take housing, Mr. Speaker. Year after year we on this side raise the problem of housing. I have not the time to go into the details. We have been told that there have been 12,000 houses supplied through all the Government Department of Housing agencies in six years. The cost of living is going up and up. And what is the advice of the Government? I quote from an Afrikaans newspaper—

In other words, the advice is: Try and make your rand go further. Stretch the rand, do with less, lower your standard of living, but no answer is given to the daily problems of the working man who is seeking housing and who is struggling against rising living costs. What sympathy does the working man get from that side? The hon. member for Pretoria (District’s) only hope for people who are battling, who ask for more money and strike for it, is to say, “Stretch the rand—make it go further.”

We have this inefficiency and bungling going on here. There are many other examples which we come across every day. If you want to register a deed the shortest possible time in which you can have it registered, with no complications, is four months. It can take anything up to a year or 18 months while widows wait for estates to be wound up, while sales are pending, while people are suffering, because the Department simply cannot handle the job which is placed in its hands. Ask anybody who has had to deal with this. I challenge any member here to produce a case of a registration of a deed which they have got through the normal courses, without any “boetie-boetie” help, and which came through in less than three or four months. I challenge any member to bring forward such a case.

But it is not only in this field, but also in the field of policy that the Government is losing its grip and yet continuing to maintain this facade that it is on a clear and understandable course. We have been given numerous figures this Session by the various Ministers and Deputy Ministers of Bantu Administration in regard to the tremendous number of people who have been employed in border areas. But the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education—I believe he has been ill and I am sorry about that—who was in Durban on the 13th December, said that 16,000 new Bantu jobs had been created in the Natal border areas since 1962, that is to say in five years, and that this comprised 33 per cent of the total in South Africa. In other words, 48,000 is the total since border industries started, according to the Deputy Minister himself. Forty-eight thousand is the total number of jobs that have been found for Bantu. This is being held up as the answer to all the problems of the Government. We have had statement after statement about “kragdadigheid” from the Government, how it is going ahead, how fast it is getting on, but here we have from the Deputy Minister’s own mouth the actual figures which he himself presented. But when we get to the administration of Bantu in the white areas, we find even slower progress. Last year on the 9th February I asked the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration about contacts between Bantu and the Government. I was told then, in February, 1965, namely 16 months ago (Hansard, Vol. 13, Column 739):

Sixteen months ago the Government was busy. It had then been busy since 1961. To date I think there is one urban council, or maybe two which are operating. In Durban as in other cities the urban councils still do not have their constitution. They have been drawn up and have been in the hands of the Department for months and months, and none of them are functioning. In other words the consultation of which this Government brags is not there. I often wonder if some of this delay is due to this honest statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, which he wrote in a letter to the Cape Argus on the 17th March, 1955, when he said:

I believe that perhaps that opposition to apartheid which the hon. the Deputy Minister expressed so strongly, after he had left the United Party, may be one of the reasons for the slow progress, the many words, but the very little action, we find in the implementation of policy. He makes a lot of noise about it. He sends M.P.s circulars, but when he is cornered, he says: I challenge you to show me any industry that does not have all the labour it wants. It cannot be true both ways. Either they are reducing the labour in industry or they are not reducing it. If they are reducing it, industry must be short and if they are not reducing it then the promises are empty words.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. Minister of Tourism says that they could use it more efficiently. I wonder whether he knows what he is talking about. If he does, then he must go and talk to the hon. the Minister of Transport, who is at this moment building bungalows for Bantu in the Cape Town harbour and who is increasing the number of Bantu because they are required for the efficient running of the Railways. But industry has got to do without its Bantu labour. I wonder when we are going to stop hearing this story, which we heard again from the hon. member for Carletonville, that this policy is merely a continuation of history. What I believe is that the hon. member for Carletonville and his party are so tied up with the past that they have forgotten the present and the future. They are so concerned about trying to create their own little isolated world, despite the efforts of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that the policy of which they talk is nothing but words. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point) indicated that the United Party was a party for the present and the future. It is quite amazing to regard the United Party as a party for the future, because ever since its formation it has dwindled and dwindled. If that is to be a party for the future, it is probably supposed to be a mini party in the future. In actual fact the United Party was formed as a compromise party. It was formed through a compromise of principles by the two major parties at the time. [Interjections.] It is quite true, it was formed as a compromise of principles. When the National Party under the leadership of Dr. Malan, retained its identity it remained true to its principles. Ever since then the National Party has remained true to its principles and the United Party has remained true to its compromise nature. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon. member for Durban (Point) is a mini-member, but what is true is that empty vessels make the most noise. He certainly did make a lot of noise. The hon. member for Durban (Point) raised a few issues which I think need to be answered. He quoted, from a Press cutting, something which the hon. member for Worcester said at a meeting yesterday. He tried to indicate that the National Party, when it spoke in an inner circle, was not interested in co-operation between English and Afrikaans-speaking people and that it preached exclusiveness. There is absolutely no foundation for that allegation. I have been informed by a member of this House who was present at that meeting what was actually said. The report in the newspaper is not a complete report but essentially it boils down to this. The organizations referred to can in the first instance not be called English-speaking organizations because they are international organizations. To try to allege here that reference was made to those organizations as English-speaking organizations is absolute nonsense. What is more, in the audience at that meeting were numerous English-speaking people and they applauded the remarks made by the hon. member for Worcester. The basis of those remarks is that he indicated a preference for organizations which were founded in South Africa and which had a patriotic foundation as against international organizations which had no patriotic South African foundation. That, fundamentally, is the basic difference between the approach of the United Party and that of the National Party. We are interested in what is South African and in promoting what is South African, in the first instance. That is our task and duty. It is our task for the future; it is our task for the present. The United Party is not interested in promoting anything which is primarily South African. They are internationalists, and I shall prove from speeches made in this House during this debate by members of the Opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition, that that is so. The United Party has been busy in the last year or so with a new process of image building. The hon. member for Carletonville has already referred to that as the courting by the United Party of the National Party. It is quite probable that that process of image building has been embarked upon, on the advice of, as I understand, an American consultant, whom they had approached. It is probably on the advice of this consultant, who told them to lay off their old image, the image of opposing everything that this Government was doing for South Africa and that they should rather speak about non-contentious methods and agree on those matters which are important for South Africa. They should agree on the basic issues as far as our international policy is concerned. I wish to remind the United Party that only last year, or was it the year before, the Leader of the United Party fell hook, line and sinker for the bait put out by the Sunday Times on the Rhodesian issue, and preached the same propaganda which the Sunday Times preached at the time. It was only afterwards that he realized that it was absolute folly, and saw the correctness of the diplomacy by the Leader of the National Party, the then Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd. Then, suddenly, silence reigned.

Why don’t you read your papers?

That is correct and the hon. member cannot deny it.

You are talking tripe.

That is not tripe. It was only afterwards that they realized that they had made absolute fools of themselves. They are now starting to move into the shadow of the National Party as far as international relations are concerned, namely the United Nations, South-West Africa and Rhodesia. They started this general “courting” process. They started criticizing less important issues, for example the administration of this and the administration of that. They tried to improve their image with the public as though they could now be trusted with the future of South Africa. But there is nothing in that. The United Party is still exactly the same United Party, based on compromise and internationalism, that it was originally when it was founded in the 1930s.

I wish to refer to a statement by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. He said that the policy of separate development, leading towards territorial separation, could not withstand the pressures of the 20th century. He indicated once again that his ideas were formulated on the basis of pressure. He said that it could not withstand the pressure of the 20th century. But what is more important, I made an interjection at the time, and I asked what about the state of Israel which had been created 19 years ago. He asked whether I wanted to follow that example of a state which had been involved in three wars in 19 years. The principle involved, is completely different to that which he ascribed to it because had it not been that the State of Israel had been created as a separate entity 19 years ago, what would have been the alternative? The alternative would have been exactly what is the basis of the United Party’s policy for South Africa, namely an integrated state for the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine. The United Party again proposed, and the Leader of the Opposition said: “We want national unity for the diverse population groups. We want one fatherland.” Take that to its logical conclusion, namely, one fatherland, national unity for the diverse population groups, and it must lead to eventual complete equality for all people within the political unit of the South Africa of to-day. That must be the ultimate end of their policy. In other words, they are not interested in retaining the identities of the respective groups. There are some of the United Party who had quite conservative ideas on the relation towards the non-Whites, but those ideas are the same conservative ideas of the old imperialists. They are not the ideas of respect for national identity, for separate identities and for building up people. The idea of the hon. member for South Coast, for example, is to have the non-Whites as a permanent reservoir of labour. He indicated that in his speech again yesterday.

The Leader of the Opposition said that the United Party regarded it as impossible to have a policy leading towards territorial separation, because it would not withstand the pressures of the 20th century. That policy coincides entirely with the basic ideals of the policy of international liberalism, namely the elimination of all national, cultural and political identities and the creation instead of an economic entity. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday stressed the fact that the most important ideal for South Africa was that we should aim at an increased standard of living. He also said that our military might depends entirely upon our economic power. So this whole stress for South Africa was based on the improvement of the economic status of South Africa without having any regard whatsoever for the cultural and national identity of peoples. If he can read history at all, he will realize that the creation of the State of Israel rejects his ideas completely, because, had it not been for the will of the Jewish people to create the State of Israel as a separate nation in order to exist and to maintain their identity within a sea of hostile Arabs, Israel would never have existed. Similarly, we in South Africa to-day have a right and a duty as a white people to a separate existence in South Africa. We have a duty to maintain our own identity. We can not accept the policy of the United Party, which is based on the ideas of international liberalism, of eliminating national, cultural and political identities, of a big oneness, because history happens to have created a union of South Africa with the political boundaries of 1910. That is why we must maintain that at all costs. We have no right to tamper with that. That is the attitude of the United Party.

We of the National Party reject that entirely, because we maintain it is our duty to safeguard our future in a way which is most likely to maintain our identity as Whites in this country. We have every intention and every right to help the non-Whites to improve their own situation be they Zulus, Xhosas or members of any other non-White group. But it is impossible to form a united nation to provide for the permanent future of all these peoples in one political unit as the United Party wants to do, namely one fatherland. The United Party also refer to their idea of national unity, and the hon. member for Wynberg yesterday said the following, quoting from a speech she made in Natal during the last election—

She said that it would have been tragedy for an English-speaking person to vote for the National Party. Why did she say that? Because they are racialistic. Because their whole right of existence depends on them maintaining their support from an anti-Nationalist element, not from a pro-United Party element. They therefore harp on the racial tom-tom to try and get the racial support of English-speaking people. Support for a party should not be based on what language one speaks; it should be based entirely on the policies that one supports, on the principles that the party stands for, and if the United Party has certain principles which it believes are right for South Africa, then it should seek support on the basis of those principles only, and not any negative support. The National Party seeks support from Afrikaans and English-speaking people, from people whatever language they speak, on the basis of the principles of the National Party. And the principle of the National Party is that there should be a maintenance of identity of the respective cultural groups, language groups, religions and of all the various traditions in South Africa. The National Party stands for respect for individual identity. The United Party evidently does not, because the hon. member for Durban (Point) recently attacked the hon. member for Primrose when he pleaded for Afrikaans-speaking people to remain true to their culture. He attacked him on that basis, and he said that was not the type of appeal that would bring about unity.

Mr. Speaker, we can never have unity in this country if we do not have respect for our respective language groups, our traditions, our culture and our religions and unity can only be based on our respect for that. The United Party wishes to eliminate the distinctions, wishes to have one formless mass of people and hopes to bring about national unity in that way. That is certainly not the way to bring about national unity. The United Party stands for a policy for political integration as I have already indicated, because they want one parliament for all the respective race groups in this country, all the respective nations in this country. They want one central parliament and the whole political development should be within this one parliament. Yesterday they also indicated quite clearly that they stand for job integration. They stand for job integration and they said that their only standard they set is the rate for the job. They have no interest in maintaining separate identities within our economic structure. They are merely interested in having one united integrated economic structure, and they stand for the principle of job integration.

It is not right that the public of South Africa should in any way be misled to believe that the United Party can be trusted with the basic principles regarding our future in South Africa. They might agree on certain issues as far as our external relations are concerned, for example the United Nations. But the only reason why they agree with the National Party on those issues is because they have absolutely no alternative. They realize that by not agreeing they are being eliminated more and more from one election to the next. In other words, they have no alternative whatsoever. And that is why they are gradually trying to build an image amongst the public that they are supporting the National Party on the basic issues. But on the fundamental issues affecting our future they differ from us as far as the north pole from the south pole. For that reason the voters will continue to reject the United Party and place their trust in the National Party, which is the only party having the interests of South Africa at heart.

I do not believe that I will have to look very far for the difference between the United Party and the National Party. Two frontbenchers, my hon. friend, the hon. member for Carletonville, and the hon. member for Durban (Point) addressed this House a short while ago. Now I want to say at once that on the part of the National Party, on the part of the hon. member for Carletonville, we found that depth, that understanding and that earnestness with which he tackled this struggle of a nation in South Africa. In contrast to that one found, with all respect, I do not know whether you, Sir. will allow me to say this, but I do feel inclined to say, a political clown. And consequently one can understand the progress of the National Party on the one hand and the decline of the United Party on the other hand, because throughout the years the leaders of the National Party have acted in the same spirit of inspiration and have accepted, with the same degree of earnestness, the task of ensuring the future welfare of the white man and of every non-White population group in South Africa. In contrast to that, we have the United Party which lets things take their own course. Hence, Mr. Speaker, this decline.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not present at the moment. Yesterday afternoon he said here that the Government had to prove its sincerity in respect of the co-operation between English-speaking people and Afrikaans-speaking people, in other words, national unity, by constituting a balanced Cabinet of English-speaking persons and Afrikaans-speaking persons. I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that every hon. member of this Cabinet of the National Party Government is bilingual. They can deal with, listen to and reply to any member of the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking population of South Africa, because they are all fully bilingual. If he were to address a request to me that this Government should appoint a balanced Cabinet of English-speaking persons and Afrikaans-speaking persons, I would tell him that this Government had already given South Africa a government consisting of members of both language groups, and what was more important, every one of them was fully bilingual. But I want to take the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to Natal. I regret that I have to refer to Natal so often, but it is the only province in the Republic of South Africa which is still under United Party rule. And what does one find there? What does one find in the Executive Committee of the United Party Provincial Council of Natal? One finds members of the Executive Committee who were all unilingual. Now where does that leave the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in his plea that this Government must constitute a balanced Cabinet when his people in Natal have not given that to Natal? Can the hon. member understand how ridiculous he is being? Can he understand what cheap talk he is broadcasting? And it is because he broadcasts this cheap talk that he pays visits to one party after another and cannot be accommodated anywhere. I say, Mr. Speaker, there in Natal one has an Executive Committee! I think at present there may be two members who can understand both languages. But we have hon. members from Natal here. Let them contradict this statement if that is not the case. The hon. member for South Coast is sitting here. At the moment he is writing as furiously as he is able to do. May a party like that point a finger at this National Party Government? But I go further than that. We sat in the Natal Provincial Council where we had to deal with a chairman who was unilingual. There justice was not done to the Afrikaans-speaking person. I now tell hon. members of the United Party, and they know this, that this Government has always and under all circumstances given full rights to each of the two main population groups in South Africa. Lately we have been hearing the outcry time and again from the United Party that this Government has stolen its policy.

The hon. member for Carletonville also referred to that this afternoon. By those means the United Party wants to create the impression in the ranks of the public outside that there is not much difference between the National Party and the United Party. In other words, that is a fig leaf. But this afternoon I want to disillusion the United Party by saying that any thinking person can see through this fig leaf of theirs. I am saying this because the difference between the National Party and the United Party is so marked that one simply cannot reconcile the one with the other. Where has the policy of the United Party—the policy of the United Party actually means having no policy—brought them in politics in South Africa? It has brought that party where it now finds itself on the opposition benches with 39 members. That is a result of that lack of a policy. Now they are ashamed to take up a standpoint because they know that the South African nation has rejected their standpoint time and again. Now they are too ashamed to come forward with a new idea because they do not know whether they will get the support of the electorate. Now they come forward and tell this Government that it has stolen their policy. They are afraid of being accused of a change in policy. In the course of my speech I shall come to the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am going to put a straightforward question to them. And if they cannot reply to that question, the hon. member for Yeoville may do so. They must give us straightforward replies to certain things. I should like to deal with three major points of difference between the United Party and the National Party. When the National Party was in opposition, the ladies of the National Party, as is the case at present with the ladies of the governing party, always acted in an honourable fashion as women of South Africa who had a purposeful task on the southernmost point of the continent of Africa. I now want to put the following question to all the Opposition parties in South Africa. Are they also proud of the way in which their ladies act? And here I am referring to the Black Sash. I want to put this question and I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) whether he is now going to dissociate himself from the Black Sash. I want to tell you. Sir, that the Black Sash does not consist of young girls only, nor does it consist of spinsters only. There are members of the Black Sash who are married and the husbands of some of the members are engaged in politics. You will not tell me that the Progressive Party is so strong that all the members of the Black Sash ladies are members of the Progressive Party.

They are always hanging round the necks of the Nationalists.

I deny that and the hon. member knows that that confirms what I have just said about him, namely that the difference between him and us is to be found in the fact that he is frivolous and not serious about these matters.

Do you take the Black Sash seriously?

Yes, I must take them seriously. I have here a circular which was published by the Black Sash. I quote from that as follows—

[Interjections.] I do not know why hon. members of the Opposition want to shout this down. Apparently they know what is coming. Apparently this is a circular which was sent to their own people. It reads—

I really feel, Mr. Speaker, that they had to relax, I now quote the final paragraph of this circular—

In other words, Mr. Speaker, there was a majority of non-Whites at that function or party of theirs. I quote further—

I just want to say that I am convinced of the fact that no Nationalist’s wife was present at that party. Now the hon. member for Yeoville will perhaps know what I am talking about. I am now referring to that “multi social society” of which we hear so often. This is the kind of thing which one finds. In the second place I now want to come to the question I want to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville. I have put this question before in this House. Up to now, however, we have not received any reply from them.

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

Evening Sitting

I have arrived at the question I want to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. On a previous occasion I put this question to the leader of the United Party in Natal, the hon. member for South Coast, but he failed to give me a reply. I put the question to the hon. member for Durban (Point) and, as was to be expected, he failed to give me a reply. I put the question to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) and he told me that I knew what his policy was. I now tell him that I do not know what his policy is, and I tell the United Party that I do not know what its policy in this connection is, and therefore I put the straightforward question to the Leader of the Opposition on the assumption that he is a responsible leader of his party; I hope that he will give me some indication of what his reply is. My question is: What attitude does the United Party adopt in respect of Indian representation in the Natal Provincial Council? [Interjections.] This is not the first time I have seen people beginning to laugh because they are embarrassed. But I put this question to the Opposition, what do they say is the alternative Government of the country, because in 1946 they placed Act No. 26 of 1946 on the Statute Book of South Africa which extended the franchise to the Indians and in Natal they would receive, inter alia, either two white representatives or two Indian representatives. I now ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell me what his policy is in that regard. But now he is sitting there chewing gum and he does not want to reply. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) asks what my policy is. I tell him that this National Party Government will never give representation to the Indians in the Natal Provincial Council. If the Leader of the Opposition does not want to reply to this question, I tell him that South Africa wants to know, Natal wants to know, and the electorate of the South Coast wants to know what the standpoint of the United Party is in this connection. [Interjections.] I ask all of them what their policy in this connection is. Will the hon. member for Yeoville reply? I am sorry that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not here. The hon. member for Durban (Point) always has a great deal to say, but will he reply to this question?

I thought that all of them were going to be repatriated. After all, that was your policy.

Sir, this is what one gets from an Opposition which has no policy. They do not know where they are going. They fail to give us a reply, and now they should not hold it against me and other hon. members on this side of the House if we go from here and tell the people of the Republic that the United Party has no policy in respect of the Indian problem. [Interjection.]

In the third place I come with a request to the Government. When the Minister of Planning appointed a committee for the demarcation of beaches in the Cape Province, a city councillor of Cape Town, according to a report in the Press, made the following statement (translation)—

According to a newspaper report, the then chairman of the Amenities Committee of the City Council said (translation)—

This Government has a mandate. It has an instruction from the South African nation to carry out and implement the policy of separate development in the Republic. I want to say at once that this policy of separate development of the Government has advantages for every population group in the country. It has advantages for the white population group, it has advantages for the Bantu and for the Indians as well as for the Coloureds. I now say that every one of these population groups is entitled to the advantages which this policy of separate development holds for them. I go further and I say that the people of Durban and the people of Naboomspruit, yes, even the people of Cape Town, all population groups included, are entitled to these advantages which this policy of separate development holds. And now I want to address an urgent request to the Government to bring Willful and obstinate local authorities into line with the national policy of this Government. I am going to be specific and I am going to mention a city council such as that of Cape Town which refuses in respect of the Cape Town Gardens to give effect to the mandate which the nation has given this Government. The people of Cape Town must have the advantages of that. These advantages which it holds for every population group must be provided by the local authorities by means of establishing separate parks and gardens for all the people and for all the population groups. I now say that the Gardens in Cape Town has become a haven for the idlers of Cape Town. Visitors to our country cannot go and see it as a show-case of the Republic of South Africa. I am ashamed to go into the Cape Town Gardens and to see what is happening there. I think the time has arrived when the people of Cape Town themselves will object and will realize what is happening here and that the Government’s mandate ought to be carried out here as well. The hon. member for Maitland tells me that he is experiencing the same thing in his constituency. There is only one notice-board at the play-park in Maitland and that reads: “Admission for children under 13 years”. [Laughter.] That means children of all colours. The United Party may try to make a joke of this matter and they may try to ridicule it, but we know that this is a serious matter for the South African nation and therefore they will take the Opposition to task even more severely. That notice reads that the park is for children under the age of 13 only, and that includes all colours. I say that the people of the Peninsula are entitled to the advantages which separate development offers them. I request the Government, if local authorities do not want to carry out these instructions, to take powers, even if that has to be done by way of legislation, to bring those local authorities into line with the policy of the country.

I listened hopefully to the speech of the hon. member for Klip River, as I listened hopefully to all the speeches made by hon. members opposite, including the hon. the Prime Minister. We were hoping that our friends opposite would accept the opportunity given to them by the Leader of the Opposition to discuss international and South African affairs at a high, responsible level, to conduct a meaningful and significant dialogue in the interests of the people of South Africa. But I think any impartial observer who heard this debate must have been bitterly disappointed. We got the same old pattern that we have had year after year, which gives them on occasions political success but does not advance the cause of South Africa. We had exploitation of race prejudice, the nature of which one can only understand when one listens to a speech like that of the hon. member for Klip River to-night, dripping intolerance and hatred and contempt of people who happen to have a different colour. [Interjections.] To give one example, I, like so many people, love the Cape Town Gardens. I go there often; I sometimes go there for lunches, but I have never experienced the dreadful things that the hon. member for Klip River has told us about this evening and I do not think any hon. member has. If you go there you find that healthy separation is observed voluntarily by the people, without friction or incidents. But the hon. member goes there with different eyes. He goes there with jaundiced eyes, and that is why he sees strange colours. I say such an attitude does not help us to develop a significant, meaningful or constructive dialogue in the interest of South Africa. It does not bring us nearer a solution of our problems. Even the hon. the Prime Minister, whose absence from this debate I sincerely regret although I understand that he could not help it, was most disappointing in his approach to this debate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition saw an opportunity for South Africa in the present situation of the world to do something about bringing about the necessary reforms in a very necessary body, the international organization which is charged with the preservation of peace in the world. The Leader of the Opposition in a critical mood, it is true, also examined a number of the problems of South Africa and gave our friends opposite the opportunity to get up and speak, even if also critically, but with equal responsibility and objectivity and with an equal desire to seek to achieve the best interests of South Africa. But what did we get?

Vause Raw.

We got what I can only describe as the speech of an irresponsible politician before a less enlightened audience somewhere in the backwoods of South Africa.

Let us consider this question of U.N. The Leader of the Opposition came with concrete suggestions, to which the hon. the Prime Minister hardly reacted. The Prime Minister repeated the speech that he and others had been making elsewhere, criticizing U.N. with justification, threatened to limit our financial contributions to U.N. and to withdraw our financial contributions to U.N., because South Africa cannot indefinitely tolerate insults which are not justified by any facts. But one should not stop there. If one feels, as we all do, that an international organization is necessary to continue the constructive work that has been done through so many agencies of U.N. and that it is necessary to maintain peace in this world, or at least, as U.N. has done on occasion, to limit a possible conflagration to local incidents and not to let it spread into a fire which will consume the world, one knows that a reformed organization is necessary. But we got no constructive response from the Prime Minister to the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that South Africa should use what influence it still has to bring about a significant reform in that body. And instead of discussing the vital problems of South Africa mentioned by my Leader, the Prime Minister did a strange thing. He said he would limit himself to those matters within the province of his office as Prime Minister, and then he dealt quite rightly with U.N., and for the rest he dealt with non-White affairs and nothing else. So I must assume that of the many internal matters raised by my Leader, the only thing that concerned the Prime Minister was colour and nothing else.

I want to examine the manner in which the hon. the Prime Minister and all those who followed him in this debate approached the colour problems of South Africa. It was largely an attack on the policy of the United Party. That is quite legitimate and we have no objection to their attacking our policy; it is their right and their duty to do so. But it is always strange to me that the Nationalist Party can devote 12 hours of debate to attacking the policy of the United Party; yet when they go out of this House they tell the people that the United Party has no policy. But that is by the way. It is also interesting to note the type of attack we have had upon our policy. Attacks are legitimate, but why should hon. members opposite pretend not to understand our policy and then continue to attack it? Why should they show this strange ignorance which is on a par with their pretended failure to understand that South Africa is a multiracial state? It is the same sort of nonsense and the same sort of purblindness to facts and actuality. As my hon. friend the member for Sea Point said in this House two years ago, an hon. member opposite must do only one thing. He must take a walk from the top of the Avenue next to this building down to the Foreshore and back and look at the people in Adderley Street and in the Heerengracht, and then come back and say that South Africa is not a multi-racial country. It is as simple as that. It is noticeable, it is tangible and it is a fact which cannot be escaped.

It is a fact which cannot be escaped. We are a multi-racial State. And it is the task of Statesmanship and it is the task of wisdom in South Africa to make that multi-racial State work and to maintain peace amongst the peoples of that multi-racial State. Then, Sir, we had from various speakers on the other side, a long discourse on whether the United Party’s policy is one of race federation or one of territorial federation. The hon. the Minister of Transport went so far as to say that we have a new policy now; he suggested that in questions across the floor of the House. The hon. the Prime Minister quoted from the handbook on Race Relations published by the United Party as long ago as 1963. I have a copy of that handbook before me. The Prime Minister quoted the portion where we said that the race federation was not the same as a purely territorial federation such as they have in the United States of America or such as they try to have in Rhodesia and Nyasaland in Central Africa. It is a pity that the hon. the Prime Minister is not here because I would have asked him this. But now that he is not here I want to say that the conclusion that one inevitably drew from his speech was that the hon. the Prime Minister had not studied this document. He had to struggle to find a suitable quotation that he could quote in support of his argument, whether it was out of context did not matter. Because half a page from the quotation which the hon. the Prime Minister read out I find this, dealing with the second phase of our policy—

Governmental institutions in the reserves with the elective principles introduced into it—

From which page are you quoting?

Page 8 of the English version, the fourth paragraph from the top. On the following page, immediately after the quotation read out by the Prime Minister, we explain that our federal organization will take its shape through communal councils for the various people of South Africa. The communal council, Sir, is the very sine qua non of the federal organization that the United Party envisages for a peaceful South Africa. And what do we say about that? We said—

There, Sir, you have a clear statement that the territorial element will be recognized in our federal policy and that on the territories will be based communal councils for the self-government of the people there in matters affecting them. Nothing could be clearer. Why then do the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on that side spend so much time trying to create confusion where it does not exist except in their own minds, to hide their unwillingness to conduct a significant and meaningful dialogue in the interests of the people? Sir, that rang as a refrain through all the speeches that we had from hon. members on the other side, a refusal to discuss the issue on its merits because they want to avoid a significant, meaningful dialogue in this House. The hon. the Prime Minister, as well as other speakers on that side who followed him, had great fun referring to the fact that we have decided that representation in this House will be by White people because we concede that public opinion will not accept anything else. The Prime Minister said that he was going to make a “druk-opname”; he was going to conduct a survey of pressure in the ranks of the Opposition. But when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition challenged him on the fact that the very policy of the Nationalist Party is a concession to pressures from others he avoided the issue; his memory suddenly failed him. Sir, I want to say at once that public opinion must be a most important influence in determining the policy of a party in those things which are not essential to the fundamental principles of that party. Any party, any Government of common sense, will have regard to public opinion in so far as it does not conflict with its fundamental principles. Sir. the fundamental principle in which the United Party believes is the federal principle. We believe that there must be some body, this Parliament or another body where the various races or their representatives will meet in order to conduct discussions. in order to negotiate, in order to have discourses, the one with the other. That is fundamental to our thinking and that cannot be changed, but if public opinion says that the representation of a particular race should be of a particular kind, that is not fundamental to our thinking and we are glad to make that concession. Sir, I think it is very important that we should appreciate this distinction. The policy of the Nationalist Party, in its fundamental principle, in its very conception, is a concession to pressure and, what is more, one of their previous leaders admitted that publicly in this House. Speaking in this House on the 10th April, 1961, the author, the father, the conceiver of the policy of separate development in its territorial aspects, the late Dr. Verwoerd, said the following (Hansard, Col. 4191)—

Now listen to this, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister and others wanted us to believe that this has always been the policy of the Nationalist Party and I can see one member of the Nationalist Party nodding his head in agreement. But what is the truth? What did Dr. Verwoerd say in 1961 when he announced this policy? He said: “This policy is not what we would have liked to see.” He then went on to use the word for which we are criticized when we use it about the policy of the Government; he went on to say—

And where does it come from, Sir? Listen to this—

In the light of pressure on South Africa, not by South African public opinion but from outside—a yielding to pressure from outside South Africa—and then hon. gentlemen on posite have the effrontery to take exception to it when the United Party makes a concession to South African public opinion, while their policy, in its very being, is the result of foreign pressure upon South Africa. But it is more than that, Sir. It is not even South African in itself. It is based upon the thinking of other nations. Let me quote what the then Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, said on the 24th March, 1959 (Hansard Col. 3078 and Col. 3079)—

Not what South Africa does or what South Africa wants to do—

Sir, it is not a South African concept. This is a British concept. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to it when he spoke at the beginning of the debate. This idea of separate states, this idea of Bantustans, is the creation of Lord Glenelg, one of the great liberal Ministers for Colonies in Great Britain, a great liberal and a great colonial administrator who tried to govern the Cape Province from London and who determined that the solution for the colour problems of the Cape Province was to divide the Cape Province into two areas, one for the Whites and the Coloureds and the other one for the Black people coming down towards the Fish River, and he created the Transkei. It is true he called it Kaffraria. It was to be a separate state, so separate that against the advice of enlightened local governors like Sir Benjamin D’Urban, he even went so far as to establish a neutral territory, a no-man’s land, between the Fish and the Kei Rivers, where neither White nor Black would come. That, Sir, was apartheid, that was separate development, conceived and born in the minds of the British liberals of the 19th century. But, Sir, look at the difference in the attitude of the old Voortrekkers. In the Transvaal there was no idea of creating separate states; they broke down the separate states. They had a law that no Native territory should be bigger than 3,000 morgen because they saw the dangers for South Africa of 19th century British liberalism for South Africa. Sir, the other British point of view in relation to South Africa we saw in Natal when, after the Zulu War, they created the gridiron policy for Natal, created White strips of settlement in the heart of Zululand. But we had to wait for the Nationalist Party and the Leader of the Nationalist Party, Lord Glenelg redivivus, to give us a revival of this policy in South Africa. It is not South African, Sir, it is a concession to world opinion. It is an attempt to appease. It is what the hon. Paul Sauer once called the troika policy. Throw a part of your country to the wolves and hope that you can save the rest. That is what it is. Sir; it is not South African, it is not even Nationalist. I can remember the late Mr. Strijdom, when he occupied the Prime Minister’s seat, saying to the United Party that if we suggested that their policy was one for the development of separate Bantu states we were liars. It is not even a Nationalist policy. But, Sir, let us go on and analyze the absence of a meaningful dialogue in South Africa. What does it contribute to the real solution of our problems in this country if the hon. the Prime Minister and others spend tens of minutes criticizing the Leader of the Opposition because he recognizes South African public opinion. What advance is that for all of us in our thinking on these problems? The trouble with the Nationalist Party is that they are trying to find a political solution to our race problem, as far as it affects the Bantu people, and in trying to find what is merely a political solution they are making the economic problems of South Africa more complicated and more dangerous than before; that is the difficulty. They think that if they give a section of the Bantu people sovereign independent states, which I cannot envisage for a long, long time except for the Transkei, they think that if they can play this game of pretending that that is their policy for the Bantu of South Africa, they will appease the Bantu and they will appease world opinion and their own consciences. That is what they believe, but they do not solve a single problem. There was a great administrator of colonial peoples in Africa, Lord Hailey, who wrote a brilliant book called “Africa Survey” and amongst other things he said this, and I would suggest that some of my more intelligent friends opposite read this book again although it was written before the Last War. Lord Hailey gave this warning in his book; he warned the colonial powers, the metropolitan powers, to be very careful and he said that they would rue the day if the peoples of Africa came to them and asked them for bread and they tried to fob them off with the vote. That, Sir, is my criticism of the Progressive Party and even more of the Nationalist Party. They think that by giving these people their own area and giving the urban African a vote there, which he can never use effectively, they are solving the economic problems of the races in South Africa. It is no solution, Sir. If we want a meaningful dialogue in South Africa on these issues, let us realize that the major problem of the other races in South Africa, apart from the White race, the major problem of the coloured races in South Africa, is the same as the major problem of the coloured nations of this world and that is that they are have not nations and the White peoples of this world, a minority in the world and a minority in South Africa too, are the have-nations; they are people with possessions and wealth. They should get credit for it; it is not something for which they should be blamed. But the non-White people are envious and they are in a hurry to equalize their economic standards with those of the White people; and if you give them political power before they are mature enough to exercise it wisely, with democratic experience, experience of the very infra-structure of democracy, they will use that political power to try to pull the White man down. Sir, those are the lessons that we should learn.

Quite right.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister of all people says “quite right”.

That is our policy.

Sir, it is not often that words fail me, but they fail me to-night The hon. the Deputy Minister says that that is their policy, when all they do is to seek a political solution and they leave the vexatious economic problems unsolved. I will come back to that in a minute. Let me continue first. In dealing with the meaningless, insignificant arguments that we have had from the other side, I want to deal with the dual principle with which the Nationalist Party tries to embarrass all opposition in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister employed that strategy when he made the statement that we of the United Party fought the establishment of separate universities for non-white people in this country and even drove the House into a night session. [Interjections.] I have had one “hear, hear”, from the leader of the Hertzog group, the hon. member for Innesdal.

I said “yes”.

Sir, what is the truth of the matter? The truth of the matter is that in 1957, I think, there came a Bill before Parliament called the Extension of University Education Bill. It was found to be a hybrid Bill; it was withdrawn and reintroduced later. It was passed at the Second Reading and referred to a Select Committee. The Select Committee submitted a report and after some further debating and argument, the Bill went through. But what was the argument about? Here I have the Hansard and I have the Select Committee report dealing with the matter; I have all the details. If hon. members opposite want to come and check, they are welcome to do so. What was the true position? This was a Bill with a dual principle. It said that it would establish separate universities for the non-Whites, but it also had another principle and that was to destroy the academic freedom of the existing universities. We were not against the establishment of universities for the Coloured people or any other people of South Africa. That is a normal development in an advanced State. In the United States of America they have special universities for the Presbyterians; they have special universities for the Wesleyans, and they have special universities for the Catholics. We have a Catholic University in our neighbouring State at Roma in Lesotho. The former university college of Potchefstroom, now the University of Potchefstroom, is a university specially designed for the members of one of the three Dutch Reformed Churches in South Africa; we know that. We have no objection to it. [Interjections.]

Shut your trap and keep quiet now.

On a point of order, Sir, is an hon. member entitled to say to another member “Shut your trap and keep quiet now”.

Order! Who said so?

The hon. member who made that interjection should have the necessary courage to stand up and admit it.

Order! Who made that interjection? The hon. member may continue.

Don’t look round, Vause.

I was making the point that there were ten important points in the report of the United Party minority on that Select Committee as to how these universities could be made to work and showing what was wrong with these universities. [Interjections.]

Order! Unless that dialogue stops, I shall ask both those hon. members to leave the Chamber.

The report made concrete suggestions. It objected for instance, to the idea of two councils and two senates for these universities, agreeing with Afrikaans educationists like Professor Chris Coetzee that there should be a joint council for these universities so that these people could learn how to administer their own affairs. I think that is history. Also we suggested that there should be a ten-year period of experimentation when the two types of institutions would exist next to each other. We said that we were sure we could make the separate institutions work without incurring the displeasure of a great many people in South Africa, without casting new blemishes on the good name of South Africa. We pointed out that for a long time it would be necessary to include non-white students at the white universities. But the answer was the same answer the hon. the Prime Minister gave to us yesterday, namely the policy of separate development had to be taken through to all its logical consequences, including separation at university level.

What is the position to-day? Eight years have passed. Another two years which the United Party asked for the two types of institutions to develop together remain. Eight of those ten years have passed. Have we got separate development? Have we got the students separated? There are more non-white students at the so-called “white universities” to-day than in 1957. That is the simple truth of the matter. That is how right the United Party was. Figures given in 1965 to the hon. member for Kensington by the Ministers concerned showed that at the three Bantu colleges there were 700 Bantu students. At the University for the Western Cape there were 368 students. That is a total of 1,068. But at the white universities there were 1,200 non-white students more than in 1957.

Why all this bitterness? Why this reflection upon the good name of South Africa? There is only one purpose: The Bill had to have a dual principle so that the United Party Opposition could be put in the wrong light. [Interjections.] I can give a hundred examples of how that dual principle is used all the time to sow confusion in the public mind, to avoid a meaningful dialogue on the true merits of the situation. I remember, and the hon. the Minister of Transport will remember—I hope reluctantly—what happened when we had the Bill to remove the non-Whites from Sophia-town in Johannesburg. The United Party city council with money given by a United Party government had bought all the land around Johannesburg where the non-white people were to be housed in the ensuing 15 years. We were in favour of clearing that slum. We had started on the work when the Nationalist Government came with a law to make that removal compulsory. But combined with that they decreed that the people be deprived of almost century-old property rights. [Interjections.] We fought that with everything at our disposal. Because of the dual principle in that Bill the cry went up that the United Party opposed slum clearance in Johannesburg. [Interjections.] How utterly untrue. They wanted to sow confusion in the public mind because this Government must avoid a dialogue about the facts before the people of South Africa. That is the answer.

We went to the opening of the College.

The hon. member for Kensington went to the opening of the University College for the Western Cape.

The Prime Minister said we were opposed to it, but I went to its opening.

Order! I am sure the hon. member for Yeoville does not require the assistance of the hon. member for Kensington.

It is very welcome, Mr. Speaker. Then we had the cry of the Prime Minister supported by speaker after speaker on the opposite side: “Why does the Opposition, why does the United Party try to make the policy of separate development suspect?” They ask whether we on this side do not see that the policy of separate development gives absolute clarity on every possible problem before South Africa? They ask: Why does the United Party make the policy of separate development suspect? Why do we not appreciate its beautiful, simple, delightful, glorious planning? I will tell you why, Sir. I am not going to make an issue of this, I am just going to ask a question. Where was the clarity on certain matters of policy, as for instance that we could not have non-white representatives from other countries in South Africa. That incidentally went by the board, as it did last year when, quite rightly, representatives of non-white countries were accepted in South-Africa? Where is the clarity? At the one moment it is a denial of separate development and the following moment it is an expression and a culmination of separate development. Where is the clarity when we have had the confusion which we have had as regard international sport in South Africa? I will not say anything more about that. But for heaven’s sake—let us face the facts. This is the most confused thinking that there has ever been in the minds of South Africans, this idea of separate development.

We of the United Party do not make the policy of separate development suspect. The trouble about that policy is that it is a dishonest policy. I want to appeal to my hon. friends opposite: They as honest men should open their minds and open their hearts and see how fundamentally dishonest this policy is.

We are told that South Africa is not a multi-racial state. We are derided and scorned because we accept South Africa as a multiracial state. The Nationalist Party say no, we are a multi-national state. What is a nation? A nation is a group of people joined together by a common language, a common tradition, and occupying a common territory over which they exercise sovereignty. That is the classic definition of a nation. I think as far as the reserve Natives are concerned the Nationalist Party is trying to see them as nations.

They have, however, no answer for the urban Natives, as I shall show in a minute. But then, if we are a multi-national state, where does the nationhood of the Cape Coloured people and the Indian people come in? Where is their separate sovereignty, where is their separate territory over which they can exercise control and govern? When I ask those questions I know what the answer is. Hon. members opposite will shrug their shoulders and say, “Ah, but they are a minority.” In other words, rights only accrue to majorities; justice need only be done to majorities. An enlightened conscience, an honest conscience … I withdraw that—an enlightened conscience will be more concerned about justice to minorities than justice to the great and the powerful and the many. Are these people to be denied what is fundamental in the philosophy of the Nationalist Party, namely nationhood because they are a minority? That is the excuse. Why should the United Party make this policy suspect? It does it for itself. One merely has to utter the policy and it is suspect, it is immediately suspect. The same applies to the urban Bantu. My hon. Leader in his speech referred to the fact that these people have to be treated like human beings, referring to their right, the right of every human being, to enjoy the society and the comfort of his family. The hon. the Prime Minister was deeply hurt, and asked, “Do you really want to suggest that they are not treated like human beings?” I am sorry—I want to say this: As long as we deprive people, normal human beings, although they are black, of something so elementary as the right to family life, we are not treating them like human beings. Unless we are willing to give them family rights we have no right to use their labour for our convenience and our enrichment in the way that we do. That is fundamental. Let us face this fact. It is quite a different matter if people from another state come to South Africa to work here as visitors. That is quite another matter because they do it voluntarily.

There are thousands from the Transkei.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Transport is saying things he should know better about. He is diverting me to quite another argument which I am also willing to pursue. I am not escaping it. We are dealing with tribal people who cannot all make a living on the tribal land available to them. In days of old the Native male in his youth indulged in warlike practices to establish his manhood, but with the coming of civilization that is no longer possible. Many of them are abandoning the reserves and are becoming permanently detribalized. But there are tens of thousands of Bantu who at this stage do not wish to become detribalized. They want to retain their rights to tribal land and they prefer to be migrant workers. They prefer to be migrant workers so that they can come on a temporary basis to the industrial centres and retain their rights under the customs of the tribe. I am not talking about those tribal Natives. I am talking about the detribalized urban Bantu. [Interjections.] No, the hon. the Minister of Transport cannot divert me with his irrelevancies. I have indulged his fancy by giving an answer to one of his irrelevancies and I am not going to continue. I want to say that this policy is dishonest although the hon. members do not realize it because they are blinded by their own prejudices. I will tell you why it is dishonest. The hon. the Prime Minister said that it has to be followed through to all its logical consequences. He said it proudly. Are they following it through to its logical economic consequences? Surely if you want to follow the idea of separate development through to its ultimate conclusion, you must stop the dependence of white industry upon black labour because that is integration. That is economic integration despite what the hon. member for Heilbron said.

But what is the Government doing? What is the acme, the most visible image of their policy in practice? It is the border areas development policy, the policy of transferring existing industries to and encouraging new industries to go to the border areas. But what happens there? Are those industries separate white industries with no black labour or separate black industries with no white people? Do they take the consequences of separate development to the ultimate? No, they are white industries owned by white men but dependent for their very existence upon black labour. Whether that black labour comes from Butterworth and works in Queenstown or comes from Butterworth and works in Johannesburg, it is still black labour without which the white man’s factory cannot work. Why do they not do what the Prime Minister says? Why does the Prime Minister not do what he tells us is fundamental and the acme of his policy and follow it through to its logical conclusions? Why do they not help the black people to establish factories in black areas with black labour and black management? Help them temporarily if you want to, but why allow the profit motive and the selfish interests of the white man in this instance to destroy your policy and the little logic it may have by moving industries from one part of South Africa to another to employ more Bantu labour and to escape the labour laws of South Africa in the process. How can that be an honest policy? How can the hon. the Prime Minister ask us why we discredit the policy of separate development. Take the policy. Look at it squarely and that policy is immediately fully discredited.

It is not only a dishonest policy, practiced by honest men who do not want to open their eyes, but it is also a most dangerous policy. I do not want to expand upon that. All I want to say is that nowhere in the history of man has a nation been so stupid as to make its entire economy dependent upon the citizens of foreign states. That is the deliberate end and aim of the policy of separate development. Help the black states to sovereign independence and create another seven or eight members of the United Nations. Help them to sovereign independence and give them their own governments, armies and defence forces

I am quoting the former Minister of Native Affairs, Mr. M. C. de Wet Nel—but at the same time now, under the new law we have just passed, compel industry to go to the borders of those reserves to become dependent upon labour controlled by foreign governments. Can you imagine anything more shortsighted and more dangerous and anything more contrary to the true interests of South Africa. There is no precedent for this in history. The nearest example I can find is that of the Romans who made themselves dependent upon the labour of their own colonials. That was the cause of the fall of the empire. That was the cause of the degeneration of the Roman people. But this Government is going further. They are more stupid than the Roman emperors. Is that possible? It is, because it is happening.

This is a dangerous policy for the standards of living of the workers of South Africa. What is one of the major inducements offered to industrialists to go to the borders of the reserves? It is that industrial agreements will not apply to them and that the Wage Board will give them special exemptions from the minimum wages payable. Those are the inducements, so much so that the development of border industries was the cause of the virtual destruction of the textile industry in Germiston. These are facts. Need I refer to the dreadfuil Stratege dangers involved in this policy of separate development? Israel has just fought a war to extend her boundaries and ensure her strategic safety by getting control over the Gulf of Aqaba and both sides of the Jordan River. It was vitally necessary to them and they had to give lives to obtain it. But the South African Government is willing to create independent states, whose policy they will not control, on the East Coast of Southern Africa. They want to create a soft underbelly at which the enemies of South Africa can stab. I cannot think of anything more stupid, shortsighted or dangerous. The hon. the Prime Minister wants to know from us why we make this policy suspect. It is suspect, it is dishonest and dangerous.

That is why I believe we have had the kind of debate we have had in this Appropriation Debate. We have brilliant speeches from the opposite side, speeches which cause amusement, anger and dismay, and speeches which evoke a reaction from the people who listen to them. But all of them deal with the things which are not essential to clear thinking in South Africa. They deal with prejudice, fear and irrelevancies. I want to take just one or two examples at random. There was the speech of the hon. member for Heilbron. He is not an unimportant member on the Government side. He is a semi-Deputy Minister.

I give special recognition to the hon. member for that. As Chairman of the Native Affairs Board he has been given executive power. This is a constitutional fact and I am not being derisive. He is an important member of this House. What did he say? He tried to convince us that the rendering of services by the black people to the white people is not integration. The hon. the Minister of Transport said—it could not have been him, it must have been another hon. member who said “dit is mos so”. Then the hon. member for Heilbron went further. He said that he wanted to prove it by an example. An Englishman who works in America is not economically integrated in America. Of course not, but did he apply any tests? I want to suggest a test. If that Englishman had to be removed from America and America’s economy had to collapse as a result, one can say that he was economically integrated in the economy of America. That is the truth. These examples they give of Switzerland and West Germany where Poles and Italians go to work, are not valid. It is true that these people are not economically integrated because they can be withdrawn and the economy concerned will survive. They are not essential to the economies of those countries. But where else in the world do you have the situation that 80 per cent of the workers in the economy of the country are regarded as not being an integral part of that country’s economy? Economists will tell you that there are four factors of production. If I remember rightly, they are capital, land, management and labour. Labour is vitally necessary if you want to produce. The labour of South African industry and of South African business is black. Eighty per cent of it is black.

Sir, may I ask the hon. member a question? If he has a servant in his house, is he economically integrated with that servant?

I can see now that the hon. member does not think. It pains me to say this. I have given him the test. If I have a servant in my house and that servant is removed, my house will continue. It will not collapse. Therefore he is not economically integrated. But if we take the black worker out of South African industry and out of the South African mines and out of the South African farms, the economy collapses. They are integrated. They are a vital factor for production. I do not know what that hon. member’s relationship is with his servants, but I can dispense with mine.

Order! What is the hon. member suggesting?

What did I suggest, Sir? I said that I did not know what the relationship was between the hon. member and his servants.

What does the hon. member mean by “the relationship”?

All I mean is that I can dispense with my servants. I am sorry, Sir, but I am not suggesting anything. I am quite surprised, Sir. I do not know how to react.

The hon. member may proceed.

To mention another example there is the hon. member for Stellenbosch. I am sorry he is not here. He mentioned four arguments. One was the old argument that if we say the Government should spend less in fighting inflation, we must tell them where to save. What utter nonsense! Put the Civil Service of South Africa at our disposal and let the Government tell us how much they want to save. We shall instruct the Civil Service to tell the Government how to save that money. We are the Opposition. We do not control the Civil Service. We do not have 200,000 servants of this country to do our bidding as the Government has. I think it is the most pathetic confession of incompetence for the Government to turn to the United Party in opposition and to say that we must tell them how to administer details in the running of South Africa. [Interjections.] They have all the resources of the State at their disposal. I think it is tragic, but it is most revealing of the helplessness of this Government when it faces any real problem in South Africa. I mentioned the hon. member for Stellenbosch because he is a highly intelligent man whom I respect. He mentioned the argument of the referendum and what the United Party will do with a referendum when we ask the people about voting rights in this country, as if we intend to create that referendum to protect the people against ourselves. He is quite wrong. There are many countries in the world where referenda are a normal part of their constitutional procedure. In the United States of America in many states and in many city councils any loans the authorities want to enter into have to be approved by the people in a referendum. That is not all. In Switzerland there is a referendum at the option of a certain number of the members of their Parliament. In Australia constitutional amendments of a certain nature all have to go to referenda. The United Party says, that there will be no changes in the franchise laws that we shall pass in this Parliament on the mandate we receive at the elections when we come into power, except by a referendum. That is to protect the people against governments that want to use chance majorities in order to make fundamental changes in the Constitution. [Interjections.] That is to protect the people of South Africa against what happened in the case of the Nationalist Party.

May I ask the hon. member what sense there is in holding out a referendum as a safeguard regarding the admission of black members to this Parliament if, as he is suggesting, the United Party has no intention of admitting black members? What sense is there in that?

That is a very good question, as one would expect from the hon. member. I shall tell you what the sense is, Sir. The United Party may come into power and pass that law. Then the Nationalist Party may come into power in the distant future and put black people into Parliament without referring the matter to the people. [Interjections.] I have been in this Parliament and I have lived through the days in this Parliament when the Nationalist Party Prime Minister got up and announced a new Native policy for the Nationalist Party which he had never referred to a Nationalist Party congress or to a Nationalist Party caucus. [Interjections.] It is that whimsical attitude to the true interests of the nation that we want to avoide by sating that fundamental changes in the Constitution will be subject to approval by the people at a referendum. It is as simple as that. Then the hon. member for Stellenbosch in a moment of great selfrighteousness appealed to the United Party to conduct the public life of South Africa at a decent level. Did the hon. member for Stellenbosch raise one word of protest when thugs broke up political meetings during the last election, when a policeman was assaulted at Uitenhage? Did he raise a voice of protest when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had a meeting in Pretoria which was broken up violently by people with no manners who threw chairs around and exposed the innocent public to risk? Did the hon. member raise his voice in protest when, at a meeting in Pretoria, when the Chairman said that he did not want to force anything upon an unwilling audience and he asked the audience to vote whether the speaker should continue or not, and the audience, with an 80 per cent majority, mostly of Nationalists, voted for the speaker to continue, a lot of ill-behaved students broke up that meeting against the will of the Nationalists at that meeting. Was there a word of protest? I shall tell you what happened. The Nationalist Party newspapers published that incident in great detail, but left out the fact that the audience wanted the speaker to continue. I think it is a very good idea. I want to support the hon. member for Stellenbosch. Let us all co-operate to raise the standard of public life in South Africa. Let us begin with the followers of the Nationalist Party who do not know what the meaning of democracy is and who do not know what respect for another point of view is.

I believe that we had this exhibition and we have had the avoidance of significant dialogue in this debate and in other debates because the Government does not want us to get down to the real issues in South Africa. They do not want us for example to continue to expose their inefficiency and their incompetence in the government of this country. I think that it is time that the nation should be reminded of some of the things that are happening in South Africa under this Government, this vaunted Government with all the brains. I think they should be reminded again. I am starting with the smaller workings of the Government. Let me remind hon. members of a Government so competent that they built a bridge near Bethulie for R2½ million. The moment it was completed, they built a dam and threw it under water, with the result that the same bridge had to be rebuilt a mile away for R3½ million. That is efficiency. That is competence. Those are the people who want us to trust them with greater issues. They cannot even build a bridge above water. I think that the nation should be reminded of the terrible story concerning this Government and a certain Mr. Tsafendas, who was found to be schizophrenic by a district surgeon in Cape Town. It was put on the official form sent in to an official Government Department. Nothing was done to render him harmless. In his case a deportation order lay on somebody’s desk for weeks while he was left free to commit a foul murder when he should have been removed by an efficient Government. I think the nation should be reminded once more that the famous case of a certain Mr. Plotz, who had vital information about sabotage in South Africa, so vital that he was flown from Europe to Pretoria at Government expense. And then he escaped the Police. Nobody knows what happened to him. But he gave information to the military authorities, of which the Security Police said afterwards: If we had known that, we could have stopped sabotage in South Africa. I think the people should be reminded of these things. I think the people should be reminded of the complete mess in the Post Office where, after twenty years of peace 48,000 people are still waiting for telephones, where letters on which one pays a surcharge of 10 cents to get speedy delivery, take three times as long as normal letters to be delivered, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) pointed out. I think that the people should be reminded of a Government so incompetent that they cannot even give the most advanced country in Africa television. Backward countries like Egypt have television. Ghana has television. Little Rhodesia has television. [Interjections.] I think we should remind the people of the complete and utter mess in which the farmers of South Africa have been landed under this Government. We find, according to a recently published article that the number of farmers who render income tax returns, saying that they lose money, had gone up in one year from 17 to 23 per cent, and that was before the drought. The average return of the capital invested in agriculture is only three per cent.

When we were talking about the depopulation of the platteland, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that it is a world phenomenon. Of course it is a world phenomenon, for many reasons. But only in South Africa is the major reason the callous indifference and incompetence of the Government. I think I have spent considerable time on showing the incompetence of the Government in dealing with the manpower shortage, the failure of their education policy, the fact that they ended the immigration policy of the United Party for 14 years, and then shamefacedly, too late, they had to admit that they were wrong and re-introduced our policy.

I think they should be reminded of the complete mismanagement of the economy in the face of inflation under this Government. This Government was a direct cause on inflation when it was panic stricken after Sharpeville, locked the money up in South Africa, introduced import control and started a policy of import replacement industries in South Africa, all at the wrong time, whatever the merits of those policies may be. [Time expired.]

At this late stage the hon. member for Yeoville rushed into this debate. To me that is clear proof of the fact that hon. members on the other side of the House are feeling extremely unhappy about the achievements of their colleagues in the course of this debate. Consequently it was left to the hon. member for Yeoville—who spoke dramatically, verbosely and with sweeping gestures—to try to rescue what was to be rescued in this debate. I can assure the hon. member for Yeoville that even he, with his drama and his gesticulations, will not succeed in regaining the ground his colleagues lost. I have never heard the hon. member speaking so ineffectively and so unconvincingly. Hon. members will understand if I do not devote any more of my time to him, but direct my attention to my hon. friend instead to the Leader of the Opposition. In his speech yesterday he said that it was the aim of his party to bring security, prosperity and happiness to the people of South Africa. The accusation he leveled at this side of the House was that it had supposedly failed in its attempts at achieving these aims for our nation. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition apparently does not know, is that these aims are the aims of every party which is worth its salt and which seeks to further the interests of those whom it is governing. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to have said, is that this Government is as successful a government as it is, and has to such an increasing extent succeeded in rallying the nation around it, because not only in its policy, but also in its actual actions it has been particularly successful in achieving those aims so as to bring security, prosperity and happiness to our nation. I think that it can very definitely be maintained to-day that there are few young nations in the world to-day where these three aims, individually and jointly, have been achieved to such an extent as is the case here in South Africa. I might as well add at once that, seen from my own point of view, we were able to achieve these aims because economically South Africa is strong and prosperous. It is as a result of the economic strength of South Africa that we were able to safeguard our country economically as few young nations in the world to-day, nations which can be compared with the South African nation, are able to do. It is our economic strength that helped us—a threatened nation in a world which is at present quite different from the world of 20 years ago—so that the people of South Africa feel safe today and so that the more they are and feel threatened, the more they rally round the flag of the National Government, because under that flag they feel themselves to be safe. It is as a result of its economic strength that the nation of South Africa, although it is being boycotted in respect of the supply of arms, is nevertheless able to obtain those arms and ammunition for defending itself, and where it cannot buy those munitions it is strong enough industrially to manufacture them itself because of the diversification and the diffuseness of its industries. It is as a result of our economic strength that we have also been able to ensure the internal security of our nation. It is as a result of our prosperity and our financial economic strength that South Africa has developed into one of the twelve greatest trading countries in the entire world, and that we have gained prestige and standing as a worthy trading partner and as a valuable friend in times of peace and of war.

If anybody were still to doubt our economic and financial strength, he has merely to look at the extent to which a small, threatened nation such as ours has succeeded in safeguarding itself. As a result of our economic strength we have ensured our safety, and because of our safety we have inspired confidence and have become stronger and stronger economically.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the happiness of a nation. A nation is never completely happy. The members of a nation always seek to achieve more as and when they have tasted the fruits of civilization. All the members of a nation are not always equally happy. But I believe that if we were to compare our nation of to-day with what it was 20 years ago, all hon. members will have to admit that at present the South African nation as a whole is much happier than it was at that stage in the past, and that it is much happier than any other nation in Africa. This is because we have succeeded in laying the foundations according to which the various population groups could live and develop together with the minimum of friction, because we have effected greater unity and co-operation among all population groups, White and non-White.

I find it striking that, when during the past week I often had occasion to speak to visitors from countries abroad—Europeans who had travelled in America—they told me on their arrival here that they were astonished to see the wonderful relations between Whites and non-Whites here in South Africa, after everything they had read against us abroad. They are telling us that the friendly relations between Whites and non-Whites in South Africa are much better than they are in the United States of America, where there is tremendous hostility between the race groups. We brought happiness because we raised the standards of living of all the sections of our nation, and because we doubled the actual standard of living in our nation within one generation. Do you know that those who will be born in the next ten years will, if we sustain the present rate of development, in their lifetime still experience a standard of living four times higher than that of to-day. Few governments have ever done so much for the security and the prosperity and the happiness of the vast majority of its people, Whites as well as non-Whites. We do, of course, have our problems. There are, of course, hardship and difficulties, just as in the life of every nation, because in the economic development of a nation everything does not always move on an even keel. There are economic fluctuations, the ups and downs of the economic cycle, times of prosperity and depressions, and times of crisis such as we came to know early in the sixties. In addition to that we also find in our economic life the problem to which the Leader of the Opposition and my friend, the hon. member for Yeoville, referred, namely the problem of inflation, a phenomenon which is a sign of the times. We find this in our country and in other countries, a problem we shall yet overcome just as we overcame our other problems. As a matter of fact, we are actually overcoming it. In his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned a few reasons, as did the hon. member for Yeoville, why we are supposedly having inflation in South Africa. Both hon. members said that, in the first place, inflation in South Africa was attributable to the fact that round about 1961 we applied exchange control in South Africa to prevent funds from flowing out of the country, thus causing money to accumulate and pile up in the country. The result was that the large amount of money in the country stimulated inflation. Of course, we did that. In those times after Sharpeville, when there was lack of confidence in the economic and political future of our country, when many people decided to flee from our country and to take their money with them, and when the Opposition did very little to help strengthen that confidence in our future, we were obliged to introduce currency and exchange control so as to prevent a crisis and a recession from developing here in South Africa. The Government should be thanked for that, because if it had not done that, we have no idea of what the economic future of South Africa would have been. But these hon. members are quite wrong to think that an accumulation of money was caused by that, and that inflation in the country was caused by that. If the hon. members had only looked at the available figures, they would have seen that in the years 1960 to 1964, in spite of the exchange control, there was a net outflow of private capital to an amount of R327 million. Therefore, instead of an accumulation, as the hon. the Leader said, there was a net outflow of private capital over that period of five years. Only in the years 1965 and 1966 there was a net inflow of capital to an amount of approximately R300 million, i.e. still less than the outflow in the previous five years. I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that his deduction that exchange control had caused an accumulation, was absolutely wrong. After all, the figures prove this. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is able to furnish other figures to prove the opposite, he is very welcome to do so. The hon. the Leader neglected to say what he should have said, namely that the actual increase of money occurred through the creation of credit on the part of the banks in South Africa.

Which the Government used.

I shall come to that. From the end of 1962 up to June, 1965, the loans and discountings and advances of the banks increased from R865 million to R1,351 million, i.e. by 56 per cent in 18 months. If we consider the R200 million inflow of private capital in the 18 months up to June, 1966, then we see where that amount of money came from, namely that it came mainly from the tremendous credit that was created by the banks. As a second reason for the inflation, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned lower rates of interest, which the Government had supposedly caused. However, for the greatest part of the period under discussion, the authorities did not at all keep the rate of interest down artificially. On the contrary, in July and in December, 1964 and in March, 1965, the Reserve Bank itself raised the rate of discount, and in March, 1965, when the Government fixed deposit rates, the rates of interest were already extremely high in the history of South Africa. It is absolutely wrong of my hon. friend to suggest that we as a government pegged rates of interest artificially at a lower level in order to …

But, surely you did peg them.

I do not have the time to repeat what I have already said. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, in the third place, that import control was introduced by the Government and that it was to a large extent responsible for the inflation. It stands to reason that the Government introduced import control. It would have been absolutely wrong and useless if there had been exchange control and not import control as well, not if the reserves were to be protected. After it had built up its reserves and once these reserves were strong enough, the Government immediately made use of the reserves for the purpose for which reserves have been created, namely to ease import control so as to allow more goods to be imported into the country and thus to combat inflation in our country. All these measures the hon. member mentioned here, are measures which the Government could have used in some way or other and which it only uses in as far as they benefit the country. In the fourth place, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other members on that side of the House repeated once again the old outcry of the increase in State expenditure. The increase in State expenditure is supposed to be one of the greatest reasons—and to them perhaps the greatest reason—why inflation developed in this country. The hon. the Leader made a statement which is very astonishing to me, astonishing because it comes from a person who holds a responsible position in a political party where statesmanship is required. To state here in public that State expenditure is unproductive per se, and unproductive—note, Mr. Speaker—because they do not produce consumer goods! It is, of course, true that State expenditure viewed as such is unproductive in this sense that it does not produce consumer goods, but surely it is not fundamentally unproductive because of that. Surely, if that is the case, we ought to say that our schools, our churches, our hospitals, our universities and all those institutions are unproductive and should therefore be abolished. State expenditure is not directly productive in this sense that it produces consumer goods, but State expenditure is productive in this sense that it lays the foundation on which the production apparatus can be built. Through its State expenditure South Africa has created a well-ordered community in which economic production and growth have become possible. One’s public service, one’s education, one’s police, etc., are not there to produce goods, but they are essential pre-requisites for the existence and operation of one’s production apparatus. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that state expenditure on buildings and roads was unproductive, but does he want to suggest that they are not essential in our production process, that our Railways, our electricity provision, our posts and telegraphs, our hospitals, our medical services, our water provision, our public buildings and all our services are unnecessary because they are not direct producers of consumer goods? They do not produce consumer goods, but they are essential for establishing the infra-structure without which economic development and industrial growth are absolutely impossible. He referred to the capital spending of the State in the past few years. In recent years State expenditure in the from of capital investment in our major corporations such as Iscor, I.D.C., Sasol and Foskor has been a tremendous source of power in giving stimulus to and activating our economy. But I want to remind hon. members once again that it is not the volume of State expenditure in itself which is causing inflation. The question is how that State expenditure is being financed. If it is being financed by means of bank loans, then it may be inflationary, but if it is being financed by means of actual savings by the people or from taxes, it is not inflationary. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition leveled the charge that the State had to a large extent availed itself of the funds of the Reserve Bank so as to finance expenditure, but that is not true. I want to deny that directly. It is not true that the State has, in the past five or six years, financed its expenditure mainly through the Reserve Bank. Let us get that clear. In recent years the Reserve Bank has never played an important part in the provision of State finances. That was indeed the case in the year 1965, when the State was unable to obtain from the Public Debt Commissioners, nor by way of public loans—in spite of a high rate of interest—sufficient money to carry out its programme, and at that stage it availed itself of Treasury Bills for a while. But that policy was pursued on one occasion and since then it has been abandoned altogether, and for a considerable time already the State has been financing its expenditure in a disinflationary manner only. Of course, hon. members on the other side, did, as usual, come with major requests for further State expenditure once again. They requested further State expenditure for additional pensions, more for education, more for the provinces and more for health services, more for nurses and doctors, etc. Here and there they made reference to curtailment of State expenditure, for instance on the population register, group areas, sport, etc. I do not know what amounts are involved in those requests, but I am convinced that if we were to deduct those amounts which they want to deduct for ideological reasons, we would find that it amounts to much less than the extra amounts they still want to be spent. As one of the reasons for inflation the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned the import-replacing industries, particularly at a time like this, he said. The Leader of the Opposition said that we had apparently started with this policy of import-replacing industries, because we were afraid that we would not be able to obtain from countries abroad the goods we need. In that respect the hon. the Leader is only partly correct. We started with import-replacing industries not only because we were afraid of boycotts and the non-supply of our requirements from countries abroad, but also because we were aware of the potential of our country and because we deemed it necessary to develop as far as possible the potentialities of our country with its resources and its raw materials. Actually all industrial growth is, after all is said and done, of an import-replacing nature. All the new industries we have established will in some way or other replace imports, whether it is textiles or steel or shoes or chemical products. In recent years all our industries have been replacing imports in some way or other. Do the hon. the Leader and the hon. member for Yeoville want to tell me now that we should stop establishing and promoting industries, because industrial promotion will always be import-replacing? It will, of course, be said that we want economic import-replacing industries, but when does an industry become economic? We can always buy an article cheaper abroad than we can manufacture it here. If we want to take the trouble to travel throughout the world and to look for cheap goods, we shall always be able to find them, but we shall only find them at the expense of our own industrial development, and industrially we shall only become the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. The Leader of the Opposition said that we were combating inflation from one angle only, namely by means of reducing the money in circulation, and in view of the fact that inflation is the phenomenon of too much money pursuing too few goods and services, he says that we should combat inflation from two angles, not only from the angle of reducing the money in circulation, but also from the angle of increasing goods and services; we should provide goods and there should be increased production and productivity. I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that inflation should be approached from both angles, but that still does not detract from the fact that the course we have been following in recent times—the monetary and fiscal measures for reducing the money in circulation—is an absolutely essential one, because if one were to increase goods and also to allow money to increase ad infinitum, one would still not have achieved anything. One will not check inflation by doing that, and that is why the fiscal and monetary steps we have taken are absolutely essential in combating inflation, and I do not think that hon. members on the other side can deny that. In this regard I want to refer to the question put by the hon. member for Pinetown when he wanted to know what attitude we would adopt in respect of the R160 million, being the amount the banks will still have in excess of the permissible ceiling on 30th September. I just want to say this to the hon. member briefly. In the first place, I do not know whether it is R160 million. Our calculation is that that amount will be between R120 million and R130 million. But I want to make it very clear here that there may not be any ambiguity as regards this matter. In December last year the Government laid down that on the 30th September of this year the banks must have the same level in respect of their loan discountings as was the case in March, 1965, less 7½ per cent. At present this amount is being exceeded by the banks by approximately R120 million to R130 million. If the banks want to reach that prescribed level by 30th September, they will have to reduce their credit by approximately that amount. The banks are probably or apparently under the impression that the Government is not in earnest as regards the maintenance of that level, and I want to state very explicitly tonight to the Government is determined to see to it that that level will in fact be maintained and that the banks will have to reduce their credit to that level by 30th September.

Mr. Speaker, we have made splendid progress with the various measures we have taken recently in regard to combating the monster of inflation. We have reached a stage where we feel that we are really beginning to be in control of the situation and that our measures are beginning to take effect, but there is still one weak link in the struggle against inflation, and that weak link is the amount of more than R100 million which is still outstanding in credit at the banks. If we are making progress in all those spheres, then it would be foolish to give in in this one sphere, because that can render our whole struggle against inflation futile. That is why we are forced to say that the Government will not hesitate to see to it that that level of credit is reached. I know that the banks of the country have contributed a great deal to the economic development of South Africa; I also know that the banks have made good profits in recent years, but I also know that the banks have to a tremendous extent contributed to the creation of credit and to creating inflation. That is why I believe that it is the duty of the banks to contribute their share once again in order that the monster of inflation may be destroyed.

What steps do you propose to take if the banks do not comply?

Or if they cannot comply.

The hon. member is asking me what steps I propose to take if the banks do not want to comply with this instruction. If they do not comply with this, then we have the power, by proclamation, to force them to do so, and if it becomes necessary we shall grant the Reserve Bank the necessary statutory authority.

I am coming back to the question of productivity which was mentioned here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It stands to reason that this Government is also interested in the question of productivity. It stands to reason that by means of establishing our industries and encouraging our agricultural and other industries we did render our contribution to the enhancement of the production capacity of the country. Hon. members know that in the Estimates we voted R50,000 for an Advisory Production Committee. Hon. members also know that in another way, through our infrastructure and through the climate we are creating, we are making our contribution to the reinforcement of the production capacity of our country. But we must be on our guard against increasing production by creating new production capacity, by developing new means of production, by investing in new production institutions. If we increase our production within the existing capacity of our factories, then it can only be to the advantage of the country, but this is not the time for establishing new production institutions and for large-scale development. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition talked about production as if we were not encouraging production, but I just want to mention to him a few figures to prove how production has in fact increased under this Government. If we take mining as an example, then we shall see that since 1958 the production in physical volume has increased by 62.5 per cent. In the manufacturing industry the physical volume of production has increased by 84.5 per cent, and in the provision of food it has increased by 54 per cent, in spite of the tremendous drought.

And productivity itself?

It is very difficult to measure the productivity of the country itself. I should very much like to hear from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition how one does in actual fact measure productivity. There are various opinions and views on the way productivity should be measured, and they also differ from country to country. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that we should instruct the Economic Advisory Council to draft two programmes, one programme in accordance with the ideological policy of the National Government and one programme in accordance with purely economic principles, and he said that we should submit those programmes to the nation and allow the nation to choose. Sir, that is not necessary. At five different elections since 1948 these two programmes have already been submitted to the nation in some form or other, and in every case the nation gave a clear indication of its point of view. A nation does not only make its choice on purely economic grounds. A nation is more than a purely economic being. A nation is more than a material entity. A nation is not merely prepared always to choose between riches and riches. It stands to reason that if we had to choose on purely material grounds, we would perhaps choose the programme which will bring us riches the sooner, but a nation is not concerned about material possessions only. To base one’s choice on economic grounds only would be purely materialistic and shortsighted as far as the survival of the nation is concerned.

The hon. member for Pinetown asked me a few questions which, for the greater part, fall under the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Planning. I shall therefore not go into them in detail, but I shall only briefly give a few replies. The hon. member asked me whether all border industries were economic. No. I do not say that all border industries are economic. But can the hon. member tell me that all industries in Johannesburg and on the Witwatersrand are economic? If the indirect subsidies in the form of transport, in the form of public buildings and public services—which are tremendously expensive in cities such as Johannesburg and Cape Town—are taken into account and added to the production costs of industries, then I wonder whether all those industries will still be economic. No, all border industries are not economic. Not all of them are economic at the moment. But that is not what we are looking for—the question we ask is whether those industries have the potential to develop into economic industries. That is our criterion.

The hon. member for Pinetown also raised the matter of what possible effect a great number of ships converging upon the Cape Town harbour, on their way around the southernmost point of Africa, may have on food prices. That is a fair question. These ships will have to take in refreshments and foodstuffs. What the hon. member sees in that, is the possible danger of a major increase in food prices in our port cities and that it will be detrimental to the interests of the small man who does not have the facilities for building up supplies. Such a possibility does of course exist, and therefore I discussed the matter with my colleagues, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, under whom this matter falls. They gave me the assurance that they would devote the necessary attention to this matter. However, they are not really afraid that this problem will assume major proportions, because we do not find ourselves in circumstances that are similar to those which were created by the two world wars. Besides, at present there is a bigger supply of foodstuffs, particularly of fresh fruit and vegetables. There is the added consideration that the prices of several foods have been pegged. That will also help to counteract an excessive increase in prices. Attention will, of course, have to be given to the dispatch, the channelizing, of fresh fruit and vegetables from the interior to our port cities, where the demand for such produce will be biggest. But I want to give the hon. House the assurance that this is a matter which will receive the attention of the departments concerned.

The hon. member for Pinetown also asked me why the I.D.C. was participating in unit trusts and thus helping to encourage inflation, as the unit trusts are in fact doing. In this regard I want to point out that the I.D.C. has obtained an interest in a unit trust scheme because the I.D.C. is connected with the accepting bank, a bank which initiated such a scheme. In that way the I.D.C. became involved in this matter. But now I want to say that I am confident that the I.D.C. will not prejudice the Government’s policy in regard to the combating of inflation. On the contrary, I have every confidence that the I.D.C. will do whatever is necessary to help us in that struggle.

The hon. member also wanted to know from me what my attitude was towards the mergers, the grouping together of interests in the fishing and other industries. I must say that I do not like that sort of thing, but at the same time it is impossible for me to give a decisive reply before every individual case has been investigated. At the same time I want to point out that there may be circumstances in this country —for instance, a limited market—which makes it necessary and even advisable for small institutions to be merged into one efficient institution. Of course, there is the danger that monopolies may be created in that way. We can, of course, take steps against monopolies in terms of legislation, and I hope that the Minister in question will, in terms of that Act, have the merging of business and industrial units investigated thoroughly with a view to eliminating prejudicial monopolies.

The hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Paarl raised certain aspects of the provincial council system. Without coming out for or against the provincial system, the hon. member for Paarl asked for a reappraisal of that system, while the hon. member for Green Point asked for additional monetary resources to be made available to the provincial councils. I know that there are problems in this field—as a matter of fact, I have had experience of them recently—problems which provincial councils are experiencing in obtaining sufficient funds for the execution of their duties. Hon. members are, of course, aware of two commissions of enquiry:

The Schumann Commission and the Borckenhagen Commission. We have only just received the final reports of the latter commission. It was submitted to us in English and the Afrikaans translation is not yet available. In the recess we shall make a thorough study of all these reports, and as soon as possible we shall publish both the findings of the commission and the Government’s point of view in that respect so that a dialogue, which may be to the benefit the country, may take place. I want to conclude with a few general remarks in regard to the United Party as such— “general remarks” because they do not deal with purely financial aspects, although it may influence the financial policy advocated by a party. Finance is a matter which cannot be dealt with in isolation. Financial policy still remains part of a political policy, and the aim of a political policy is to further the interests of a nation in all its facets. While listening to recent debates in this House, I came to the conclusion that there are three essential characteristics which constitute the fundamental difference between the United Party and the Party on this side of the House. In the first instance, after a period of 20 years as the official Opposition, hon. members on the opposite side are already beginning to bear the stamp of an opposition party—the stamp of a party that no longer wants to think positively, but negatively, their only interests being the votes of the electorate. This is the case because they have not been called upon to bear any responsibility and because they are not constantly in touch with national realities. That is why they are not acquainted with problems as they really are. The only replies they can give are text-book replies—fine-sounding, but theoretical and ineffective in practice. As opposed to that we find the National Party on whose shoulders rests the responsibility of governing the country. We are dealing with realities every day, and that is why it is expected of us to approach national problems in a spirit of realism, whereas hon. members opposite, far removed from responsibilities, are beginning to lose their sense of political realism. In the second instance, I want to lay a serious charge against members on the other side of the House. To my mind the members on the opposite side of the House, or that party, do not really have the survival of the White nation as a White nation in South Africa at heart. They will not admit it, and they dare not admit it either. But it seems to me that some doubt still survives at the back of their minds, doubt in regard to the future survival of the White race in this country. That is why they are perhaps unconsciously preparing themselves for handing over a White government to non-Whites. That is why they are prepared to oppose separate development.

Why do you not say “apartheid”?

They are opposing apartheid, but in their private lives they are only too keen to avail themselves of the benefits of apartheid. That is why they are advocating integration and that is why they are not prepared to take preventive measures against the influx of non-White labourers into this country. Looking at the United Party, I think that it is after all a materialistic party first and foremost. The primary concern of the United Party is not the survival of the White nation as a full-fledged nation in South Africa; it views everything in a purely economic light. It measures everything against materialistic criteria, and in all things its primary concern is whether we will become richer or poorer as a result. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said that we cannot allow separate development to restrict our economic growth. We cannot allow separate development to restrict our economic growth. In our opinion that can only mean one thing, namely that to them riches and material gain are far more important than the survival of the White civilization. Materialistic gain is the criterion against which they want to measure all aspects of the development of our nation. The United Party differs fundamentally from this side of the House in all these aspects. That is why I maintain that in spite of problems, difficulties and crises which may still arise, yes, even in its most anxious moments, the nation will side with the National Party, because this Party is the proven safeguard for the permanent security, prosperity and happiness of the South African nation.

Question put: That all the words after

“That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

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

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.