Since the debate on the second reading of the Rents Amendment Bill I have heard representations on the definition of the term “reasonable rent” as far as it affects the return on buildings.

I have now had an opportunity of giving consideration to the matter and have decided to make a further concession to bring it into line with the amendment which I proposed in respect of the value of land, namely a return of not less than 6 per cent.

I therefore propose to move the necessary amendment to stipulate also 8 per cent in respect of the value of buildings but with a safeguard to operate against lessors who abuse this concession. The amendment will accordingly make provision for penalties which will be imposed in respect of premises which lessors allow to fall into a state of dilapidation to such an extent that their value as dwellings is impaired.

I further propose in order to meet investors in new dwellings to introduce an amendment to allow them a minimum return of 8 per cent on the audited actual capital cost of such dwellings.

I have made this statement in order to enable those people who have awaited developments to go on with their developmental schemes. I now move—

Agreed to.

When business was suspended on Friday I was pointing out that the manpower shortage in this country was an acute problem but that it was a problem which was not peculiar to our own country. I added that although immigration could make a material contribution in solving this problem, all countries, even those countries from which we get our immigrants, were also struggling with this problem and doing everything in their power to retain their own people.

I then suggested that we still had many potential scientists and technologists in our own country if we could only assist those people to receive university training. The debate was interrupted at the point where I was asking that a commission of inquiry be appointed to go into the question of free university training, particularly for capable and deserving students.

Sir, when I talk about free training I naturally exclude hostel fees and board and lodging charges. It will continue to remain the responsibility of the student to meet the cost of his board and lodging. We know that the State at the present time is paying something like 75 per cent of the expenditure connected with our universities. The fact that the State accepts greater financial responsibility should not give the State any greater right to interfere with the domestic affairs of our universities. That is something, of course, that we cannot allow, as the hon. the Minister himself had occasion to point out in the course of his speech during the past week-end.

The question, however, which faces the authorities is this: If our manpower is not being utilized efficiently, where is the wastage taking place? I think it is obvious that that wastage is taking place both before and after matriculation. There is a tremendous wastage there. That fact is borne out clearly by the investigations made by Mr. Coetzee and Dr. Ligthelm who sent out questionnaires to about 600 principals throughout the Republic. It would not be difficult, of course, to pick holes in the proposals that we are putting forward here. It may be said, for example, that there are not enough universities. We may be asked on what basis the selection is going to be made and what we mean by “capable and deserving” students. We may be told that our existing institutions cannot cope with this because they do not have the necessary facilities at their disposal. I want to submit to the House, however, that this matter is so urgent that the Government should consider as a matter of urgency every proposal in which there is any substance at all, and that it should not simply dismiss it with a shrug of the shoulders. This shortage is still going to assume greater proportions and the result is going to be a decline in the rate of growth of our country. It will pay us to tackle this problem at this stage rather than to try to resolve it at a later stage when the present conditions have worsened.

I contend that our approach to university training is out of date. University training is no longer the sole property of certain selected students and students of means, or at any rate it ought not to be under present-day circumstances. It should be placed within the reach of the man in the street. Drastic adjustments are called for to make university education available to every White man in particular. University training is no longer a privilege; every White student is unquestionably entitled to it. Sir, it is fitting that the Cilliers Report has made its appearance at this particular stage. One welcomes the recommendations which were disclosed by the hon. the Minister during the week-end, particularly with reference to increased salaries for the teaching staff at our universities, as well as the other concessions which are going to be made and which will be of considerable help to the universities in embarking upon capital expansion. But in saying that I must also express my regret that this report, which was submitted to the hon. the Minister before the end of last year, was only made known to us last Friday when the hon. the Minister had occasion to make a public speech with regard to this matter. In these circumstances we are entitled to ask one or two questions immediately: Is provision made in the Estimates which are now before us for the additional expenditure which will be incurred in the new financial year? Or does the hon. the Minister of Finance propose to come along later on with supplementary estimates to make the necessary provision? As I have said, one welcomes the main recommendations contained in this report, but what astonishes one is the idea put forward by the hon. the Minister in the course of his speech at Bloemfontein, as reported in the public Press, that since the State will now be contributing more the universities should also consider the question of making the students pay increased tuition fees. Let me ask the Minister immediately whether that recommendation is also contained in the report or whether it is the hon. the Minister’s own idea? Is it realized by this advisory committee, which consists of all the Rectors, the principals of universities throughout South Africa, that if tuition fees are increased it will mean increased expenditure for parents who have children at university, or increased expenditure for the students themselves? I want to say that if tuition fees are increased as a result of the recommendations contained in this report, then it will simply mean that what is given with one hand will be taken away with the other; what promised to be a benefit will become a disadvantage again. An increase in tuition fees will not help to attract the gifted but needy child to our universities. In conclusion, let me put this question once again: If university fees are to be increased, why should certain people only have the honour of receiving university training; why should it be confined to the selected and chosen few? The amendment of this side of the House asks that education in this country, particularly technical training and university training, should be made more readily available and brought more within the reach of the ordinary man in the street. It is for that reason that we on this side support this amendment.

I feel that I should take part in this debate immediately, particularly in view of the very large degree of ignorance which apparently prevails in connection with what is being done in the sphere of education and training in this country. I must say that if hon. members on the other side who took part in this debate had to make their SDeeches to-day instead of last Friday they would have chanced their tune considerably. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) has made the accusation that the Cilliers Report was placed in the hands of the Cabinet towards the end of last year. That is correct. But this is a very important report. The Government had to consider it carefully; it was not dealt with just lightly and haphazardly, as the hon. member would perhaps have liked us to do. Proper consideration was given to every facet of this report in the knowledge that this report, if accepted, would introduce an entirely new dispensation in the whole of our university system. It is not merely a question of adapting the recommendations to the old Holloway formula as far as the subsidization of universities is concerned. The report contains many important recommendations, and I hope to have the opportunity to discuss this report again under my Vote and to give hon. members the opportunity to do so. We can then discuss the report in greater detail.

As I have said, hon. members revealed a great deal of ignorance in this matter. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell! was apparently not satisfied with the proposal contained in the Budget speech of my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, to establish a National Bursary Fund. The Opposition felt that they had to put forward a certain amount of criticism. The hon. member for Pinetown wants a tax rebate in respect of all moneys spent by parents on the training of their children; the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) wants a commission of inquiry consisting of a large number of experts. Remarkably enough, the hon. member did not include educationists amongst his experts but I do not know whether that was not purely an oversight on the part of the hon. member. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) wants to introduce free instruction for needy students at our universities. Sir, the greatest measure of planning has been undertaken by this Government, and I find it remarkable that hon. members opposite should come here today and plead for planning. We all admit that there is a shortage of manpower. But there has been such a phenomenal growth under the National Party Government that that shortage of manpower is something which none of us could foresee. [Interjections.] The fact that there has been this phenomenal growth is really a bitter pill for hon. members opposite to swallow, and they are very pleased, apparently, that there is a manpower shortage to-day. But, Sir, there is a manpower shortage throughout the whole of the Western world. There has been great industrial expansion. The solution which hon. members opposite have at the back of their minds for solving this problem of manpower shortage is one which they dare not admit openly. The only one who dares to come out with it openly is the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman).

What about job reservation?

Yes, the hon. member for Boland is also prepared to say it openly; he also has the courage of his convictions. Members of the United Party, however, simply hint at this solution and they try to make a political issue out of it. I repeat that there has been planning.

The fact that there has been planning is borne out in the first place by what we did in 1962 when we established the National Education Advisory Council, and one of the very first matters which is engaging the attention of the Advisory Council is the very objection raised by the hon. member for Kensington in connection with mathematics and science teachers. The obvious body to undertake this planning is the Advisory Council. Why, then, should we look around to see whether we cannot find some other group of people who will be able to put forward a better plan than the plan put forward by this Council, the appointment of which was welcomed by the hon. member for Kensington himself? There has been planning. The first task which was entrusted to this Education Advisory Council was to examine the position of the teacher in all its various facets, his remuneration, the shortage of mathematics teachers, the shortage of science teachers, etc. Great headway has already been made in this connection.

Tell us what you are doing.

I cannot deal with all the different facets simultaneously, as the hon. member usually tries to do. I shall deal with them one by one.

If hon. members read their newspapers this morning they will have seen that the educational heads are gathering in Pretoria to-day. At this moment I cannot reveal everything that has already been done, but so much progress has been made with the planning that we will certainly reap the first fruits of the work of this large and important Council in the course of this year. Hon. members opposite voted with us for this principle; they agreed that this was the right course to adopt. The A. C. Cilliers Report has now been released and hon. members can get a copy of my speech from the Department of Information and I hope they will study it together with the report. But what did the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) say here? He wants to know whether provision has been made in these Estimates for the additional expenditure that will flow from the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Cilliers Report. There is an item in the Estimates in which provision is made for more than R2,000,000 in respect of contributions to universities in order to comply with the request made to us.

Hon. members will observe that the A. C. Cilliers Commission recommends higher salaries, which are well deserved. Provision has been made for the appointment of auxiliary staff so that professors or other lecturers who have large classes will be enabled, with the assistance of demonstrators and with the assistance of tutors and other auxiliary staff, to give more attention to the students. For that purpose alone R600,000 has been provided so as to be able to provide better training at the universities. More adequate provision has been made for research, for laboratories and for libraries. Do hon. members realize that as a result of the acceptance of this report the contributions of the State have risen from slightly more than 66 per cent to a little more than 71 per cent?

The main issue here is what has already been done and from what date the planning started. In this regard I can tell hon. members that the Government has not been asleep, as hon. members opposite try to suggest. This Government had the vision to plan right from the beginning. I want to mention seriatim what has already been done and give the House just a few figures in this connection: In the year 1948, when the present Government took over, there were 19,728 students at our universities, whereas in 1963 there were 34,814, an increase of 76 per cent over the 1948 figure.

Too few.

Be that as it may. Let us see now what has been done for the students. Government allowances to these universities amounted to R2,023,896 in 1948, whereas in 1961 they amounted to R10,694,095, an increase of 428 per cent. Although the number of students increased by 76 per cent, the subsidies to the universities were increased by 428 per cent. But an even more significant figure is the following: In 1948 the Government allowance per student was R102.3, while in 1963 it amounted to R295.61, an increase of 189 per cent. Hon. members opposite represent themselves as experts who are entitled to put forward criticism; they suggest to the public that nothing is being done for the poor student. These figures, however, prove precisely the opposite. Although there has also been a rise in the cost of living, there has been an increase of 189 per cent in the allowance paid per student. That is what the State alone is doing; we shall see in a moment what is being done by other bodies.

Then I come to the question of capital funds to expand the universities; to ensure that the necessary accommodation is available. In this regard, too, the State has done its duty because the State guarantees 40 per cent of the interest and redemption charges. In 1948-9 the total amount of capital funds approved by way of loans amounted to R139,000, but in 1963-4 it amounted to R3,598,124, an increase of 2,489 per cent as far as capital expenditure is concerned. The purpose of this is to meet the capital needs of the university in erecting the necessary buildings and buying the necessary equipment.

Now we come to the question of bursaries and loans. Sir, I want to say here that there is no necessity for any young man or any young woman in this country who wishes to receive higher education to forgo that training because of the fact that the parents are needy and unable to pay for it. Here are the facts: In 1956 we introduced a bursary and loan scheme for universities in terms of which bursaries and study loans may be granted by the universities to needy students. The bursary awards amount to R60,000 per annum, and since 1956 a sum of R253,000 has already been made available for the purpose of loans. In addition to that there is the Victoria bursary of R1,800 per annum for post-graduate study; there are also the overseas exchange bursaries which amount to a total of R48,000 per annum; then there are the national bursaries awarded by the university principals amounting to R16,800 per annum; there is the bursary scheme of the Public Service Commission, for which the Government also makes provision; for 1963-4 the amount is R289,000. Furthermore, bursaries are made available for preand post-graduate studies by the Railway Administration, the Atomic Energy Board, the oil companies, the Chamber of Mines and C.S.I.R. The C.S.I.R. alone makes available approximately R513,500 per annum. Then there is the Helpmekaar Study Fund with its grand effort to assist needy students. Then lastly there is the proposal by the hon. the Minister of Finance to establish a National Bursary Fund. Apart from that most of the universiteis have private funds which they make available in the form of bursary loans. I want to tell hon. members that it has always been possible, in some way or other to give partial if not full assistance to students who are really in need. The impression which is being given here that there are so many people who are deprived of the privilege of receiving university education is a false impression. I do concede that difficulties are experienced in connection with board and lodging in the larger centres, and that is why the Government has started with the establishment of a new university at Port Elizabeth. It is in the larger centres that the middle and lower income groups find it difficult to meet the cost of board and lodging. That is why it has not always been possible for every prospective student to attend university. The percentage of students in the Port Elizabeth complex was particularly low. It may become necessary later on, as pointed out by the Cilliers Commission in its report, to establish additional universities which will have to be treated on the same basis, but this is something which has to be properly planned and worked out; universities cannot simply be established haphazardly. The hon. member knows that we are going as far as we possibly can with regard to university training, which is a very expensive item. Where there are large concentrations of people we will do everything we can to meet the requirements, and in fact we have already made a start in that direction, but we cannot simply go and establish universities all over the place. With the establishment of this new bursary fund my hon. colleague has introduced a new dispensation which will make it possible for many students to make use of these new facilities. The hon. the Minister has estimated the amount at R500,000 but I think that is a very conservative estimate and I predict that this amount will very soon have to be increased considerably.

Secondly I come to the question of technicians. Attention is being given not only to university training but also to technical and vocational education. If what has been done in the sphere of technical and vocational education does not testify to the most careful planning on the part of this Government since 1948, then I do not know what planning is. As far as new schools are concerned the capital expenditure in 1948 amounted to R2,412,000, and during the corresponding five-year period from 1958 to 1963 it was increased from R2,000,000 to R8,311,000—nearly four times as much. In the past five years, since the passing of the Vocational Education Act in 1955, almost four times the previous amount has been spent on vocational education. Then there is the expansion at the existing schools and colleges. The expenditure in this connection from 1948 to 1955 amounted to R3,000,000, and in 1963 the expenditure on extensions alone at existing schools and colleges rose to R5,500,000. Is that not planning? These figures bear eloquent testimony to the fact that there has been planning. Take the annual current expenditure on this sort of education. In 1948 it amounted to R2,309,000; in 1962—the figure for 1963 is still not available—the expenditure mounted to R9,500,000, an increase of 312 per cent from 1948 to 1962. Take the teaching staff at vocational schools. In 1948 we had 1,052 teachers only; in 1963 we had 2,691 capable teachers in charge of vocational training. Let us compare the number of pupils in 1958 with the number in 1963. In 1958 we had 2,069 pupils at the higher commercial schools and in 1963, five years later, we had 6,467. In the higher technical schools we had 5,065 in 1958 and in 1963 we had 10,349, twice as many. We take all the applicants we can get and we make provision for them in these schools, even if we have to do so in temporary buildings to begin with. Then we still have the higher domestic science schools where the figures are 980 and 1,230 respectively. As far as these different schools are concerned, the total number of pupils in 1958 was 18,630, and to-day the figure stands at 30,025. Since vocational education is a very expensive form of education, however, one cannot establish a school in every small town; we must have at least 300 pupils before we can establish a new school. In the meantime we have our continuation classes which are developing into full-fledged schools. But what is happening in the new year? If hon. members had looked at these figures they would have been more moderate in their criticism and perhaps more careful. In 1964-5 new schools will be completed at an estimated cost of R7,489,000, and only two of these schools will be replacing existing schools. If hon. members opposite had just taken the trouble to look at these figures before making their speeches they would not have uttered so much nonsense here.

You are not replying to what we said.

The hon. member does not understand what I am saying, of course, nor is he trying to understand it. These schools which will be completed in 1964-5 will be able to absorb an additional 4,570 pupils. The hon. member said in the course of his speech that immigration was a good thing, but that immigration was not the complete answer. We realize that, and that is why the Government is planning in such a way that these 12 schools will be able to absorb an additional 4,570 pupils in 1964-5, in other words, we are training our own people. Provision is also made in these Estimates for additions and improvements at a further 11 schools at a cost of R1,460,000 which will enable them to accommodate an additional 820 pupils. Provision is therefore being made for a total of more than 5,000 additional pupils in the new financial year.

It has also been decided to build 49 new schools as from 1955-6 at a cost of R27,500,000, and these schools will be able to accommodate 24,500 additional pupils. Then there will be extensions at 35 existing schools at a cost of R7,000,000 to accommodate 5,260 additional pupils. As the money and the teaching staff become available, it is proposed therefore to spend a total of R34,500,000 as from 1955-6.

We now come to the poor child about whom the hon. member is so concerned. No tuition fees are payable in these vocational schools; books and stationery are provided free of charge. The charge for board and lodging is the very reasonable amount of R120 per annum as far as the vocational schools are concerned, and if the parent is so indigent that he is unable to pay anything at all, the child is given free board and lodging. If the parent is so poor that the child has to be provided with clothing, then clothing is even given to him and in certain cases even pocket-money. The hon. member now comes along and represents himself as the champion of the poor child. I say that we are almost going too far. In my own opinion we are going very far indeed. The hon. member tries to make the world believe that this Government is doing nothing for the middle and the low income groups in respect of education. He wants the principle of free education to be applied to needy university students. Those students can receive university education by means of bursaries and also by means of loans. I am strongly in favour of granting loans to students because I want the autonomy of the universities to be preserved. We are rapidly reaching the stage where our educational institutions are becoming State institutions. The contribution of the State has already increased from 66 per cent to 71 per cent, and if that is the trend, then I want to issue a warning note, as I did at Bloemfontein on Saturday, that the universities and other people and even the students themselves, even if they have to be assisted by means of loans, must co-operate with us so that these institutions do not become outright State institutions. I too jealously guard the principle that they should remain autonomous institutions.

Then I come to the training of technicians, of which we have a great shortage. I want to deal with this very briefly. We have various courses, in fact a long series of courses, for the training of our people. But we also have courses to launch people on their careers. In other words, people already in employment can undergo intensive courses of training in the various subjects at technical colleges for 4½ months, that is to say for one half of the academic year. During the remaining 4½ months they work for their employer and thus earn money. Let me just point out what results have been achieved. Although these technical courses were instituted only three or four years ago, certificates and diplomas have already been issued to 1,126 persons. These courses are for chemical and laboratory technicians, engineers, surveyors and draughtsmen, agricultural technicians, meteorological technicians and radiographers. Then there are courses in sugar technology, labour therapy, physiotherapy and medical technology. These 1,126 certificates and diplomas have been issued to these people, but in November of last year the number of people who had enrolled for these various technical courses was 3,351. Then I just want to mention a number of courses which are given at technical colleges after matriculation. I refer to the competency certificate in engineering (mechanical and electrical); the examinations of the respective institutes of engineers and the courses for health and meat inspectors. Then we have courses in commerce, art and administration; there is the national commercial diploma; there are secretarial courses; there are courses for students who wish to become chartered accountants and members of the Chartered Insitute of Secretaries; there is a course in industrial design and in accounting and auditing. If I had the time I could convince this House and the whole country that this Government has in fact planned ahead systematically to meet our requirements. Moreover, to plan for our immediate requirements we have the National Education Advisory Council, the Scientific Advisory Council and the Economic Advisory Council, which are all giving their attention to this great problem. What is needed is a crash programme to meet our immediate needs as rapidly as possible, and that is what we are doing. In the second place we need a long-term policy so that we can look ahead to see where there are likely to be shortages in the future, and there is no question that that is precisely what we are doing in every sphere. No inquiry is necessary therefore, and this leg of the amendment does no credit to the Opposition because that is precisely what this Government has been doing systematically and is still doing. Do hon. members know that the total amount that is being spent on education by the provinces and by the Central Government is more than R156,000,000 per annum? In the last resort that money comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer. The accusation therefore that this Government is negligent, that the Government is not planning, is a false accusation; it is entirely without substance. I contend that with the schemes which are already in operation and with all the plans which are being carried out to-day, we will have no difficulty in coping with these problems and shortages.

The hon. the Minister will forgive me if I do not deal with the important educational matters raised by him in his very interesting speech. I am sure that other speakers will deal with it in the course of this debate. I want to utilize my limited time to deal with matters outside education. The most satisfying feature of the present debate is the picture it reveals of the strength and stability of our economy. The figures and facts revealed in the Budget speech by the hon. the Minister of Finance highlight the blessings which Divine Providence has bestowed upon our country. They reveal in no uncertain manner the tremendous economic potential with which this country has been blessed. They present a picture of South Africa’s economy of which all true South Africans are justifiably proud, and I am happy to be able to pay tribute to it. The tremendous growth in our economy as revealed in this year’s Budget is most heartening. To my mind it justifies the claims made by the hon. the Minister of Finance that our economy is one of the main bulwarks of our national survival, to use his own words.

This strong and growing economy and the buoyancy of our national revenue have enabled us to undertake great projects without having to borrow funds from abroad and without having to levy additional taxation. It has been suggested that a large proportion of the surplus on Revenue Account for the current financial year is attributable to the underestimate of Inland Revenue. This may have had some bearing on the last surplus, but in all fairness one has to concede that the new P.A.Y.E. system rendered it extremely difficult for the Treasury to estimate with any degree of accuracy the amount of revenue which would be collected in the first year that this system was in operation. There is no doubt that there has been an under-estimate of revenue resulting from this procedure, but I am certain that apart from that the Government’s calculations were thrown out of gear by the tremendous growth of our economy. This growth to my mind was largely responsible for enabling the Minister not only to reveal a surplus of R88,000,000 but to budget for expenditure to be funded by our taxpayers to an amount exceeding R1,000,000,000. This, to my mind, is very heartening indeed. This strong economy and our buoyant revenue have revealed our country in its true light as one of the outstanding economic countries in the world. The year under review has shown that despite many threats of boycotts and sanctions, despite open threats of aggression, and despite threats of expulsion from world bodies, and indeed despite our withdrawal from some of those bodies, South Africa has gone ahead and has as strong an economy as can be found in any part of the civilized world. For all this we are grateful. The past year has shown our great economic strength. It has shown that even despite our Government, and despite the many political mistakes we have made—and heaven knows, we have made many—this great country of ours has survived and will survive economically. Our gold reserves have reached a new height of R525,000,000. Our imports have improved by 18.74 per cent, and our exports have improved by 14.24 per cent. Our consumer spending increased by R400,000,000 over the preceding year. In addition, we know from statements that have been made by the Government and by responsible investors here that over the next ten years there will be capital investments in public undertakings amounting to some R4,000,000,000. We know, further, of a large number of financial institutions which have committed themselves to industrial development and expansion programmes, and that they propose over that period spending an additional amount of some R500,000,000. All in all, no country could display a more glowing picture of this remarkable resilience and its ability to rely on its own resources.

Having said this, I think it is necessary for us not to become too smug and too complacent about our future and about the security of our country. The very fact that our national survival to a large extent depends on our strong economy, as mentioned by the hon. the Minister, must surely indicate that we are the envy of many states in this world, and particularly of many states on this continent. What would some of these states not do to lay their hands on this country and to enjoy the benefits of our great economy? In the light of the open threats that have been made, I feel that there is entire justification for building up our defences. It has been suggested in some quarters inside and outside of this House that these threats of aggression should be contemptuously ignored. I personally do not agree with that attitude. I feel that we would be failing in our responsibility to our people in this country if we did not take every reasonable precaution to protect ourselves against any possible aggression. If these acts of aggression do not materialize— and I pray that they do not—all that we will have lost will have been the money spent on preparing ourselves. In point of fact, however, that money will not have been lost; it would have been money wisely spent to avoid the horrors and devastation which will necessarily follow any act of aggression. But if any act of aggression does take place, which heaven forbid, we will know that we fully prepared ourselves to meet it to the best of our ability. For these reasons, therefore, whilst one realizes that the amount provided in the Budget for our national security is enormous, we would be failing in our responsibility to our citizens if we did not take the necessary precautions to defend ourselves.

The Minister has transferred from this year’s surplus some R52,000,000 to defence, thus bringing the total defence expenditure to R210,000,000. Obviously this is a very large amount in a peace-time Budget, but in the light of present-day circumstances I feel that this expenditure should not be criticized. Our national security will absorb 26.8 per cent of our national income as envisaged in the Budget, but for the reasons I have already mentioned I cannot agree with those who criticize this expenditure. I can only hope that the spending of this large sum will be the means of averting aggression.

Having said that, I do feel that the Government should do everything possible to ameliorate the hostility of the outside world towards us. We cannot afford to continue to ignore the outside opinions which have been so forcibly expressed concerning the political set-up in this country. I do not for a single moment suggest that we should tolerate any interference whatsoever in our domestic affairs, but I do say that we cannot afford unnecessarily to antagonize world opinion.

It may be asked what we can do to avoid this antagonism. I am certain that if the Government refrained from introducing additional apartheid measures year in and year out and allowed this country some political peace for a number of years, the anti-South African views expressed by the outside world would be greatly ameliorated. I am quite certain that it will have a very good effect if the Government could see its way clear to avoid coming with these additional apartheid measures session after session. The trouble is that session after session the Government introduce more apartheid measures, some drastic and some petty, many of which appear to be grossly exaggerated overseas, but all of which continue to conjure up against South Africa a great deal of unnecessary hostility. I want to assure the Government that we have many friends overseas who are willing to do everything possible to help our country to overcome the shocking criticism overseas. My appeal to the Government to-day is to help our friends to help us. I was very interested to read over the week-end a statement made by the President of the S.A. Foundation following his return to this country from a recent world tour. Sir Francis de Guingand said he found in many overseas countries a greater acceptance of the over-all aims of the policy of separate development, but he felt that slight modifications to the policy would bring dividends to South Africa’s traditional friends. Sir Francis went on to say this—

He goes on to say—

Then Sir Francis continued to refer to something which I regard as most important, and about which I have spoken so often in this House. He said this—

It is this little apartheid which has caused so much ill feeling overseas. I agree entirely with these views. The little or petty apartheid measures affect particularly our Coloured people, and such measures are wholly unjustified. They receive world condemnation and they lose us many friends. Surely the Government must see this and realize that a modification of this apartheid policy, particularly as it applies to our Coloureds, will help us tremendously with our traditional friends overseas. I do not at this stage for a single moment ask the Government to abandon its basic policy of apartheid. Those pleas have been made by me and by other speakers in this House over the years without success, but I do say that to continue with these apartheid measures session after session, some of them being of a drastic and some of a petty nature, is a means of exacerbating world opinion against us, and the time has come when the Government should realize the serious effect it has on world opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to read the other day of a proposal to hold an international conference on sanctions against South Africa in London this year from 14 April to 17 April. I say that the unnecessary apartheid measures which have been debated in this House from time to time, and even during this Session, are playing right into the hands of the fanatical organizers of this conference. I should like to quote to the House a report in regard to this conference which appeared in the Cape Times on 17 February this year. It is headed, “World Experts to Talk on Sanctions against South Africa”. It says the following—

The conference, which is expected to attract as many as 600 delegates, will examine every conceivable aspect of sanctions, from the legal, political and economic to policing problems and gold. If a consensus is reached, the findings will then be submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations or the Security Council, probably through one of the member African states.

After opening with a plenary session, the conference will break up into expert panels under individual chairmen to study specific aspects of sanctions. Before them they will have specially commissioned papers on these subjects which are now being prepared by reputable experts.

In selecting the authors of the papers, the organizers have been careful to choose reputable and “acceptable” experts, principally from the West, with no known public connections with South African protest movements and who are not committed to the use of sanctions as a political weapon against South Africa. I understand well over half are British. On the other hand, some papers will inevitably be written by African leaders. One “committed” expert, however, is Mr. Hakkerup, the Danish Foreign Minister, who will be reading a paper on “The International Implications of the South African Racial Crisis”.

The study groups will be carefully balanced to represent the widest possible divergence of interests, and as far as possible they will reflect every major power bloc in the world. This will help to restore the balance of the conference which in many respects will reflect the United Nations in composition and will inevitably be predominantly Afro-Asian.

Among the panel chairmen so far named are Bishop Reeves, who will preside over the South Africa Commission; Mr. Justice Theron, President of the Exchequer Court of Canada and Honorary Presi3ent of the International Commission of Jurists, who will head the legal and political commission; and Mr. N. A. Z. Swai, Tanganyika Minister of Development Planning, who will preside over the Economics Commission. …

Among those who have lent their names to the campaign as sponsors are: Gunnar Jahn, head of the Nobel Peace Prize Foundation; Dr. Cyril James, Vice-Chancellor of McGill University, Canada; Professor James Meade, former U.K. Government Adviser on Economics, Professor Kenichi Nakaya of Japan; Mr. M. V. Nesterov, U.S.S.R. Trade Minister; Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, who fathered the atomic bomb; and Professor Linus Pauling, who has twice won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Finally, and this is the aspect that distresses me more than anything else, the conference is being financed by several Afro-Asian states, and its convener is Mr. Ronald Segal, the former editor of Africa South. Sir, I want to pause here to say how distressed I am to find that this young, misguided man, Ronald Segal, should be the convener of this conference. He is a South African, having been born and brought up in this city. I knew his late grandfather and his late father very well indeed. Both of them were honoured and respected citizens of this country and made their mark in this country as respectable and well-esteemed business men and public men. They played an important part in the communal life of South West Africa and of this city. They won the esteem and affection of every section of the community for their charitable work and for their generous contributions to all causes irrespective of race, colour or creed. I am sure that both these men, the father and the grandfather, would turn in their graves if they knew how this young man is now conniving with South Africa’s enemies in order to harm our country, the country of his own birth. I wonder whether those who are helping him in his endeavours, which I have read out here this afternoon, realize that his own entire worldly fortune comes from the very country that he is now endeavouring to harm. Sir, his grandfather and his father made their money in this country and this young man is now living on the fruits of their hard-won earnings.

I think it is as well that his colleagues in this International Conference should realize and know these facts. I should like to say in the strongest possible terms that Ronald Segal’s conduct is deprecated by every decent South African, and particularly by every responsible member of our community.

Hear, hear!

Surely he realizes that his endeavours to impose sanctions and boycotts against our country will harm the very people whom he professes to want to help. If these proposed sanctions which are going to be scrutinized by so-called world experts become effective, who will suffer most? The Coloureds and the Bantu of South Africa. Of necessity, if boycotts are successfully applied, our industries will have to restrict their output, with the result that many employees will lose their jobs. We know from sad experience that in such times of crisis the first to suffer are the Bantu and the Coloureds, and these are the people on whose behalf Ronald Segal and his friends profess to be leading this anti-South African campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the matter of sanctions and boycotts with responsible Coloured leaders in the city, and I am glad to say that they are totally and uncompromisingly opposed to any form of sanctions or boycotts being applied to this country. They realize only too well that the result of such ill-considered actions can only affect the living conditions of the non-White population of this country. They know that they will be the first to suffer. Surely this young man, Ronald Segal, and his fellow travellers like Hodgson, Patrick Duncan, Wolpe, Bishop Reeves and others, must realize the incalculable harm that their actions will cause to the very people whom they profess to want to help. In the name of the Coloured people whom we represent in this House, I appeal to those people to abandon this reprehensible proposal of attempting to bring our country to its knees. Threats of organized boycotts and economic sanctions can only have the opposite effect. They will only spur on our country to develop and to rely on its own resources, and to impose trade reprisals against those who attack us. In this effort South Africa will have the wholehearted support of the entire South African nation, irrespective of race, colour or creed or political affiliation. Sir, I should like these agitators to know that we do not need their help and that their reckless proposals are deprecated by all responsible leaders of every section of our multi-racial population.

It is indeed a refreshing experience to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) and to thank him for the speech he made here this afternoon, not in the interests of a political party or a group he may represent but in the interests of South Africa. When he was half-way through his speech I made a note and said to myself: “I love you, I love you not.” However, I welcome what he said at the beginning of his speech in regard to our defence and I welcome in particular what he said at the end of his speech in regard to the attitude which he and the people whom he and his colleagues represent adopt towards the agitators who want to have boycotts applied to South Africa. What he said in that connection is indeed what the Nationalist Party has already been saying for many years. I hope members of the Opposition will shortly also subscribe to the attitude the hon. member for Peninsula has adopted to-day out of the love he has in his heart. I welcome a speech such as that. It can only promote the growth and development of South Africa. I would, however, just like to put this one question: Judging from the expression on her face I wonder whether the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) supports the hon. member for Peninsula. The hon. member for Houghton spoke in this Budget debate; she has apparently appointed herself as the advocate of the non-Whites in this House, the Bantu in particular. She spoke about Bantu education and the amount of money allocated to that in the Estimates. I make no apologies for getting up here and appointing myself as the advocate of the White boys and girls of South Africa and their higher education.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science on what he said at Bloemfontein last week-end on the occasion of the graduation ceremony at the University of the Orange Free State. I want to thank the Minister for having said in so many words that the recommendations made in the report of Professor H. C. Cilliers would be accepted. We are all aware of the need which exists in South Africa for higher trained manpower. We also know that there is a great wastage of matriculants because they do not go to university. I wish to say something to the House this afternoon for the edification of some hon. members who do not perhaps know the Afrikaner as well as I know him. Because he is so independent and proud you do not easily get an Afrikaner to admit that he cannot afford it financially to send his child to university after matriculation. I want to bring to the notice of the House and the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science that there are still many cases where the White parent cannot send his child to university because of economic circumstances. We know that that is indeed the case. I am the last one to plead—and here I agree with the hon. the Minister—that a university should lose its autonomy and that it should become a State institution. But it is for this House to find ways and means of giving every White boy and girl, whether they are Afrikaans speaking or English speaking, who are in any way deserving cases, the opportunity of enjoying higher education. That is why I say I welcome what the hon. the Minister said at Bloemfontein last week-end. We welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister announced that the salaries of university personnel would be increased by between 11 per cent and 12 per cent. This House and South Africa must not wait too long before they ensure that the necessary university facilities are available to our boys and girls when they have to go to university. When we look at the 1961 crop of matriculants it is disturbing to see that 6,000 matriculants who have equipped themselves for university training did not go to university. A very large percentage of these matriculants who could have gone to university did not go because of economic circumstances. When we consider that that means that over a period of five years 30,000 matriculants do not go to university, that so many graduates are lost after matriculation, I say the Republic of South Africa cannot afford it. It is a good thing that we are going to spend R450,000,000 on the Orange River scheme over a period of 30 years; we welcome that; it is also a good thing that we are setting aside R210,000,000 in these Estimates for defence; it is a good thing that the Republic of South Africa is arming itself and getting itself in readiness physically and in the military sphere, but it is equally important or more important that we arm the White sons and daughters of South Africa with the necessary knowledge. The White man can only remain superior to the non-Whites at this southern tip of Africa if he remains intellectually superior to the non-Whites. It is our task, our responsibility, to provide the necessary educational facilities and to make it possible for the White student to make himself efficient in this country.

Mr. Speaker, large sums of money are made available in the form of bursaries. We have listened to the figures quoted by the hon. the Minister. But there is another type of boy and girl for whom I wish to plead this afternoon. We are too inclined to concentrate on the boy and girl who pass matriculation in the first class. He or she is not necessarily the boy or girl who learnt how to work hard in the secondary school. You have the other student who during his first and second year at university develops into a harder worker and becomes a very good student. I want to plead that that boy and girl should not be left behind, but that bursaries should also be made available to these boys and girls who perhaps pass their matriculation in the second class and who at the age of 18 or 19 years develop into a harder worker and become an asset to South Africa.

I have another suggestion to make. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of students who, after they have matriculated, have to go and work because of economic circumstances. They cannot afford to attend a university on a full-time basis. I come into contact with these young people every day, not only in my constituency but far beyond the borders of my constituency. Those boys and girls in the Transvaal usually go to Pretoria. They prefer working in Pretoria because they can then attend classes at the university. I do not have the statistics at my disposal but I have often been told that such a girl or boy starts working and tries to attend classes and to study during his first year. They either neglect the work they have to do or they neglect their studies because they cannot do justice to the course they are trying to take because of the demands made on modern youth to-day. I want to put this suggestion to the hon. the Minister to-day for his consideration that we should introduce a four-hour working day for this type of youngster who works and studies at the same time. I repeat that the possibility should be investigated whether the employers could not perhaps introduce a four-hour working day for those girls or boys who study while they work and that the remuneration should remain the same. If that were done the employer—and I start with the Public Service Commission—would ultimately benefit because that boy or girl would have acquired greater knowledge at the university. I repeat that if such a boy or girl goes to work, perhaps in Pretoria, perhaps in Cape Town, perhaps in Stellenbosch and attends classes at the university at the same time, not only will the employer benefit but South Africa will ultimately benefit because of the greater knowledge that White student has acquired.

I want to conclude. I welcome the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) and I welcome the speech of the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. I think in this regard we are on a plane where it is not necessary to split political hairs. Sir, I had the opportunity of having a brief insight of an hour into this report which was tabled last Friday, the report of the Professor Oilliers Commission, and in conclusion I wish to make an appeal to the Government to have this report printed and made available to at least those members of this House who have the education of the White youth of South Africa at heart.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad who has just sat down has thanked the Minister of Education for accepting the recommendations of the Professor Cilliers Commission. The hon. member will agree that both sides of this House are on common ground as to the necessity of improving our higher education. We differ perhaps on certain principles and the way in which this should be done, but I agree with the hon. member that bursaries and loans should be made available to matriculants who wish to go to university and whose parents cannot afford to send them there. I would qualify that by adding that bursaries and loans should be made available to every talented and gifted child.

Sir, I want to endorse fully what was said earlier to-day by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) concerning this report of Professor Cilliers which was tabled on Friday. This report, which only became available to this House on Friday afternoon, was commented on by the hon. the Minister in Bloemfontein on Saturday, and here I want to endorse the statement made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) that surely this House should have been presented with this report earlier, and I say that in spite of the assurances which the hon. the Minister gave us earlier this afternoon. One appreciates that when a report such as this comes before the Cabinet it takes a certain time to assess it and to come to a conclusion, but as we are dealing with expenditure on higher education in this Budget debate I feel very strongly that this report should have been made available to us earlier. I would ask the hon. the Minister of Finance directly why he made no reference to this report in his Budget speech? I am quite sure that the Minister of Finance must have known of this step that was taken, and yet his only contribution in the Budget in the sphere of education was this tax concession, up to a maximum of 1 per cent of their taxable income, to companies which make donations to the National Loan and Bursary Fund. I feel that the way in which the Government’s decision with regard to the recommendations of the Cilliers Commission was made known is a violation of the rights and privileges of Parliament. Sir, I welcome this report and I also welcome the Government’s action in increasing its allocation to the universities. It has been advocated over many years in this House that the allocation to universities should be increased, without interfering with the closely guarded autonomy of the universities. The Minister has briefly outlined to us this afternoon that more moneys will be made available for increasing the salaries of university professors, and one welcomes this. One feels that the “brain drain” that we have been experiencing over these last years may well be turned now into a “brain gain” for South Africa, and one welcomes the increased allocations of 27 per cent and 33 per cent in respect of libraries and laboratories. Apart from the bursaries and loans which will now be made available to students under this new scheme, there are, of course, the bursaries and loans made available to students by the C.S.I.R., the Railways and various other bodies. In this connection I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to what is stated on page 70 of the Cilliers Report—

The hon. the Minister also referred to the Holloway Report. In this connection I want to say that had that report been fully implemented there would have been some 541 gifted and deserving students who could have received help annually. The Cillier’s Report says on page 74 that “this is not exactly a very impressive figure”. I trust therefore that the hon. the Minister is going to take a huge step forward in making available bursaries and loans to all those talented students in South Africa who wish to attend universities but who cannot afford to do so.

Sir, the fishing story of the hon. the Minister of Finance, as told to us in his Budget speech, was very entertaining. We know, of course, that every fisherman possibly exaggerates the size of his catch; it is a common human weakness, and it is now become an integral part of all good fishing stories. To me it would seem that the big fish pulled the fisherman off his perch, and it is not clear now whether the fisherman caught the big fish or whether the big fish, which is the armaments expenditure, caught the fisherman. Sir, some people refer to this Budget as the “guns or butter Budget”, which is a much more sombre title than the Minister’s gay references to the innocent sport of fishing.

Sir, in the short time available to me I shall confine myself to the Minister’s treatment of university education with particular reference to bursaries. I wish I had the time to deal with adult higher education, which is a new and very important issue in our modern age of automation. With respect, Sir, I feel that adult education would not do any harm to certain members of the Nationalist Party. Sir, higher education starts with entrance to the university, and I feel that the present system is handicapped by inadequate preparation for the university at the high school. I am fully appreciative of the fact that high school education is the responsibility of the Provincial Administrations, but what is required is a preuniversity college to bridge the gap between the high schools and the university, which should give instruction for one year in science and technology. Apart from that the method of university training and learning should be explained to the students. In that way we would perhaps bridge the gap between the spoon-fed high school training and the freedom of university training. What we need today is not so much additional universities; this was acknowledged by the Minister of Finance in introducing his Budget. What we must do, however, is to eliminate this wastage of students which is taking place at present. We know that over 50 per cent of our university students drop out of their courses after the first year. It is interesting in this connection to compare the figures of overseas countries with our own. According to the latest figures South Africa has over 45,000 White university students. Britain, with a population of 53,000,000, only has 100,000 university students, and the British population is 16.5 times more than the South African White population. On this basis therefore South Africa should have 6,000 students. Germany, with a population of 50,000,000 has 200,000 students, and on this basis South Africa should have 12,000 students. Holland with a population of 12,000,000, has 43,000 university students, and on this basis South Africa should have 11,000 students. The United States of America, with a population of 190,000,000, has 800,000 university students. On this basis there should be 13,000 students. On a proportionate basis therefore it will appear that South Africa should have 12,000 university students but in point of fact we have four times as many students. When we consider the thoroughness of German and Dutch high school and university education and look at the number of university students in those countries, then we realize what an excessive load is carried by our small White population. We can only come to the conclusion that our high school teaching and our university teaching must be improved further to reach even higher standards because we are already an industrial nation and we are becoming a great industrial nation. We face competition from all these advanced countries overseas and it is all the more necessary therefore to raise our university standards even higher than they are to-day. Sir, just look at the world-shaking discoveries which come from the universities of the U.S.A., the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden and even Russia. An entirely new situation is facing us in the world to-day and what we require is up-to-date university education and active encouragement of every talented young man or young woman who wants to go to university. Our problem to-day therefore is a twofold problem: We have to improve the standard of teaching at the preuniversity level and at the university level and we have to improve our selection of students. Above all, we must guard against any wastage of students once they reach our universities. We must not handicap deserving young people by preventing their entrance to university. Instead of quantity at our universities we must also aim at high quality training in science and technology and other subjects taught at university. I feel that the ratio of students to teaching staff should not exceed ten to one. In order to keep your teaching staff up to date with modern advances in science and technology and in methods of teaching and training, it is very important that the teaching staff at universities should have systematic opportunities to go overseas to study science and technology at overseas universities and any other subjects which they may have to teach. Financial facilities should be given to university professors on a wide scale so that they can go overseas, in rotation, to undergo refresher courses, apart from the refresher courses which are provided here at our own universities.

As far as talented students are concerned I feel that all talented students should be entitled to receive a bursary to cover both their tuition fees and their living expenses. This will have to be done on a selective basis. In addition I feel that they should also be paid during the vacations provided they complete certain set studies during the vacation. Sir, it was in last year’s Budget debate that I asked the hon. the Minister of Finance for a yearly allocation of R3,000,000 for study bursaries for talented and gifted students. Judging by the present Budget, it will appear that the hon. the Minister of Finance agrees with my argument that there is a real need to support gifted and talented university students because the hon. the Minister has said that he proposes to allow “companies to deduct from their taxable incomes up to a maximum of 1 per cent of such income in respect of donations made to a National Loan and Bursary Fund to enable students in need of assistance to complete their studies at university, university college, technical or training college. The cost to the Exchequer was estimated at R500,000 for 1964-5”. I feel that this is an important step in the right direction but along the wrong approach, because we find in the Estimates on page 110 that a paltry sum of R103,530 is allocated for bursaries and loans to the university students. This includes loans to non-White medical students. The hon. the Minister of Finance has now admitted that much higher sums are needed for the support of university students. We were told in his Budget speech that about R500,000 is required for this purpose. I feel that over and above the R103,530 provided for in the Estimates the Minister should have provided the full R500,000 out of the surplus of R88,000,000. The Minister of Finance has passed the responsibility for investing in the talent of our youth on to industry; he has left it to the companies to make donations to the national loan and bursary fund, up to a maximum of 1 per cent of their taxable income. The Minister estimates that if the companies exercise this right to make donations, then something like R530,000 may become available for bursaries to students. I have two objections to the proposal contained in the Budget. In the first place I feel that provision should have been made in the Est mates for R3,000,000 to provide bursaries for talented and gifted young people who wish to go to university to complete their education. My second point is that the small sum which the Minister visualizes this scheme will cost is dependent on the benevolence of the companies. I am unable to understand the logic of the Minister’s approach because the Minister of Finance admits that additional assistance to university students is required, and both he and the Minister of Education, whom we heard here early this afternoon, admit that there is a shortage of trained manpower. We all know that there is a shortage of trained manpower and we know that the provision of trained scientists and technologists is one of the most important requirements in building up and maintaining the modern industrial structure of South Africa in the future. I feel that an important problem such as this requires a direct and unequivocal attack; we cannot depend on the goodwill of companies. I feel that the Minister should set aside the required sum from Revenue and not just one-sixth of it.

I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that his party relies a great deal on the vote of Nationalist university students, and I feel that what the Minister is doing for university students in this Budget is a poor return for the support that he receives from them. Sir, to substantiate my contention that there is a great need for financial support for universities, I would like to quote from an article which appeared in the Cape Argus of last Wednesday—

The number who work their way through university without some assistance is small, but the number who have to add to their meagre money is large and grows ever larger.

I trust therefore that the hon. the Minister and his party would be generous and show their confidence in our youth by investing a sum of R3,000,000 to promote higher education.

In conclusion I wish to say that the hon. the Minister of Finance has demonstrated to us that the South African economy is booming. The word “booming” is the operative word because our economy is booming to-day but it was not booming three years ago or even two years ago. Just as there was no boom two or three years ago, similarly there may be no boom two or three years hence. We all share the hope that our present economic prosperity will continue but we feel that it is the duty of the Government and of the Minister to look ahead. The Pharoah’s dream of seven fat years followed by seven lean years is based on thousands of years of experience. The hon. the Minister knows very well that the prevention of economic cycles of booms and depressions is the plague of the modern capitalistic system; it is the main concern of economists and politicians of the Western world. Anti-cyclic economy has as yet not been achieved. Built-in precautions are applied in very many forms in national economy but they are no final solution; they only act as cushions. The Pharoah’s dream should be a lesson to South Africa, and these years of plenty should be used to provide for the future. Sir, I do not wish to deny the ability of the hon. the Minister, but it is nevertheless a fact that it is the natural resources of South Africa and the skill of the population which provides the economic basis on which the Government and the country that and on which the Minister’s services to the country depends. Neither of these, incidentally, is the creation of the Government. The present economy of this country has not been created in the last 15 years; it has been created over the last 300 years. In this economic structure the Dutch, the Huguenot, the German, the English, the Jewish and also the non-European races played and are playing their main role. Sir, Governments come and go; political parties come and go; Ministers come and go; but the natural resources of the country and the skill of the population remain the basis of the country’s prosperity. It is for all these reasons that I feel generous provision should be made now by the Minister for the future, including the future lean years, for an investment in youth, an investment in the youthful talents of South Africa.

Before I say a few words about what the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) has just said I wish to extend my hearty congratulations to the hon. the Minister of Finance on this Budget which is probably outstanding in the history of South Africa. I think this is the first time in the history of our country that such a huge amount is going to be spent on public services in South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down went back 300 years to find reasons for the prosperity which we are enjoying to-day. She says it is not this Government which has over the past 15 years ensured this prosperity. She says this prosperity is due to the history of 300 years and that this prosperity is really due to the natural resources of South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) that the natural resources of South Africa have lain dormant for 300 years. Before they were developed they meant nothing to the economy of this country. It is because of a National Party régime which has followed a policy of “South Africa first”, which has developed those natural resources to their utmost and are still doing so to-day that we are now enjoying this prosperity. I do not think she can deny that in the least. If she says it is the history of 300 years that is responsible for this prosperity she is wide of the mark because it is the National Party who has given us an Iscor, who has developed iron ore, one of the most important natural resources in South Africa. It is that which is responsible for this great prosperity. It was a National Party Government which established a Sasol where coal, one of our natural resources, is being developed. It was also a National Party Government which established a Foskor. For the rest it is a National Party Government who, with its import control system and its policy of protecting South African industries, has endowed us with this great prosperity. Unlike her I am not so pessimistic as to think that within a year or two we shall once again face a depression. I can assure the people of South Africa that as long as the National Party is in power they will prosper.

I also wish to say a few words about the hon. member’s remarks in connection with education, particularly higher education. The United Party always try to create the impression that they were the people who drew attention to this state of affairs. I wish to remind hon. members opposite that it was I who, three years ago from a back bench on the Government side, drew attention to the shortage of technicians and technologists in South Africa. It was after that that the United Party started to sing this tune. At that time the Government had already appointed a commission to investigate the matter. I relied on the report of that commission at the time for the figures I submitted to the House. I wish to remind the hon. member that this problem cannot be solved so easily. We are a small White nation of only 3,000,000 although the total population figure is about 16,000,000. Those 3,000,000 Whites have to carry practically the entire population in this respect. That is why there is such a tremendous backlog. Let me also say this to hon. members opposite that to the extent to which our policy of separate development develops to that extent the non-Whites will start carrying their own burden and the Whites will no longer have to carry such a heavy burden alone.

However, I got up to talk about something else. I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Peninsula on his speech. He referred to the huge expenditure on defence and said he welcomed that expenditure; he said he thought it was necessary. I also wish to say a few words in that connection to-day. Mr. Speaker, South Africa envisages spending about R210,000,000 on the defence of our country and where this figure is the highest ever earmarked in this country for this purpose—a figure which is much higher than any figure spent on defence during the war years—I think every South African citizen must realize that the Government regards the threat to our peace, our safety and the continued existence of our nation and fatherland in a very serious light. Where such a large amount is being set aside for defence we must ask ourselves from which quarter South Africa should expect this onslaught on our safety and our continued existence, because it is only when you have a clear picture as to whence that threat, which must be repulsed, will come that you can determine whether this amount is justified or not. In my opinion there are three possible threats to the safety, peace and continued existence of South Africa. The first is the infiltration of subversive elements. The second is the communist danger in Africa and the third is armed international intervention in the domestic affairs of South Africa.

I wish to say a few words in connection with each one of these. As far as the first is concerned I think it has already to a large extent become a “spent force”, for the present at least, for the very reason that the Minister of Justice has taken such effective action against these subversive elements and acts of sabotage that they have practically been wiped out. I am well aware of the fact that subversive forces are still ceaselessly being trained overseas and that countries outside have not in the least abandoned their infiltration, sabotage and rebellion plans. As far as the second danger is concerned, the communist danger, I regard that as something totally different. It is an irrefutable fact, Mr. Speaker, that by their over-hasty departure from Africa the Colonial powers of Europe have created a vacuum which is at the moment filled by Communism, Communism which has obtained numerous footholds in Africa. In this connection, by way of illustration, I wish to quote something said by Lord Salisbury. He recently said the following about British politics—

Lord Salisbury then goes on and he says—

Lord Salisbury then goes on and sketches the situation which is unveiling itself before our eyes—

That was what Lord Salisbury said and you must remember, Mr. Speaker, that he issued this warning to the British public. If the situation in Zanzibar, Tanganyika and Uganda is dangerous to Great Britain and the West then it is ten times as dangerous to South Africa, because if Cuba is a dagger aimed at the heart of the U.S.A. then Zanzibar is assuredly a dagger aimed at the heart of South Africa. In order to conquer the continent of Africa for Communism the communist realizes only too well that the strongest bastion of the West in Africa is the Republic of South Africa. The destruction of South Africa as a Western power in Africa will not only mean the end of White civilization in South Africa, but it will also be a fatal blow to the entire Western world.

With rocket and nuclear installations on Zanzibar and with footholds elsewhere in Africa South Africa’s position is exceptionally vulnerable. It is for this very reason that I welcome the huge amount in the Estimates.

I wish to point out that apart from this communist threat to South Africa there is a third possible threat to the peace, safety and continued existence of South Africa. It has become abundantly clear that the Afro-Asiatic block within the African states do not consider themselves capable at this stage of taking up arms against South Africa in spite of their conferences at Addis Ababa. It is equally abundantly clear that they are to-day concentrating on training forces to infiltrate into South Africa to cause internal unrest and to incite sabotage in the hope that by doing that, according to the recipe used in Algeria, they will be able to incite the local population to rebellion. I am convinced that our internal security is such that our Police Force will be able to meet this situation adequately. But I do not know whether that is the position in the following case. It can therefore be accepted without any fear of contradiction that the planned extensive onslaught on South Africa will not take place in the immediate future, but it does not follow that the Afro-Asiatics, particularly the African states, have abandoned their so-called plan of liberating southern Africa. On the contrary we can now expect that they will no longer attempt an onslaught on South Africa under their own steam as it were, but that they will attempt to engineer armed international intervention through UNO.

There are factors such as our policy of separate development alongside others which I do not want to discuss at the moment, which make armed international intervention in South Africa very possible. I wish to refer to one of these factors, namely, a policy in UNO circles of building up a super international force superior to the defence forces of member states. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Harold Wilson pleaded recently, on the occasion of his visit to America, that the defence forces of Britain should be linked up with such an international force to maintain peace.

The American, Merwin K. Hart, recently wrote the following in an American journal, from which I want to quote at length—

Then he goes on and he says—

Where does that leave the United States?

Just where it leaves Katanga.

I can equally ask: “Where does that leave South Africa?” And then I can also reply: “Just where it leaves Katanga”. In the eyes of the Afro-Asiatics, but particularly those of the African States, the Portuguese territories and particularly the Republic of South Africa can and must pre-eminently be such “precedents” as the Congo and Katanga and Cyprus as well to-day are precedents. It is in this connection that I should like to mention General Charles de Gaulle. His attitude is unequivocally that France should have a national defence force which may not be inferior to any other force not even an international force. I wish to state here that I—and I am talking in my individual capacity, not on behalf of a party—think General de Gaulle deserves to be strongly supported in his attempt to build up a third force in the world, because the present set-up of two opposing colusses, the East and the West, can very easily upset the balance. If this balance is upset it would mean a world conflagration which would destroy the human race. If there were a third power it might have a beneficial affect, not only on maintaining a better balance but it might mean that a portion of the Western World might perhaps not be consumed in that world conflagration.

When I talk about these different threats against South Africa we must ask ourselves what means we have at our disposal of meeting this danger. As far as I am concerned there are three means. The first is a defence force which must serve as a deterrent. The second is a defence force which must be a force to intervene on land, at sea and in the air and whose task it will be to defend South Africa against her enemies and to keep South Africa’s enemies outside her border in check. The third is a defence force within our own country whose primary object will be to destroy on our own soil any hostile elements that have infiltrated.

I particularly want to make a plea in respect of two of them, firstly the force that must destroy elements that have infiltrated. We know that is still going on in spite of the fact that we have for the time being been able to meet that problem but we know that overseas forces are ceaselessly preparing forces to infiltrate into South Africa. I want to plead in particular for the kind of force that will combat that. I want to suggest to the Defence Force that they should acquire more mobile units in the form of helicopters and so forth, for example, in order to combat this type of enemy. As far as the second is concerned, namely, a full-scale war in which the land, sea and air forces will be concerned, we shall not be alone if we are up against a communist danger. I think we shall be able to depend on our Western allies in such an event.

Then I come to the third means and that is the deterrent. We know the best deterrent to-day is undoubtedly nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapon has two technical sub-divisions which are equally important and that is the bomb and the means of transport. I do not want to be extravagant when I discuss this matter but I have strong feelings particularly as far as the means of transport of the nuclear weapon is concerned. We already have the mirage aeroplanes for example. It is also fitting that we should have that type of aircraft and other supersonic aircraft, because they by themselves serve as a strong deterrent. I feel, however, that far greater attention should still be given to rockets or the ballistic missiles. I think that is very necessary. Zanzibar is in the same relationship to South Africa as Cuba is to the United States of America and if Cuba is such a threat to the United States which is such a big and powerful country, I think we should seriously think about acquiring ballistic missiles. Naturally these are things that one does not discuss in public, Sir. It is not even a matter on which I expect the Minister of Defence to reply to me. But I do feel it is absolutely essential that we acquire some ballistic missiles. I even want to go so far as to say—I know it is not the intention of the Minister of Defence to develop the atom bomb—that he should at least give consideration to how it is to be transported. As the situation is developing in Africa to-day; where the communists are getting such footholds in Africa we shall also have to give attention to this side of the matter. I know we have the manpower for it; we have the brain power for it; we have the raw materials for those weapons. That will be the best deterrent we can have for the future.

I want to conclude by making a third plea and that is that we should form a home-guard. In this connection I wish to refer to the commando system we have at the moment. I wish to plead that that system should be reformed in its entirety. Where the members of our commandos get a little shooting practice to-day they should be completely reformed so that every man between 18 and 60 years can serve on a war footing. There are many people who can drive a lorry, for instance, others can transport foodstuffs. It does not necessarily mean that you will have to stand guard at a bridge or that you must handle a firearm, but everyone between those two age groups should be placed on a war footing as far as the platteland and our cities are concerned. We are a small nation and the better we are organized the better we shall be able to deter those people who have evil plans against South Africa. The fact that we have over the past three years expanded our defence force in such a wonderful way, that we have spent so much on it that we have become independent to a great extent as far as our weapons are concerned, so much so that an embargo boycott on weapons to South Africa will not affect us, has in itself served as a great deterrent to those people who harbour evil intentions towards South Africa. Let me just say this that I welcomed the announcement by Wilson in Great Britain that they would place an embargo on the supply of weapons to South Africa, because I know if they were to do so it would mean that in that respect too South Africa would become completely self-sufficient and independent just as she has in all other respects where they have tried to hurt us through boycotts.

Mr. Speaker, apart from waxing lyrical about the virtues of the Nationalist Party the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) contributed very little to the educational side of this debate this afternoon. The hon. member for Heilbron went on to deal with politics on the African Continent. I must confess I found it a little difficult to follow him at times particularly when he took to praising General de Gaulle. I would like to remind the hon. member that the French statesman he mentiond was responsible for handing over 1,000,000 Frenchmen to the mercies of the Arab world in Algeria and I would like to ask him whether he approves of that or not. It seems to me that his arguments, on the face of it, were a little illogical.

I should like to come back to the educational side of this debate, and say that we welcome the statement by the hon. the Minister of Education over the week-end with regard to this question of increased salaries to university lecturers. I do not intend saying any more than that. The matter has been adequately dealt with by other speakers on this side. But the hon. the Minister then went on to say that he agreed with his Cabinet colleagues with regard to this question of a shortage of manpower in South Africa. He is in good company; as he knows, the hon. the Prime Minister has made a similar statement; the hon. the Minister of Finance has mentioned it and so has the hon. the Minister of Railways and now we have the hon. the Minister of Education as well. But this particular Minister stated this afternoon that the shortage was universal and that it was not common to South Africa. I do not think that statement in any way excuses South Africa’s neglect of this issue. In any event, Sir, we are not concerned with the situation in other countries; we are concerned with what is happening here in South Africa. I have yet to know of any other country, any expanding industrial country in the world that has Cabinet Ministers who make the kind of statements that were made by the Minister of Economic Affairs last November, and by our own Prime Minister also in November last year, on this question of the seriousness of the manpower shortage in South Africa at the present time. The Minister of Economic Affairs said this in an interview which I am reading from the issue of the Cape Times of 9 November 1963—

The Prime Minister went a great deal further, Sir. In a statement arising out of consultations with the Economic Advisory Council he said that he had come to the conclusion that unless extra efforts were made to supplement the training of the manpower available in South Africa, the future economic development of the country would be seriously hampered. Can the hon. the Minister of Education tell us, if the situation is not serious in South Africa, of any other civilized country in which the position has deteriorated to the extent it has deteriorated here? I think he will find it a little difficult to do so.

The hon. the Minister then went on and criticized hon. members on this side of the House for their suggestions as to how these shortages might be eased. It seemed to me that he was clearly on the defence in regard to this issue. I would suggest that some of the points put forward by hon. members on this side of the House who are interested in education might be helpful to the hon. the Minister. I hardly think it was an occasion for an indictment of those of us who all are interested in this subject. In fact, I think it was most unfortunate that he gave that impression this afternoon. It is not for us to try to find the answer, Sir. It is the Government’s business. Some of us are genuinely concerned about helping the hon. the Minister and he knows that perfectly well. If we sat on this side of the House and said nothing about it we should be indicted for having no life in us at all and if we do raise an issue then we are indicted in any case by the hon. the Minister. What kind of parliamentary debate is that? This is my first encounter with the hon. the Minister and I hope he will forgive me for raising this point, but I do not really think much of his tactics in this debate. Mr. Speaker, these Estimates were placed before us by the hon. the Minister of Finance last week. Our job is to examine them. Hon. members on this side of the House have been doing that ever since the Minister of Finance made his speech. It is our business to put questions Sir; it is our business to ask for information; it is our business to issue challenges just as it was the business of hon. members over there when they sat on this side of the House and they never seemed to do anything else.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to point out is this. What kind of response do we get? We can only deplore the fact, as a few hon. members have already pointed out, that one of the most important statements on the subject of educational development in South Africa is made by the hon. the Minister in a public speech and not here in Parliament. There is another instance, and I am sorry that I have this bone of contention with the hon. the Minister so early in the Session, but it seems to me that there was a deliberate attempt by the hon. the Minister to evade giving information when various questions were put on the Order Paper earlier this Session in this House. Those questions were put on the Order Paper by me. I would like to deal with that in some detail in a minute.

Is that in order?

You are not the Speaker.

I can always raise a point of order, if you like. On a point of order, is the hon. member in order when she says that the hon. Minister deliberately tries to evade replying to questions?

What did the hon. member say?

I said that it appeared to me that the hon. Minister had deliberately evaded replying to questions.

The hon. member may proceed.

I want to say finally that the hon. the Minister’s statement here this afternoon, giving a lot of facts and figures on the educational situation—very interesting facts and very interesting figures—all the same the way he presented those facts and figures gave the impression that the hon. Minister deliberately intended to make monkeys of hon. members on this side of the House. I deplore his tactics in that regard.

I want to come back to realities. The hon. the Minister made great play of the fact that the National Education Council has had many matters referred to it for consideration and he mentioned teachers and their status and their conditions of work and so on. It was very significant to me, Mr. Speaker, that that was the only matter that he mentioned. The hon. Minister went on rather vaguely to say that planning was well on its way and that he hoped they would report this year. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that we are not in the least bit satisfied with the Minister’s statement here this afternoon in that regard. In fact I think he told us very little indeed. Because, Sir, for all his words and for all the interesting facts that the hon. Minister gave us, we still never seem to get to grips with the real education issues in South Africa on a broad basis. We get a lot of words and empty promises but we want to know what the Government is doing about it in terms of an over-all plan. If the hon. Minister and the Cabinet are so anxious, what are their plans? Have they a “crash” programme, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked when the motion of no-confidence was before the House? It is perfectly useless to deal with this question of education and of the manpower shortage piece-meal. The hon. the Minister of Education said so himself in a statement last year after the first meeting of the Educational Council—

I should not wish the Council to tackle the educational problems of the country piece-meal. The Council will have to survey the whole scene; a thorough study will have to be made of every phase of education to obtain a comprehensive picture of the position before the council submits any advice or proposals to me.

We agree with the hon. the Minister, but what are the short-term and what are the long-term plans of the Government for education? We still have to hear something about them. Surely the hon. the Minister must have a list of heads under which he is working? He must know something about it. To-day’s statement was totally inadequeate in that regard. The mass of evidence given before the Select Committee on the National Education Council Bill in 1962 proved the public’s interest in the matter. They are looking for some bold steps to be taken by the Government. In his second-reading speech the hon. Minister said in 1962 that he intended to convene a National Education Conference as soon as possible after the appointment of the council. He went on to say that he intended to convene such a conference either annually or every two years and that all sorts of interested parties would be invited to attend. Why has no such conference been held? Can the Minister tell us? Two years have passed and nothing has happened. In reply to a question of mine on 24 February in this House, I asked the hon. Minister whether it was his intention to convene such a conference and his answer was an emphatic “No”. So the hon. Minister did not mean what he said in 1963. On 24 February I also asked the hon. Minister what matters had been referred to the Educational Council, how many ad hoc committees had been appointed, what specific aspects of education it was intended they should investigate, how many reports he had received from either the committees or the council, and whether he would give us some information, or lay these reports on the Table of the House. What was the Minister’s answer? He said that the council was preparing its report, that he was not prepared to anticipate its findings and that he would table it in this House towards the end of May next. At that stage I was not sure whether by May next he means May of next year or May of this year. I take it, from what the hon. Minister said this afternoon, that he meant May of this year.

This year.

No report was tabled by the Educational Council last year, but then they had only just been appointed—we accept that. But can the hon. Minister tell us how it could possibly prejudice the council or prejudice the contents of its report, if he were to give us straightforward answers to my questions as to what matters had been referred to the council for its consideration? That is all we want to know. We are not asking him for the council’s findings. We know perfectly well that they may not be in a position to tell us at this stage. I want to remind the hon. Minister that he himself said in the second-reading debate in 1962 that a lot of issues would require long-term research and he went into these in great detail. He said that he thought the council would have to give advice on the diversity of training and the certification of teachers at universities, colleges and technical colleges, the organization of secondary education, differentiation, the problem of the education of adolescents, choice of subjects and curricula, the general forms of vocational education, vocational guidance, etc. That is what the hon. Minister said in his speech in 1962 and these are all important matters. Last year, in this House, the Minister informed hon. members that a very heavy programme had been entrusted to the Education Advisory Council. Well, Sir, surely we are entitled to know what that programme is? But we can get no information from the hon. the Minister. It is now 12 months since the council had its first meeting, on which the Minister made a statement. Can we for instance know from the hon. the Minister how often the five nominated members of the Executive Committee have met? The public would like to know that they are on the job. A lead is expected from them. The hon. Minister has said that all sorts of issues are being handled by this council. What are they? I want to remind the hon. Minister of another statement that he made. The hon. Minister said in 1962 that the members of the Executive Committee “would have to devote all their time to the work of the committee and accordingly would receive salaries”. Well, have they done that? Have they devoted all their time to it? I doubt it. If not, why not? Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to reflect upon the integrity or the ability of the people on the Executive Committee. That is not the point. But they are busy people already holding down full-time educational posts. How can they possibly be expected to have to deal with the work of the Educational Council full-time as well? We said that this would happen. This is now the second year that this House has been asked to vote a sum of R40,000 for the Education Council. That is little enough. But if this money is going on salaries then we want to know what work is being done. On the other hand if members of the council are going about the country making serious investigations into one aspect of education or another, they will need a lot more money than the R40,000 and that should appear on these Estimates. If the Minister cannot give us a satisfactory answer, the country has every right to feel alarmed at what looks very much like neglect in these matters by the Government. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the broader picture. What do we find? We find that this question of a manpower shortage affects half the portfolios in the Cabinet. It certainly affects a large number of Government Departments—judging by the shortage of personnel in many of those Departments themselves. So universal is this shortage that it was difficult for me to decide under which Vote to raise this matter. I asked myself whether I should raise this matter under Labour, under Defence, Economic Affairs, Health or Education, Arts and Science. They are all vitally affected. The real answer lies, of course, in a comprehensive educational plan to cover them all. Where is it? We have yet to see it. Here another crucial question immediately arises: What kind of coordination exists between the Government Departments I have just mentioned on this problem of a shortage of manpower? We pleaded in 1962 that the Education Council should be a representative body, representative of the whole community. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) said at the time that the whole Advisory Council was academic and we said that that was a mistake. Sir, we reaffirm that. How on earth can any Government, particularly this Government, get down to an intelligent long-term assessment of the country’s requirements in terms of trained manpower and then proceed to formulate plans to meet those requirements unless there is adequate and permanent coordination in the field of labour, industrial development, public health, the Public Services, the Defence Department, and the Education Department? We have no information that the Government is working on that basis.

I want to say something about the Division of Education. I wish to put a question to the House: How can any modern industrial country like South Africa, with a vast non-White labour force on which we are dependent, and four population groups at different stages of development, grapple with this problem of a manpower shortage unless we have one comprehensive planning authority and one comprehensive plan for the education and training of all our workers, of all colours, grades and skills? Mr. Speaker, look at these Estimates. The hon. the Minister has a whole host of officials to take the figures out for him, but there is no means of discovering in these Estimates, for ordinary members like ourselves, what the final sum is that is being allocated to education, unless we search under as many as 22 different heads in order to try and form some sort of idea. What kind of overall planning is that, Mr. Speaker? I want to know also how any Government can embark upon a short-term or a long-term plan for education and training in the face of a manpower crisis, such as we have in South Africa, with four different Ministers handling education votes of one kind or another, and a few other Ministers handling educational institutions in terms of their portfolios as well. Mr. Speaker, in terms of modern economic planning, and the high standars of technical efficiency that are demanded by science, by the professions and by industry to-day, it seems to me to be absolute lunacy, Sir, that those who are expected to give a lead in the field of education should be divided in this way. What is the position in South Africa? We have the Minister of Community Development, who controls what the Government chooses to call “Coloured Education”. He sits in one little kraal all by himself. We have the Minister of Indian Affairs, in charge of what the Government calls “Indian Education”, whatever that may mean. He sits in another kraal. We have the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and he controls Bantu education, and sits in a kraal by himself—with a limited amount of finance. We have the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, who controls what the Government calls “White education”. Mr. Speaker, meanwhile the crying need in South Africa is to utilize, to train and to co-ordinate the ability of all our workers, White and non-White in the country’s interest. But the Government has a fixation on colour and so there is no attempt at co-ordination at all. No wonder that our educationists and our industrialists get discouraged in this matter! No wonder we have not a hope of introducing a comprehensive well-thought-out plan for the country as a whole. The Government’s policies prohibit it.

As far as we in South Africa are concerned, I think the United Party is entirely justified in saying that this Government has let the country down very badly where education is concerned. Why cannot we have bold, dynamic planning in this field? Why must we limp along in this way? The hon. member for Heilbron said that he raised this issue of a manpower shortage in 1956. May I remind the hon. member that in 1948 the De Villiers Commission, which was appointed and reported on behalf of a United Party administration, urged a complete overhaul of our educational system and that the present Government has been criminally negligent and done nothing about it.

In conclusion I want to place on record that this Government of all the patriots has let South Africa down on this issue. There are no two ways about it. They talk about our cultural heritage, about Western civilization, but they have not the first idea of how to maintain either where education is concerned. And the pity of it is that the people who will suffer will be our children—your children and my children, the people who deserve it least.

I rise because in the short time at my disposal I wish to bring a matter to the notice of the Government which is of real interest and which should receive the urgent and serious attention of the Government, and therefore the hon. member will forgive me if I do not react to her speech. It is the question of the increasing financial burden our cities in South Africa have to bear. It is well known to all that the cost of local government in our urban areas is steadily increasing and that they have risen to unprecedented heights. That cannot be otherwise because our cities to-day have to cope with tremendously increasing populations. Now it is obvious that with the growth of the urban populations also the demands made of municipalities for the provision of certain services like housing, new townships, transportation, power, water, the building of streets and the accompanying planning are increased, all of which is very expensive in these times.

If we look at the latest census, we find that the populations of our urban complexes between the years 1951 and 1960 increased as follows—

With this growth in population the provision of services has obviously also increased, and that put a growing financial burden on our urban local governments which places them in great difficulty. Take the city of Cape Town as an example, where the population increased by 26 per cent. In 1950 Cape Town’s expenditure on Revenue Account (the Taxation Account) amounted to R14,972,000. In 1960 it was R28,348,000, an increase of 89 per cent in respect of their expenditure on Revenue Account. On their Capital Account their expenditure in 1950 was R5,500,000, and that increased to R12,678,000 in 1960, an increase of 140 per cent. That is the increasing financial burden with which a city like Cape Town has to cope. The City Treasurer’s Department in Cape Town assures me that this expenditure has in recent years shown a sharp rising tendency. I want to mention another example, Bloemfontein, the city which I have the honour to represent. In 1950 the expenditure of the city of Bloemfontein on Revenue Account (from general taxation) was R1,043,962. In 1960 the expenditure on Revenue Account already amounted to R1,896,836, and to-day it is already far more than R2,000,000. That was an increase of expenditure on Revenue Account of 81 per cent over a period of ten years. Their Capital Account increased from R1,151,852 in 1950 to R3,160,631 in 1960, an increase of 174 per cent.

I have given these two examples of Cape Town and Bloemfontein in order to indicate to what extent their financial burden has increased. It may be accepted that this is the position in regard to every city in the Republic. I have the figures available for other cities, but I think that these two examples are sufficient to indicate the increasing financial burden with which our cities have to cope to-day. This sharp increase in expenditure was to a large extent caused by their unprecedented population increase and the concomitant provision of services. But, and I want to emphasize this, it should be noted that the expenditure increased out of all proportion to their population growth. It is that increasing financial burden which has to be borne by the ratepayers in our cities, and they now have to bear a much heavier burden than they did 10 or 12 years ago, apart from this increase in population.

I want to plead seriously with the Government to-day to consider whether the time has not arrived to grant relief to these people, and for the Government to make a contribution to the increasing financial burdens of the cities. I honestly think the time has arrived for the Government to pay rates to the local governments on the Government buildings and properties in the various cities. Our cities annually suffer a tremendous loss in rates because of the fact that the Government, the S.A. Railways and the Provincial Administrations do not pay rates on their buildings and properties in the cities concerned. I want to take my city of Bloemfontein as an example. The loss in rates to Bloemfontein is the following at the moment: On Government buildings R87,657 per annum, on buildings of the S.A. Railways R24,799, on vacant sites belonging to the Railways R22,094 per annum, and on buildings and properties of the Provincial Administration R32,920, a total amount of R167,470 per annum. That is an amount which will help the Bloemfontein City Council appreciably if it can collect that revenue, to combat the rising costs, if the Government should decide to pay rates on its buildings and properties.

It is interesting to compare the percentage of non-taxable and taxable properties. We find that whereas the percentage of the valuation of non-taxable properties in Bloemfontein in 1950 was 36.7 per cent, as compared with the valuation of taxable properties, that percentage is to-day already 47.1 per cent. In all fairness, I must say that the properties of institutions, associations and churches are of course not taxable either, but that constitutes a very small percentage. The central and provincial authorities are responsible for the greatest increase in this regard.

When I plead here that the Government should assist the urban areas, I know that the argument will be advanced that it will mean that portion of the financial burden of our cities will be transferred to the shoulders of the whole of the population and that the rural areas will then also have to make a contribution towards this financial burden, and it may be argued that this is unfair to the rural areas.

Of course.

I want to argue, however, that every city in our country renders a particular service to the rural areas surrounding it. The city in the first place renders an economic service to the surrounding rural areas. Factories, wholesale and retail businesses, building societies, regional banks and publishing companies in the cities all make a contribution towards rendering this economic service to the rural areas.

Gratis?

They supply the rural areas with goods or services which are not available or obtainable in the rural areas. The large garages and machinery firms also render a service by providing motor cars and spare parts, tractors and their spare parts, and agricultural implements and their spare parts.

At a stiff price.

This is an essential service to the farmer in the rural areas during these times of agricultural mechanization. This economic service is rendered by the city, apart from the mutually economic inter-dependence of the city and the rural areas. I should like hon. members who have raised objection to note this. The city is of course dependent on the rural area for its food, raw material and purchasing power, just as the rural area is again dependent on the city as a market for its products and as a source of labour for the rural population which cannot be absorbed by agriculture or which cannot make a living in the rural area.

The city also renders an educational service to the rural area. In the educational sphere the city provides a higher technical and intellectual education than the rural area. The city also provides the chief library services. In the sphere of journalism it is in the cities where the main newspapers of the country are printed and distributed to the rural areas.

But in the third place the city also renders an administrative service, because the city is usually the headquarters of the regional officers of the various departments which have to serve the surrounding rural area.

Apart from Cape Town and Pretoria, which are the seats respectively of the legislative and the administrative bodies, and Bloemfontein which is the judicial capital, Cape Town, Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Pietermaritzburg are also the seats of the four Provincial Administrations.

There are also other respects in which the city renders particular services to the rural area, but I think I have quoted enough examples to indicate the particular services rendered by the cities to the rural areas. On these grounds I want to ask the Government to give financial assistance to our urban areas by at least accepting the responsibility for paying municipal rates on its buildings and properties. If the Government decides to do so, it will also set a good example to the Provincial Administrations to render assistance in regard to the building and maintenance of roads running through the cities and the urban areas.

In recent years much has been done in the way of rendering assistance to the rural areas in the form of the assistance given to agriculture.

Where?

I do not want to make any reproaches in that respect. I want to be fair and say that they were given essential assistance, and that even more assistance should be given. I think, however, that the urban areas also now have a justifiable claim for assistance. I think that the Government should seriously consider the financial difficulties in which our urban municipalities and ratepayers find themselves. A heavy burden is resting on the urban ratepayer, and I do not think I am asking too much when I ask the Government to pay rates on its properties in our cities.

While I am on my feet, I also want to say that I am particularly glad that the hon. the Minister emphasized in his Budget speech that the public sector can relieve the pressure in the building industry by postponing capital works or at least by spreading them over a longer period. I do not doubt the necessity for such capital works in the least, but I do think that in view of the housing position and the shortage of building workers it is now the time to give preference to the building of houses.

The hon. the Minister of Housing recently indicated that in our urban areas alone a large number of houses have to be built. In the eight urban areas more than 8,000 housing units for Whites have to be built, and more than 55,000 housing units for non-Whites. It is also a well-known fact that the shortage of labour is felt mostly in the building industry. Under these circumstances I feel that it is absolutely essential that priority should now be given to housing and that capital works with a view to providing office space should be held back as far as possible, particularly also in view of the fact that in some of our cities there is at the moment a surplus of available office space. I hope and trust that this will be done. I am very sorry that hon. members representing the rural areas considered it necessary to interrupt me. I think I have always been a very reasonable member of this House. I have never yet interrupted any member who pleaded for the rural areas and for agriculture. I want to express my regret in that regard, but that will not prevent me from telling the Government that if the rural areas and agriculture need assistance they should be given that assistance, because I consider that to be in the interests of the country, but I also want to base my case on the same grounds on which they plead for assistance, and I also want to plead for assistance, in a time of financial need, for the urban areas, and particularly for the local authorities which are faced with an increasing financial burden.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that it is necessary for me to raise a matter which I believe is causing great concern in this country and detracting from our international standing. I raise it in this way because it has taken place in this House and it is becoming a matter of controversy between the members on the Government side of the House and the Press, and it is causing comment in the Press. This matter is the shocking exhibition of Jewbaiting which we have seen in this House during this Session.

Nonsense!

I do not want to give you all the details I have with me, Sir, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that in your discretion, when these matters come to your notice, you deal with the matter accordingly. But I regret to say that on many occasions these matters are not noticed because they are done in such a way that they do not travel to your ears. That is a practice which is being followed in this House. By innuendo, and sometimes more directly, I say most definitely that this Jewbaiting is taking place. The sort of thing that is being said when certain members in this House rise to speak is immediately: “Go to Israel; use the third language; there go the Jews again,” and commonly the epithet is thrown across the floor of the House: “Finkelstein,” meaning that because a certain person called Finkelstein in Russia indulged in subversive propaganda against South Africa, that is attributed to the person who stands up to speak in this House. There was a very careful statement made the other day in regard to Karl Marx, when it was said that he was a Jew. Immediately the interjection came by way of a query that a certain member of this House was related to Karl Marx. You would rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, but it does not rest only in this place; it is travelling further, even to the Other Place. Another epithet that is frequently thrown across the floor of the House when members of the Jewish faith get up to speak is, “communist”. Time and again one hears that in this House, and the device that is being used in this House is that when a member of the Jewish faith outside does something wrong then invariably you hear it attached to the whole race in this House. I think it is most deplorable. By hook or by crook it is dragged into the debate. We have had a recurrence of this in years gone by, and I believe that it is an abuse of the privilege of this House. It is something we should safeguard most dearly. We should not allow it to be abused in any way. Fortunately, in a sense, in your discretion, Sir, many of these things which are being said do not find their way into Hansard in printed form. You have this discretion, and that discretion is being used because afterwards one does not find them in Hansard indicating the impropriety of some of the things being said in this House.

During this Session, and particularly last week, members of the Jewish faith, properly elected to represent the constituents, have been singled out for the most shocking aspersions, and this House and the people outside are entitled to a statement from the Prime Minister himself and to an explanation from the Prime Minister himself in regard to this highly deplorable trend. We want to know from the Prime Minister whether he approves of the remarks that have been made and the attitude they betray and whether, if he does not, he will take steps as leader of his party to see that this sort of thing comes to an end. We want to know also, if he does not approve, why he has allowed remarks and the attitude revealed to go unrepudiated, because this has been going on for a considerable time. I do not know whether the Prime Minister appreciates it; he is not always in this House because he is a busy man and has to attend to his duties as Prime Minister, but this attitude is increasing in tempo and it has already caused damage to our reputation in the world outside, and it is surely not necessary for me to go into the details. I have given some of the milder remarks, if I may put it that way, but some of them do not bear repetition in this House. As I have said, I do not want to go into the merits and demerits of the matter in absolute detail, but surely a civilized people are entitled to believe that this type of race hatred died with that arch racist, Adolf Hitler. Let me say that we on this side of the House belong to a party which demands only that its members shall give their love and service to South Africa, without judging them as to their religion and their origin. We look upon them as fellow-citizens and accept them as fellow-South Africans serving South Africa. It does not seem to be appreciated, although members on this side of the House represent very often a different point of view from that of the Government and are in debate with members on that side of the House, that we are equally as good South Africans as members sitting on that side of the House and that we serve South Africa as well as they do. It is part of the institution and of the system, and according to our views we are serving South Africa. Their service to South Africa has been of very considerable value. They have served South Africa in peace and in war and the members of the Jewish faith have contributed to our industrial advancement and they have contributed materially and spiritually to the general advancement of this country. By that test it cannot be said that they are not South Africans. They belong to our community and they are certainly better South Africans than many of their present calumniators. This is all the more contemptible in the light of the record of service of these people, as I have said, and I want to say that the relationship between the Afrikaans people in this country of all parties, no matter what the political opinions of the persons concerned are and the Jewish South Africans, has fortunately always belied and repudiated the attitude of the extremist racist anti-Semites. What has been happening in this House is all the more regrettable because the people of South Africa do not stand for that sort of thing.

Sir, what are these people trying to do? Are these the official sentiments of the Nationalist Party, and if not, are they trying to make them so? Do they seek to persuade their party to return to the days when no Jewish South African could be admitted to that party?

What are you trying to do now? This is a deplorable speech.

Be these things as they may, unless this dreadful racism is stopped … [Interjection.] Sir, these interjections are simply an exposure of the attitude of hon. members opposite. They do not worry me; they are simply an explanation of what has been happening in this House. I have said that the Prime Minister will have to take the responsibility for the consequences, internal and external, if this sort of thing goes on. Our external position is difficult enough. Must it be still further complicated and bedevilled by the deplorable exhibition of Jew-baiting that I have referred to? The Prime Minister owes it to this House, nay, to the country, to rise in this House and to join with us in our condemnation of what has been taking place, and to explain to us all and to the world what his attitude is. I say this, that what has been happening is not in accordance with the dignity of Parliament or the traditions of this House. It does the country and its people no good and therefore I demand of the Prime Minister to give an explanation of his attitude.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will not so lower himself as to participate in this deliberate, this miserable attempt to drag our Jewish fellow-citizens into politics in this way. I am also quite sure that the hon. the Prime Minister will not do so. What is happening here? This effort on the part of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) is nothing less than a miserable attempt to make the old question of anti-Semitism a political factor in South Africa once again.

Shame!

They are trying their utmost to make anti-Semitism a political question in this country once again and I shall tell you, Mr. Speaker, why they are doing so. It is because they are also losing the support of the Jews on a large scale and this is merely an attempt to sow suspicion amongst the Jews. It is a miserable attempt which is doomed to failure. The hon. member for Von Brandis need not tell us that there are Jews in this country who are just as good South Africans as we are. Most of them are better South Africans than he can ever hope to be. What is happening here? A few remarks have been made here, flippant remarks in my opinion, with which I do not necessarily agree, but hundreds of remarks are made on that side with which most hon. members on this side do not agree either. For example, when David Marais draws a cartoon in the Cape Times and one of the characters in that cartoon is a criminal or a gangster or a “hobo” whose name is always van der Merwe, do those hon. members have any fault to find with that fact? Have they ever taken the Cape Times to task in this regard? Have they ever told the Cape Times that when it publishes cartoons depicting gangsters and similar people of low character it should not always call such people van der Merwe? But do we take any notice of that sort of nonsense?

And Blikkiesdorp.

Yes, the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) always refers to the Afrikaners as people living in Blikkiesdorp. Why do the Opposition not repudiate statements like that? But I think that it would be silly of us to expect the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to repudiate nonsensical remarks of that nature. These are merely frivolous remarks. And they also call us Nazis. [Interjection.] Must the hon. the Leader of the Opposition repudiate that sort of remark as well? But those hon. members have been destroyed so utterly that they will do anything to try to retain the little support they still have. This is no different from what the Cape Times and the Rand Daily Mail have tried to do. The hon. member for Von Brandis spoke about “Finkelstein”. What of it? Is it so wrong that one man should call another Finkelstein? Finkelstein is a well-known and good old Jewish name. My father had an old Jewish friend by the name of Finkelstein and he was an outstanding fellow. If someone tells me to go to Israel, why should I become annoyed? To tell the truth, if the hon. member for Von Brandis tells me that I should go to Israel, I should very much like to go because I would like to see what that country is like. But the Rand Daily Mail and the Cape Times instructed the hon. member opposite to make a great hullabaloo about anti-Semitism; the label of anti-Semitism has now to be hung around the neck of the National Party and a bitter racial struggle has to be unleashed between ourselves and the Jews. But they are trying in vain to incite the Jews against the Afrikaners and they are trying in vain to incite the Afrikaners against the Jews. There is no semblance of anti-Semitism in the National Party. I can say this with the greatest confidence because I have been a member of the United Party and I am now a member of the National Party. There are people in this party who do not like the Jews but there are more people who are members of that party who do not like the Jews. I may be accused of many things but certainly not of being anti-Semitic. It is absolutely irresponsible to bring up a matter of this nature. I say that the anti-Semites in this country are to be found in the ranks of the United Party and the Progressive Party. They are the people who have no time for the Jews. Take the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller). He was Mayor of Johannesburg. Take the bon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). He was also the first citizen of Johannesburg, but let these two gentlemen try to become members of the Rand Club and see what happens ! I can tell the hon. member for Florida that he will be thrown out of the Rand Club for one reason only—because he is a Jew. If the hon. member for Hospital tries to apply for membership of the Rand Club he will be blackballed simply because he is a Jew. I know of many other reasons why they should blackball him, but they will blackball him simply because he is a Jew. Let me tell those two hon. members that they have a far better chance of becoming members of the Broederbond than they have of becoming members of the Rand Club. [Laughter.]

The hon. member for Von Brandis told us very earnestly here that those two hon. members had been elected because they were Jews. Those two hon. members flatter themselves if they think that we regard them as being the representatives of the Jews in South Africa. If the Jews wanted to elect people to represent them in this House they could choose two far better men than those two hon. members. We know Jews who are far better than they are. Because they cannot stand their ground politically, because they have lost their political sense of humour and because their party is disintegrating, they now misuse their position as members of the Jewish race to hang the label of anti-Semitism about the neck of the National Party. Sir, I am and have always been a friend of the Jews and I want to say this. If I find as much anti-Semitism in the National Party, or even half as much, as there is anti-Afrikanerdom in the United Party, then I shall resign from the National Party!

I am a friend of the Jews but I want to give my Jewish friends some advice. They must not allow themselves to be taken in tow by the race-hatred of the Cape Times and the Rand Daily Mail. They must not allow themselves to be swayed by the conduct of those two hon. members and their pettiness in this House. Nobody in this country would be so stupid and so irresponsible as to blame the Jews in this country simply because Israel decided to vote against us at UN. The Jews in this country cannot be blamed for that but they can be of great assistance to their friends by raising their voices more strongly and more vociferously in favour of South Africa when Israel takes decisions that are unfavourable to South Africa. They must raise their voices as strongly as the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) raised his voice to-day. If they do this they will be helping their friends in the National Party very much indeed—and they have a wealth of friends in this party.

I also have this to say. I hope that the Jewish community in South Africa is not going to lose its sense of humour; indeed, I am sure that the Jews will not lose their sense of humour. The hon. member for Florida has lost his sense of humour and the hon. member for Hospital has never even had a sense of humour! All he has is an insatiable hunger for publicity; that is all. But no Jew with any sense of humour at all will allow himself to be swayed and influenced by this miserable attempt to make this non-existent anti-Semitism a political slogan in South Africa and to hang that false label of anti-Semitism about the neck of the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we are taking this whole matter much too seriously. After all, the Jews are also only human. There are good Jews, moderate Jews and bad Jews. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is a person whom I regard as being a good Jewess and, if you will permit me to say so, I think that she is even an attractive Jewess. I consider the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) to be a moderate Jew and I regard the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) as being a bad Jew. (Laughter.) [Interjection.] The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) says that he is not a Jew. That is at least one disaster the Jews have been spared! (Laughter.) Yes, all I can do is to make fun of the whole matter. The Chief Whip of the United Party, who is a respected member of this House, has done himself a very great disservice this afternoon by participating in this miserable action. The only reason I can give for his conduct in this regard is the simple fact that they now realize that they no longer have the support of the English-speaking people. The number of their Afrikaans-speaking supporters is also rapidly diminishing and now they are also losing the support of the Jews. This is what they are trying to prevent by means of this miserable attempt they have made. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous and as far as I personally am concerned, I refuse to become serious about a lot of nonsense, about a few remarks that have been made in this House. Let the people who no longer have a sense of humour participate in this sort of thing. Other people who have sound common sense and who see matters in their correct perspective will not take part in things of this nature and I want to leave the question of the Jews at that. The only further remark I have to make in this regard is that all the Jews on the other side who want to come over to the National Party will be received with open arms. They are welcome.

In the short time I have left I should like to say a few words about the question of the shortage of manpower in South Africa, the efforts of the United Party to solve this problem and particularly the efforts on the part of the Chambers of Industry to relieve this manpower shortage. The only solution which the United Party have to this problem of the shortage of manpower is that job reservation in South Africa should be abolished. The Opposition say that the only way in which to solve this problem is to follow a policy of the “rate for the job”, and then they advance the false argument that if we have the “rate for the job” the employer will always employ a White man in preference to a Bantu if a policy is followed in terms of which a White man and a Bantu are paid the same money for the same work. But that is a false argument. If a “rate for the job” policy is followed, one will be placing a weapon in the hands of the unscrupulous employer which he will use to deprive the White worker of all security. To abolish job reservation and to think that one can solve the manpower shortage by applying a policy of the “rate for the job” is nothing less than treason against the White worker. The argument of the United Party is: Pay them the same and then the employer will employ the White man instead of the Bantu. But that is simply not the case. Who fixes the “rate for the job”? It can only be fixed by the Government and it can only be a minimum wage that is determined, a wage which must of necessity be lower than the wage earned by the White worker to-day, for the simple reason that one cannot fix a wage during a period of high conjuncture, on what is being paid to-day, and think that that determination can be applied indefinitely, even during a period of low conjuncture. Economically, that is an absolute impossibility, and so that wage has to be fixed at a lower rate than is the case to-day. As soon as this is done, one gives the unscrupulous employer a weapon with which to threaten the White worker. The White worker then has this Sword of Damocles hanging over his head because he knows that if he does not produce better work or if he does not work longer hours or if he does not want to accept less pay the employer will train a Bantu to do that same work and pay him far less than he is paying the White worker. One would then be placing an extremely powerful weapon in the hands of the unscrupulous employer.

But it will not rest with the unscrupulous employer because as soon as one does something of this nature in the economic life of a country, a thing called Gresham’s Law comes into operation, and Gresham’s Law states that bad coins drive out good coins. Bad employers drive out good employers because as soon as the bad employers begin to make use of the cheap Bantu labour at the minimum wage that has been fixed, they offer such competition to the good employers that the lastmentioned simply cannot keep going and are then compelled also to resort to what the bad employers are doing. And so the bad employers call the tune as far as wages are concerned. Those wages will enable the Bantu to maintain a good standard of living but will also lower the standard of living of the White workers enormously. The Bantu will be only too grateful to obtain that work because it will be a great improvement for them while, if the Whites have to work for the same wage, they will have to lower their standard of living drastically. Therefore, under a policy of the “rate for the job” we will simply have a reign of terror against the White workers in South Africa. This policy may be easily applied during this present period of high conjuncture because we do not have sufficient White workers. It will also be said that the non-Whites will have to be trained on a large scale to be fitters and turners and artisans in other trades. While we are enjoying a period of high conjuncture it may make no difference, but if we experience some economic setback or other and there is a period of low conjuncture, the first workers to be put out on the street will be the White workers. Therefore, this so-called “rate for the job” is nothing less than a pattern which will eventually place the White worker at the mercy of the unscrupulous employer who will force him to compete with cheaper Bantu labour on the open market. It is true that we are saddled at the moment with a manpower problem but I think that it is greatly exaggerated. Dr. Francois Jacobs, the Administrative Manager of Union Steel Corporation, states that there is rather a shortage but that by making better use of our manpower, by making more use of mechanization, by resorting to better training methods and by making better use of the services of people over the age of 40 years we will be able to make up this shortage. But we do not have this on his authority alone; we also have it on the authority of Mr. Rissik, the President of the Reserve Bank, who has also stated that this manpower shortage in South Africa is greatly exaggerated. But this problem does exist and we do have means of solving it other than by abolishing the pattern of job reservation, other than by applying the dangerous principle of “the rate for the job”, a principle which is and must be the enemy of the White worker. We have furthermore the solution of immigration, but we can only have immigration to the extent to which we can absorb those immigrants and accommodate them. There is, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Mr. Henning) stated in his excellent maiden speech, the question of the better utilization of our labour, the better utilization of the services of people over the age of 45 years, the better utilization of female workers in South Africa, together with the use of mechanization to an increasing extent. That is the solution; that is a healthy solution; that is the solution which is economically sound; it is a solution which will not undermine our economy and will never undermine the position of our White worker. But we in this country have to guard against one thing, and particularly at this stage of our development. In this era of great prosperity we have to be careful about one thing—and I fear that this is the mistake that is made by the Opposition, and, what is more serious still, the mistake that is made by the Chambers of Commerce and by the Chamber of Industry— and that is that we do not make prosperity our idol; put everything we have at the service of prosperity; put our country at the service of prosperity; put our pattern of life at the service of prosperity. They want to put everything that we have built up over the past 300 years at the service of prosperity instead of putting prosperity at the service of those things. After all, Mr. Speaker, how swiftly can a country develop? Things affect a country just as they affect an ordinary business. A country can develop as swiftly as its raw materials and its capital and its labour force permit it to develop. It can add to these things by means of immigration and by borrowing capital and so forth. If I own a business I can expand that business according to the capital at my disposal, the labour forces at my disposal and the management ability at my disposal. I can borrow money as soon as the time for doing so is ripe; I can issue new shares; I can build up a very powerful business by using other people’s money. A very flourishing business may be built up in this way within a certain period of time but the difference there will be that that business will no longer belong to me. We have to be very careful lest in this tidal wave of prosperity we find ourselves in a situation in which we will be enjoying more and more prosperity only to discover that South Africa no longer belongs to the White man. We must be warned against that. The introduction of a policy of “the rate for the job” must of necessity lead to the situation in which not only the position of the White worker but also the position of the White man in South Africa will be undermined. I want to say that we must be very careful, under pressure from industrialists and dealers, not to allow our yearning for prosperity to rob us of this country. We are at the moment one of the most prosperous countries in the world. We are expanding swiftly; we have nothing to be dissatisfied about. I can see no reason whatsoever for the complaint that if we had more workers we could expand and prosper more swiftly. We have every reason to be satisfied. We are saddled with the same problem that is being experienced by every other country in the world, but to change the whole basis of our policy now simply because there is an artificial shortage of manpower—except in the building sector where there really is a shortage—and to abolish the basis of our policy of job reservation, which is and has been after all, the basis of the labour pattern in South Africa under all Governments, is to gamble with the safety of our country and to gamble with the safety of the White man for the sake of this so-called prosperity.

I should like to take this opportunity to express a few thoughts about the problems in connection with our wheat production in South Africa. I am glad that I need not render further assistance to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). I think he has replied adequately to everything which was put before us in connection with the anti-Semitic feeling which has been created here artificially. I think we can regard that matter as having been stillborn. I regret that such a worthy member, who although he seldom speaks, sometimes speaks very intelligently, made such a foolish speech in this House to-day.

When I say a few words here in regard to wheat production and the problems of the wheat farmer in our country, I do so with a full realization of the problems facing us in regard to the maintenance of our standard of living and the cost of living, and I also bear in mind the needs of the consumers. Wheat is produced in South Africa mainly in three areas—the Swartland, the South-Western Districts, of which Ruëns is the main area, and the Orange Free State. Approximately one-quarter of our wheat production is produced in various other smaller areas like the Orange River Valley, the north-west and certain irrigation areas in the Transvaal. It is significant to me that there is a reasonable balance between the production of the various areas. The average production of the Swartland for the past five years was 1,780,000 bags, that of the South-Western Districts 1,838,000, that of the Orange Free State 2,401,000, and that of the other areas 2,052,000. It is interesting to note that the Free State has in recent years actually become the chief wheat-producing area in our country and that the traditional wheat-producing areas, namely the Swartland and the South-Western Districts, are gradually beginning to lag behind. I want to point out, Sir, that this is really indicative of the fact that things are not going well with this industry in the Swartland and in the South-Western Districts. The price last season, 1963-4, was fixed at R5.60 per bag for B1 wheat. In determining the wheat price the costs of production are thoroughly taken into account, although certain factors exist which in our opinion are not borne in mind sufficiently. But on broad lines we can say that the determination of prices for wheat in South Africa under the system of control is determined by two factors, viz. production costs and the entrepreneur’s wage. I can quite safely say that the wheat farmers in South Africa have accepted that basis of price fixation. It has undoubtedly led to certain advantages; it has given the consumer the advantage of a reasonably low and stable bread price, and it has brought about certain advantages to the producer, namely that it has brought stability to the industry. I still remember the years—and not hundreds of years ago, but only 20 to 25 years ago—when the wheat farmer in South Africa did not always know what to do with his wheat crop. As the result of control, that difficulty has been solved. In spite of that, I should still like to voice certain objections to-day in connection with the present wheat price, seeing that the hon. the Minister is here now.

We have every appreciation for the fact that stability has been created in the industry, and for the fact that by means of price control a reasonable price is ensured for the wheat farmer. But on this occasion I should like to voice a few doubts in regard to the present price of wheat, in the hope that the hon. the Minister will thoroughly consider the matter and that, with his knowledge of the problems of wheat farming, he will take these problems into consideration and try to meet the wheat farmers as far as possible.

The first objection to the price of wheat I wish to mention is that as the result of lower grades, which we get so often—during the past year that happened again in the Swartland area and I think also in the South-Western Districts—and which alone result in reduced production, the wheat farmer in a bad year, in which his wheat has been afflicted by all kinds of diseases, does not receive the average fixed price. In other words, he is bound to a much lower price because he delivers a poorer product—not that I expect a higher price for people who deliver a poor product, but it simply reduces the income of the wheat farmer, whereas he still has to incur the same expenses. That creates all kinds of financial problems.

A second consideration I want to mention to the Minister is that land values are set at too low a figure for the purpose of price determination. In the South-Western Districts it is put at R51 per morgen, and in the Swartland at R47 per morgen. I know that there is the consideration that the authorities who determine wheat prices must as far as possible try to combat inflationary land prices. Therefore it is not wise to take land prices at too high a level for the purposes of fixing the price of wheat, but I do want to say that these land values are definitely unrealistic. It is out of all proportion to the present market value of land. I think the present market value of land generally in the areas under consideration is at least twice the amount which is taken into consideration when the price of wheat is fixed. It therefore remains a very important factor which creates all kinds of problems for the wheat farmer. At that valuation no young wheat farmer can really start farming because he cannot buy land at any price other than the present market price. There is always a percentage of farmers who leave the industry, who simply cannot carry on because of their age and who do not have a son to take over the farm, and who therefore have to capitalize their property and live on their interest. On that basis the industry is closed to the new farmer who has to buy his land in the open market.

A third consideration I wish to mention as an objection to the present price of wheat is that the rate of interest on capital has since 1941 been put at 5 per cent, and that that rate of interest is too low. The wheat farmer cannot get money on mortgage bond anywhere at that rate of interest. That rate of interest is out of all proportion to the rental value of land. The man who wants to hire a wheat farm simply cannot get any land at that rate of interest. I want to point out that there is in fact a considerable percentage of farms which have been paid for, but that in my opinion there are very few wheat farmers who farm on land that has been paid for, because within a relatively short period the farmer’s son must really take over the farm and he must hire that farm from his father, and he must do so at a rate which is appreciably higher than the rate of interest which is taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the price of wheat.

I want to mention a fourth consideration which is perhaps most important of all. When everything goes well, when the crops are fine, when the rain comes in time, there is hardly any wheat farmer who complains about the present fixed price. But our country is no great wheat-producing country. We are too often faced with periodic droughts, rust in the wheat, wind damage, frost, with wheat lice in the Free State, and now even the mice plague in the Swartland, particularly in the western area. It often takes the farmer a few years to recover from the damage suffered in one bad year and to get going again. When one makes inquiries at agricultural co-operatives, one realizes that if it were not for the fact that our wheat farmers’ co-operatives are to-day fairly strong financially many of our wheat farmers would simply have gone to the wall because they just cannot finance their wheat farming themselves. They simply operate on the credit they can obtain from their co-operatives, in the hope that they will again have a good crop. Unless we pay proper attention to that in our future planning and in the determination of prices, it will simply mean that as time goes on increasingly more wheat farmers, particularly the smaller ones, will have to give up, and it would be a great pity if this process is accelerated. I want to mention an example. In 1962-3 the price of wheat was calculated on an average yield of about nine bags per morgen. If we analyse what the actual yield per morgen was in the area surveyed, we find that in the Swartland the average yield was seven bags per morgen. In other words, the production costs of the farmer who got seven bag per morgen were much higher than the theoretical average on which the price was fixed—two bags per morgen less than the yield taken into consideration when determining the price. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to bear these facts in mind this year when determining the price of wheat. From time to time we speak to directors and managers of agricultural co-operatives, and particularly of our wheat co-operatives, and we can tell the hon. the Minister in all honesty that those people are concerned about an appreciable percentage of our wheat farmers who simply cannot make ends meet any more. Amongst our wheat farmers these days there is a measure of pessimism; they feel that their circumstances and their needs are not being seriously considered. I do not want to say that that is so, but I do want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister seriously to consider the position of our wheat farmers because these facts speak for themselves. It is significant that people from the viticultural districts have recently been buying farms in the wheat districts at prices which no wheat farmer is prepared to pay because he knows what problems exist and what the cost of wheat production is, and the damage he may suffer. These people from the viticultural districts, however, buy these farms because they come from a sector of our agriculture where the farmers in general are much more prosperous. Sir, we are dealing here with a settled section of our farming community. I think that applies also to the Free State, of which I cannot speak from experience, but I am thinking now particularly of the Swartland and the South-Western Districts, the Ruëns area and other districts. We are dealing here with a settled community and not with people who continually allow their farms to pass into the hands of others. This community has made a very great contribution to the development of our country, although financially it may not be such a great contribution. But during the war years, when we were dependent on local production, it made a great contribution towards feeding our population. It is a community which in future may hold a key position, particularly when taking into consideration the tendency towards the increasing isolation of our country, and I want to ask that we should not leave them in the lurch but that they should be assisted to retain their interest in the growing of wheat.

Mr. Speaker, unless the Government devotes serious attention to the price of wheat and to the position of our wheat farmers, I predict that the South-Western Districts and the Ruëns area and the Swartland will in future become predominantly wool and meatproducing areas. At the present prices there is hardly any incentive for the wheat farmer to carry on with wheat production, and as increasingly more people discover this to be the position, it will simply mean that in this country with a growing population we will have reduced wheat production. There may of course also be other economic considerations; it may be said that we can sell our wool overseas at a good price, that we thereby earn valuable foreign currency, but viewed as a long-term policy this is the wrong tendency, and therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to the economic position of our wheat farmers. I know that he is sympathetic to the wheat farmer; he knows their problems, but I want to ask that he should also persuade the Government in the near future to consider the circumstances and the needs of the wheat farmers and to assist them.

I want to conclude by expressing just one more thought. I have already referred to the position of the smaller wheat farmer. It is significant that it is the man who is financially independent who can make use of the State schemes in regard to farm planning and soil conservation, but the man who lags behind is the comparatively small farmer who reaps 500 or 1,000 bags of wheat, and he is the man who cannot derive any benefit from the farm planning and soil conservation schemes. Those people lag behind to an increasing extent, and their soil is increasingly being lost to us.

Therefore I hope that the hon. the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, will consider whether it is not possible to assist these farmers whose financial position is weak by giving them a higher subsidy or assisting them to plan their farms and to apply soil conservation methods. There is a serious need for it. If we want to retain the existing wheat-producing land in South Africa and build it up so as to be able to produce even more in future, it is absolutely essential that this matter should receive serious consideration. I confidently leave this matter in the hands of the hon. the Minister, in the certainty that he will do his best for our wheat farmers, but I wish to conclude by saying that in many cases they are in a precarious position.

One has a small measure of sympathy for the last speaker, but I should just like to tell him and other hon. members opposite that we have been warning them for years already, and today we can say to them: “We told you so.” It affords me great pleasure to-day to be able to say to them: “We told you so.” What is the position at the present time? The position is that the constituents of those hon. members are beginning to make things hot for them. The whole speech of the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) proves that he has had an anxious time.

I do not feel very gratified by your support.

No, the hon. member is not receiving any support. He is quite wrong. The support he should have given me ten years ago already was not forthcoming, and to-day he comes here with this cry of despair.

I should like to settle accounts with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) and I am sorry he is not present here now. In fact, the hon. member has rarely been present during the debate. Now suddenly he jumps up and participates in this debate in a manner that has not really contributed much to the dignity of this debate. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) stated his case in a dignified manner, and what have we had from the first speaker on that side who replied to him, namely the hon. member for Vereeniging?

Noise.

I deeply deplore the fact that the National Party thought fit to call upon that hon. member to reply to the hon. member for Von Brandis with reference to such a serious subject, for what did the hon. member for Vereeniging say? He intimated that the hon. member for Von Brandis had spoken nonsense, that he showed a lack of sense of humour, etc., but he did not advance a single sound argument. The only argument he raised was that no Jewish person is permitted to be a member of the Rand Club. But I ask you. Sir, is it not a fact that there are many Jewish clubs of which non-Jews may not become members? Why does the hon. member mention that as proof of anti-Semitism? What about the Broederbond? There even Afrikaans-speaking South Africans may not become members, much less Jews.

Inaudible.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could hear everything that hon. member says in this House by way of interjection. He is one of those who most impair the dignity of this House.

Order! The hon. member must not make such an allegation against another hon. member. The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I said he is one of the members who most impair the dignity of this House, and I am sorry I cannot always hear what he says. Is that wrong?

That is a reflection upon the Chair.

Mr. Speaker hears everything that goes on.

I am pleased to hear that. In that case we shall then very definitely always have protection here. To revert to the matter raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis, I should like to say it is a very serious matter, and I should like to give my reasons for thinking so. I shall prove that the National Party has in the past been an anti-Jewish party. I should like to quote a motion proposed by Dr. Malan in this House on 12 January 1937. I should like to quote what he said in a motion of no confidence—

A whole series of these things then follow—

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that this National Party bears the stigma of being an anti-Jewish party, and when this attitude once again begins to manifest itself in this House, it is a serious matter. But what have we had from the hon. member for Vereeniging? He adopted a lighthearted attitude in his reply to the hon. member for Von Brandis. And then he talks about the lack of a sense of humour! I just want to say, Sir, heaven save us from the “humour” of the hon. member for Vereeniging.

I have a couple of good jokes to tell you just now.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this Budget debate with a sense of near disapproval. I say that for two reasons. My first reason is that throughout this debate very few Ministers have been present. This is a Budget debate, a debate of which all the Ministers have had several weeks prior notice.

Which Minister would you like to have here?

The hon. the Chief Whip is becoming alarmed quite unnecessarily. It is his task to ascertain which matters are going to be discussed and to make the necessary arrangements with our Whips. The fact that for nearly three days we have been debating this matter without Ministers being present here just goes to show that the hon. the Chief Whip has not done his work.

On a point of order, that Whip said the hon. member was very seriously ill.

I was unaware of my personal importance that because I was not present, the Ministers did not deem it necessary to be present either. But the simple truth is that this debate has been carried on without Ministers being present here. A few Ministers were present to-day, but on Thursday and Friday very few of them were present.

My second point of disapproval was the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister is not here either, but his attitude was that the surplus of R88,000,000 belonged to the Government. His attitude was that it was thanks to this good Government that he was able to show this surplus.

Hear, hear!

Order! The hon. member for Cradock should conduct himself more moderately.

I do not think it is going to remain at R88,000,000. I think it will finally be R100,000,000. And now the attitude of this Government is that they can dispense alms, and I find that utterly unsavoury. What is the truth, Mr. Speaker? The truth is that this money belongs to the taxpayers; it belongs to the people in South Africa who risked just a little more, planned a little better and worked a little bit harder. They are responsible for this result. But the attitude of the hon. the Minister is that he can now do as he likes with these large sums of money, and that he can dispense alms to a few people. And I listened to the Budget speech with a sense almost of disapproval because it showed me that as usual this Government has no plans; that as usual it has no vision; that as usual it cannot check the extravagance and the waste of money that is taking place.

I should like to look back into the past a little, and ask what this Government has said in connection with taxation and the national income. I should like to quote from a pamphlet published by Mr. M. C. de Wet Nel in 1948. This is the heading—

What were the reasons given by him?—

And now, Mr. Speaker? In 1947 the total debt was R1,217,000,000 and at the present time it is R2,885,000,000.

That is productive debt.

Shame, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is now as wrong as he was at that time. That is not the only thing said by the hon. the Minister. At that time the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development went further and dealt with the terrible taxes the public were paying. He said this—

Oh, he was terribly upset about that. What is the position at the present time? As usual the Minister was wrong; those figures he quoted were not correct. In 1946-7 we paid £280,000,000 and in 1963-4 it is R862,000,000. That is according to the Estimates of the hon. the Minister. And next year it will be R1,050,000,000. But what is being done with all this money? That is equally important. On 18 February 1964, in reply to a question by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) the hon. the Minister of Finance replied as follows: There are 22 Cadillacs, Plymouths and Galaxies in which hon. Ministers are travelling around. I have no objection to that, but this is where the joke comes in as far as I am concerned … Mr. Speaker, Someone asks “What about your Cadillac?” I paid for mine myself, and that is the difference. I did not ask the public to pay for mine. I also fill up with petrol at my own expense. And, moreover, I drive it myself, but the great joke about this is this: Over and above these 22 Cadillacs, etc., the hon. the Minister of Transport says there is in addition a pool of motor vehicles for the use of Ministers when they require fiveor sixseater cars. You know, Mr. Speaker, one can hardly walk in Parliament Street any more because of the multitude of ministerial cars. Do you know what the expense has been during two years in connection with these 22 cars? It is R35,237—nearly R36,000. That is according to the Budget. And they covered 437,000 miles. It is no wonder that in Utrecht, where I live, I sometimes see some of these big cars with a driver and a secretary or so.

But that is not the only thing that is interesting. This Government, which is a little too expensive for South Africa to afford it, according to that hon. Minister has 31 residences, excluding Liberias and Groote Schuur, and the municipal valuation of those residences, which is usually less than the market value, is R912,000, nearly R1,000,000. In addition there are three flats, for which a rental of R684 per month is being paid. Of this R684 per month the Ministers in question pay R184 per month, and the balance of the bill is footed by the taxpayers.

You let your Ministers live in hovels.

That is not correct. Our Ministers lived in dignified homes, but I do not think our Minisers were as extravagant as these Ministers. Then there is an amount of R159,000 for furniture. It is interesting to note that for these 31 residences an amount of R7,832 is being paid in the form of rent by the Ministers concerned, and the balance comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers. But that is not all. This is a Government of Bantustans, is it not Mr. Speaker? This is a Government which has decided that South Africa is no longer to be a single unit; that large slices of South Africa have to be given away to independent states; they are now going to retain a small piece in the middle for the White man, as they say. But they are paying dearly for it. Sir. Buildings have to be erected; a large residence has been built at Umtata for Mr. Hans Abraham. In that connection they spent R230,000 and in Mafeking R244,000; in Nongoma R205,000; in Sibasa R407,000, etc. We lent Dalinyebo R40,000 to build himself a residence.

But that is not all yet. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that of every four Nationalist Party members, one is either a Minister or a member of a commission? I understand the Native Affairs Commission sits for six days a year, and for that they are paid R2,030. That of course does not include the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). He is there fulltime, as we see in this House every day. Of course he never stops talking here. He receives an extra R1,000. In order to popularize this concept of Bantustans with the people whom the Government wants to accept this idea, the Government is paying them a tidy sum of money. Botha Sigcau receives R3,000; Victor Poto receives R3,000; another Sigcau receives R3,000; Dalindyebo receives R3,000; Matanzima receives R2,000. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Zululand will not have anything to do with these Bantustans, and there the Government really spends a lot of money. They are paying Dinizulu R4,436 and Sandile receives R3,000. That is only to see whether their co-operation cannot be secured. That is not all either, Mr. Speaker. We need merely look at the number of new Ministers. Formerly there was one Department of Bantu Affairs; now there are two. Formerly there was one Department of Agriculture. At that time things were still going well with the farmers, but to-day we have two Departments of Agriculture and now the farmers are really faring badly.

We have a Department of Coloured Affairs and a Department of Community Development; we have a Department of Tourism. Education is sub-divided into White, Coloured, Bantu and Indian education. We even have a Minister of Indian Affairs to-day. It is so interesting; do you know who he is, Mr. Speaker? He is the leader of the Nationalists in Natal. He has now become the leader of the Indians also. We have a Department of Immigration now. We have commissions galore. We have a Press Commission, such a beautiful picture which appeared in this morning’s paper, with a row of books behind them. Heaven alone knows when those books will arrive in this House, and where they are going to be stored. As far as we know that commission costs us R353,000 to date. We have had the Tomlinson Commission report, consisting of so many books that they could not send it here—they had to give us an abbreviated report. We have had the Odendaal Commission; we have had the commission on the depopulation of the rural areas; we have had a commission on the cost of agricultural implements; we have a commission dealing with our coinage. At the moment they are trying to find out how little silver we can put into our coins. We have had a commission on the high cost of medical treatment and there are a whole lot of others too.

What about the Heckroodt Commission?

There are so many of them that my time does not permit me to enumerate them all. The point I wish to make is this: All these commissions are appointed; and all those members must be paid and no notice is taken of their recommendations. The Government simply carries on as it likes. There is the Advisory Economic Planning Council of the hon. the Prime Minister. Nobody knows what advice they give him. There is the Education Advisory Council. As I have said, one out of every four National Party members is either a member of a commission or a member of the Cabinet.

I have said we have a Department of Immigration, but do you remember, Sir, that the hon. the Prime Minister on 12 March 1953 at Evaton said that the policy of the United Party would mean getting 50,000 immigrants from Europe? The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) to-day spoke somewhat in the same vein. The Prime Minister said they would devour our food and live in our homes and deprive us of our employment.

We are bringing in more immigrants than you ever brought in.

In 1953 the Prime Minister did not know yet that he would be introducing immigrants. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development at that time referred from place to place to the 24,000 immigrants. Subsequently 4,960 came in, and then he said: “In this way your children’s future is being frittered away for the sake of strangers.” And today they are travelling all over the world to recruit immigrants. Mr. Speaker, you know the person who composed the little Afrikaans song “Hoe ry die Boere sit-sit so”, must have been thinking of these Ministers. These Ministers are never together in the Republic of South Africa at one and the same time. They go travelling overseas one after another.

At the outset I said that I had listened almost with disapproval to this Budget speech. I disapprove of the boasting attitude of the Minister, that attitude of his that it is the Government which has brought about this surplus. I repeat it is the taxpayer of the Republic and the people who were prepared to work a little harder, to risk a little more and who planned better who achieved this surplus, and not the Government.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) wearied herself this afternoon by quoting a long list of figures in order to try to prove how this Government wastes money. I wonder what the position would have been had her side of the House been in power. These items of expenditure are in connection with essential services for which every Government has to make provision. Where she referred to the increased expenditure on Loan Account, I can only tell her that these are productive investments. We are accustomed to the fact that when the hon. member for Drakensberg speaks, she uses up all her time in discussing agricultural matters. To-day she deviated from that and tried to convince us that the Government was not doing its duty properly in another sphere as well. However, things went so well with her under this Government that she herself admitted that she had paid cash for her Cadillac. I take it that this money came from her agricultural income and from the profits she made as the result of the sound agricultural policy of this Government. But I do not want to follow her further.

I want to come back to the Budget and I want to say that this Budget again emphasizes the very fortunate position in which South Africa finds itself. It is experiencing an unequalled economic revolution; it forms a sharp contrast with the deteriorating economies of other states in Western Africa. It compares very well and in most cases surpasses the unstable economies of many Western countries. The hon. member for Drakensberg should take note of these facts. When this Budget has again proved the viability of a sound economy, one can understand why the Afro-Asian states are so jealous of and inimical towards South Africa. The grapes are enticing, Sir, but to them they are sour grapes. One can also understand the feeble efforts of the Opposition to criticize this Budget, because there simply is not a weak place where they can drive in a wedge.

This Budget has also emphasized once more that South Africa is a very rich country. We have an almost inexhaustible potential of minerals, the successful exploitation of which has enabled our mining industry to contribute no less than R719,000,000 or 13.1 per cent to the net national income of R5,481,000,000. But that is not all. The soil of our fatherland is also fertile, so much so that its agriculture, forestry and fishing industry contributed the large amount of R568,000,000, or 10.4 per cent of the net income.

Agriculture has also shown a phenomenal growth during recent years, so much so that in one single year, from 1962 to 1963, the gross agricultural income increased from R822,000,000 to R855,000,000, an increase of R27,000,000, and that despite the protracted and serious droughts with which our farmers had to cope. That speaks volumes for the achievements of our farmers.

Also in the sphere of industry and manufacturing, the progress was phenomenal. This important sector contributed R1,399,000,000, or 25.5 per cent of the net national income. Lastly, I want to refer to the commercial undertakings which flourished to such an extent that this sector was responsible for R708,000,000, or 12.8 per cent. The great pressure of business on our railway stations, our Railways and main roads and in our harbours proves to what extent our foreign and internal trade is growing. That cannot be denied by the hon. member for Drakensberg or the Opposition. They allege that it is merely as the result of our natural resources that our economy is so flourishing, but that is quite a wrong statement to make. We as farmers know that a good farm does not necessarily make a good farmer, but a good farmer always makes a good farm. An important example, in order to prove this proposition, is the fact that one-seventeenth of the population of Africa produces one-quarter of the agricultural income of the whole of Africa. That is South Africa. In other words, a good master or a good Government of a small country produces more than the remaining sixteen-seventeenths of the rest of Africa under bad management. It is only through sound planning and consultation and the stimulating initiative of a good Government that such development is possible. It is only the statesmanlike policy of this strong and stable Government which has resulted in our obtaining the security which is so essential for a high degree of confidence in the country and overseas, confidence which in turn has laid the foundation for the phenomenal economic upsurge we are experiencing to-day and which has also made this Budget, which can hardly be attacked, possible. One foresees a sad day, Sir, if the Opposition could come into power again, with hon. members like, inter alia, the hon. member for Drakensberg, carrying the key to our Exchequer.

If I may pay a compliment to the hon. the Minister of Finance and his efficient officials, I want to say that by means of this Budget they have provided a silver lining for the otherwise very dark clouds hanging over South Africa and which, due to the enmity, the hatred and the threats coming from beyond our borders, are obstinately refusing to disappear from the political horizon of our fatherland. This silver lining gives us courage again and stimulates our confidence in our inherent power and independence, and also in our economic ability to combat the future boycotts and attacks which may be planned against us. It sets the mind of every voter in the country at rest to see how the Nationalist Government has succeeded during its term of office in building up an economy and a resistance which hitherto have been able to cope with all threats of boycotts, etc.

Then I come to the second important aspect of the Budget, viz. the ample provision for defence. Out of the total sum budgeted for, R1,019,500,000, with a surplus of R88,000,000, R210,000,000 has been set aside for defence. This is an increase of R52,000,000 over the previous year. It is the highest peacetime amount in our political history. The necessity for it needs no proof. Repeated threats from the members of UN that the cold war in which we find ourselves to-day will be turned into a shooting war if South Africa does not abandon its policy of separate development cannot be ignored. It is clear that this amount is really still too small. To summarize, it ought therefore to be clear to everybody that the Government has succeeded in building up a particularly high degree of economic and physical defence for our country and that the Budget provides for further expansion. We are very grateful for that because economic and physical defence are two very important requirements for any country threatened by a shooting war from outside.

I have my doubts, however, Mr. Speaker, whether we have made enough progress in regard to our spiritual defence to offer the resistance demanded from us in this time of crisis. It is the human element which is so very important for a struggle to the bitter end. The spiritual arming of a nation, is an essential pre-requisite for successful warfare. I may perhaps best illustrate what I mean by pointing out how the spiritual frame of mind of the Russian nation in the battle for Moscow enabled them in those critical hours to ward off the German attacks. I can also illustrate it by pointing out how the British people on their island dug in their heels as the result of their common spiritual attitude after Dunkirk. Perhaps I can take an even better example from our own history and refer to the spiritual adaptation of our Voortrekkers when in 1842 they had to cross the mountains when they left Natal, but were still inspired by the will to fight and to conquer.

The struggle with which we are faced in Africa is no longer a mere ideological struggle or a clash of interests. It has changed to an out-and-out colour and racial struggle between Black and White, with a disquieting amount of spiritual indoctrination of the White man towards ultra-liberalism. In such a racial struggle one must choose sides and there simply is not a neutral standpoint in between for any White man in our country. It is clear that in an open clash the Government will need general support, but that in the meantime while the cold war is going on and while drastic preparations have to be made there is a regrettable confusion of tongues in regard to the question as to what should be the common colour policy or colour attitude of the Whites in our country towards the non-Whites and particularly in respect of statements with regard to equality and political rights on the part of the Black states outside our borders. It sometimes appears as if on the part of the Opposition there is a complete lack of clear understanding and awareness of the danger of the attacks being planned against us and against the right of self-determination of the White man in South Africa. The very irresponsible statements made by the Opposition, inter alia, during the second reading of the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, prove the utterly corrupt spiritual attitude of the largest political opposition party in South Africa. The Progressives and other leftists, together with the evil propaganda made by the British Press overseas, strengthen my proposition. In the ranks of the liberals and leftists there are already some people who have openly chosen sides, who do not talk, but who have adroitly chosen the side of the subversive organizations which are undermining the State, as was revealed, inter alia, by the Rivonia case. One should never speak to the Black man with two tongues.

In order to enforce respect for the standpoint of the Whites in this country as well as abroad, we as White people should speedily find a broader national terrain from which a solid unanimity may be reflected to counter the unanimity of the Blacks in regard to their plans against us. In my opinion, there is a great need for a common front and a united attitude not only on the part of the political parties and the Press, but also on the part of every White man and woman in the country. Cannot we discipline ourselves to such an extent that at least during these critical years of the struggle of the White man we will speak more clearly to the outside world in regard to our colour policy and our most cardinal racial problems? The Black man in Africa knows what he wants; he wants to drive the White man out of Africa. They are so united in spirit that if they shout “Uhuru” the foundations of the White European states shake and the gates of UN tremble. They know what they want. Do we have a unified plan and policy? Are we disciplined in so far as our attitude is concerned even in this House? Do we speak with one tongue when we adopt a standpoint against the Black man in regard to the place he must fill in our social and political structure? I put this question to the House whether, in addition to economic and military defence, our White population group is spiritually correctly adapted; in other words, whether we have made sufficient progress in regard to our spiritual defence in order to carry on this bitter struggle further and to bring it to a successful conclusion? I fear that we stare blindly at economic prosperity and military power, and that we are under the illusion that the White man is expendable only in the rest of Africa. Sir, as far as I am concerned, our annihilation can only be prevented by great spiritual exertion which will strengthen and support our economic and physical resistance. I am sometimes afraid that history is repeating itself and that the Continent of Africa is again shaking off the White man from its back, as it has done throughout the centuries. The clipping of the wings of the Western eagle over Africa and Asia brings the position of South Africa as the last White outpost very strongly to the fore, because to the extent that the Western eagle loses its feathers the communist vultures extend their wings from Moscow and Peking over this continent and the East. UN and the Commonwealth are already three-quarters Black and the Afro-Asian states consistently take sides with the communists and thus form an international pressure group against South Africa which we have to bear in mind; 31 out of the 36 independent Black states have already been converted from democratic states to one-party states, and others have already become communist. The repeated murders of missionaries in African states also proves that Christianity is again being shaken off the back of Africa, just as the old Christian churches disappeared in North Africa. The continued retreat and withdrawal of the White man from the Africa states shows the tempo at which the blackening process is taking place. The question is therefore whether Africa is again putting back the clock to the Dark Ages to free itself of the White man with his religion, his culture and his knowledge and the development he brought here? The signs are unmistakably there. The Black man in his march against the White man achieved his greatest success by spiritual indoctrination. Whether we will stop him at this southern point of Africa will, in my opinion, simply depend on the spirit and the frame of mind with which we wage this battle. A divided spiritual attitude opposite the coordinated unity of the Black man will also be fatal to us as Whites in the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) has been quite proud of the fact that this Government has seen fit to devote a very, very large sum of money for the defence of our country. We on this side feel that it is necessary to have this money spent. We regret, and I regret personally, that so much money has to be spent to defend our shores. The cold war is on us and has been on us for some time, and I wonder how much money has been spent by us on the cold war. How much money have we spent to better our position as far as the cold war is concerned? How much would be saved if we spend more on trying to improve our foreign relations? How much more would we have to spend for our own needs here if the policies of the Government were acceptable to the outside world? Because of the Government policies, and nothing else, we have to defend ourselves. I do not think for one moment that anybody is going to attack us in a hot war. I do not think so. I sincerely hope, and I am sure that every person in this House hopes that we will never see the day that we shall have to repulse invaders. We do not want that. But I do say that we should go out of our way and spend as much as we possibly can to try and make better friends with those who were friends with us earlier in this century.

At what price ?

Sir, what is happening to us? We are losing our friends, and even in those agencies where we are actively represented in UNO, we are finding ourselves uncomfortable. We have already left the I.L.O. It is my sincere hope that this Government will do its utmost to keep us in the World Health Organization. We cannot afford to give that up, and we must not walk out of that organization. For two reasons. Firstly, for what we can give and secondly, for what we can learn from that organization. South Africa has got a very proud name in the World Health Organization and our representatives who have gone there have contributed more than just an ordinary contribution. We have been foremost in the work of that organization, and I am sure that the Western nations are appreciative of what we have done. I am quite certain they will miss us if we go. I ask that we should stay for as long as possible. The whole idea of that organization is based on health issues. Politics should have no part in it. No part of politics should ever enter that agency of UNO.

Tell that to the Black states.

I would be prepared to tell them that and I am telling them now, and I hope that what I say is reported, because those are the views of this side of the House. That organization can save the health of the world and South Africa can prove an active participant in the work that is done by that organization. I do not want to mention names, but people that we have sent to the World Health Organization from this country have already become world famous and our contributions have become world famous. The work that we have done to combat poliomyelitis, malaria and sleeping sickness, plus the work of hundreds of others who have been only too pleased to contribute alongside of us, makes sure that the best comes out of that organization. Now we have been insulted there, but the Black states must realize that they are the ones that have most to gain by South Africa remaining in there, and we must stand fast for as long as possible in that organization, so that we can give, as we have always been prepared to give in the past. The Western nations must stand by us and do their utmost to keep us in that organization. It is the one agency of UNO that I say is a must, and until the day comes that we are forcibly ejected from that agency, we must play our part to the best of our ability.

Talking about the amount of money that we spend on defence and the little that we have spent on the cold war, comparatively speaking, it seems to me that if we continue to adopt this pessimistic attitude of expecting an attack, the dangers are that somebody may be rash enough to try something of that sort. I do not think it will happen; I do not think anybody would dare to attack us.

We are not expecting an attack.

I am pleased that the emphasis on this side at any rate has been placed on defence and not on aggression. But how much better would it not have been if the amount of money which has been set aside for this probable attack, for this improbable invasion of our shores, could have been utilized for our own services in the country.

Do you not believe in the Scout’s motto, “Be prepared?”

Sir, I have gone through the Estimates as they affect social welfare services and health services. Two or three weeks ago I stressed in this House how important it was for us to vote a little more for the pensioner, and I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has persuaded the Cabinet to give the pensioner an additional R2.50 so as to put the ordinary social pensioner on the same level as those who were receiving a little more because they had nothing. But there lies the rub: those who have nothing are still in the same position. When I asked the hon. the Minister for an increase of R2 in the pension, my idea was simply to reimburse the pensioner for the rise in the cost of living. But the pensioner who has no other means is getting nothing more in this Budget and he is the very person who should have been given an increase. I heard that choice morsels from the rich man’s table were apparently to be given to the pensioner without any other means. All the pensioner is getting is a “morsel”; it is certainly not a choice morsel. It is something that is acceptable, of course, but it is nothing more than a morsel. Those people who require assistance more than anybody else are getting no relief. The reason which was advanced for increasing the pension by R2.50 was not one of generosity; the reason that was given was to bring the pension in line with other social pensions because of administrative difficulties encountered in the payment of pensions. Necessity should have been the reason for giving this increase, not administrative inconvenience, and the necessity for granting this increase was greater in the case of those persons who were receiving the present pension than in the case of those who are now going to get a little more in order to bring their pension into line with those who had nothing. I want to make a suggestion now to the hon. the Minister. It is impossible for the pensioners to make ends meet on their pensions. I accept that it is difficult to administer the scheme when the pensions paid to various social pensioners differ, but I am going to make a suggestion to him which will overcome the difficulties of the pensioners to some extent. Instead of giving a money grant I am going to suggest to the Minister that food vouchers to the value of R2.50 be given to the 26,000 pensioners who are actually living on the bread-line. These food vouchers could be split into small units so that they can be used particularly for food and clothing. Those are the two items which the pensioner requires more than anything else. If these pensioners can get these food and clothing vouchers it may just enable them to make ends meet with very, very great difficulty. I told the Minister last year how difficult it was to live on this pension. I explained to him that half the pension had to go towards rent and that very little was left for anything else. I do not propose to go into those various details again, but I want to emphasize that rents have gone up even in the very poor quarters in which the average pensioner lives. In many cases the pensioners are unable to meet these rents. The latest thing is for a couple of male pensioners to share their room so as to halve the cost of the increased rental. These rooms are very, very small. Some of them are little cubicles in backyards, but pensioners are now starting to share these rooms. Sir, this is not good enough and I ask that some assistance be given to these people.

There is another vital issue that we raise in our amendment. Provision is made under the Social Welfare Vote for an amount of R623,500 for subsidies to homes for the aged and infirm. It sounds like a lot of money to pay out on subsidies, but the previous year the subsidy amounted to R714,000. There is actually a drop of close to R100,000 in the subsidy to homes for the aged and the infirm, and it is these very homes which are trying to accommodate more of these old-age pensioners who are unable to look after themselves. They are trying to do more and more for these people. The hon. the Minister told us a few days ago, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), that these homes have now lost the grant that they were getting from the lotteries in Northern and Southern Rhodesia. In those circumstances particularly this subsidy should never have been reduced because these homes are going to find themselves extremely short of funds in the future. Demands will undoubtedly be made to the Minister for increased grants and I ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity to deal with these demands as sympathetically as he possibly can. We must not put it off because these people are waiting cap in hand for help. In the past they have been given ambulances; in the past they have been given monetary grants apart from the lotteries. These are all matters which are now lost to them. Who is going to provide them? The old-age pensioners cannot give anything. The churches are doing their best and the welfare organizations are doing their best already. It is up to the Government in this time of prosperity. We have money for other things; we have large amounts for armaments. We have enough money at least to put sufficient away for these people. I read in the Auditor-General’s report that 1,100,000 cartridges were stolen from the army. We read that it is a loss of R59,000. Do we realize that every one of those cartridges represents at the very least a loaf of bread, that there would have been over 1,000,000 loaves of bread that could have been bought by means of my suggestion of coupons? Taking that each pensioner uses two loaves of bread a week there would have been enough bread for the pensioners for two months, just on that one item alone.