When the debate was adjourned last night I had pointed out that when old-age pensions were originally introduced the basis was 12 points in the case of Whites and six points in the case of Coloureds. It was then discovered that there was a discrepancy as far as the 12:6 ratio was concerned and that discrepancy was adjusted by the present Minister of Social Welfare under whose Department Coloured persons then resorted. That meant an increase in the pensions of Coloured of approximately R3 per month. This was about in August 1961. The Coloured people appreciated that increase. Some of those old people did not know what to do with the money when they got their pension at the end of the month and realized that it was more than usual. As one respected old Coloured gentleman in Port Elizabeth said: “The 100 yard record was broken by some old people over 70 years so afraid were they that they might be asked to return that extra money.” The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) made a brilliant speech in this House Yesterday in my opinion. And in that speech he analysed the position in regard to the pensions the Whites received. He gave the facts and figures. He put up a very good case. When he was speaking I wondered how many hon. members appreciated the fact that the Coloured pensioner received exactly half the pension of the White man. The position boils down to this that a Coloured person with no assets and no income draws an old-age pension of R12.25 per month as against the White pensioner who draws R24.50. With the increase to be granted from 1 April as announced by the Minister of Finance their pension will go up to R13.50. It must be remembered, Sir, that the loaf of bread the Coloured pensioner buys costs exactly the same as it costs the White pensioner—it does not cost half the amount. The clothes of the Coloured pensioner costs the same as those of the White pensioner. Prices are the same irrespective of the colour of the buyer. There is no instance where it can be said that the Coloured man gets a rebate because he is Coloured. As a matter of fact, Sir, when it comes to organizations to assist people in distress, people like White old-age pensioners, the Coloured people are always at a disadvantage because they are not so well organized. They are also at a disadvantage in that if there are Coloured organizations to assist them those organizations are not of the same standard, they are not as well organized, as the White organizations.

As I have said as from 1 April the total amount of their pensions will be R13.50. The same applies in the case of disability pensions, pensions for the blind and to so-called war veterans’ pensions. I deliberately say “so-called war veterans’ pensions” because that is a complete misnomer as far as the Coloured people are concerned. In the case of the Coloured people there is actually no such pension as a war veteran’s pension. There is a war veteran’s pension as far as the White people are concerned. If a White person can prove that he is a veteran of any war in which South Africa was involved he received a further R8 per month. But the Coloured person only receives an old-age pension; there is no extra relief in his case. If we want to be consistent the Coloured war veteran should receive an additional R4 if we want to apply the 12:6 ratio throughout.

My plea therefore to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Coloured Affairs is that they should consider beginning by granting the Coloured war veterans that extra relief. If the 12:6 ratio is to be maintained throughout that would be a logical and fair step to take. In other words, the Coloured war veteran should receive 50 per cent of what the White war veterans are getting. The position to-day is that if a Coloured war veteran is unable to work due to some physical disability or other infirmity he can draw a war veteran’s pension which is exactly the same as an old-age pension or a disability pension. So it is really only in name that he receives a war veteran’s pension. Because if he were not an ex-serviceman he could have applied for a disability grant and he would have received the same amount. I do feel that the time has arrived that not only the Coloured people also must be considered for an extra allowance as war veterans but that the 12: 6 ratio be revised. But, Mr. Speaker, when we come to maintenance grants, I wish to mention a case in point, and I can do this with sincerity; it is completely authentic and I have personal knowledge of it, and not only have I personal knowledge of it, but I had the advice and assistance in this case of one of the most experienced social workers in Cape Town, even though it be my wife. The case I wish to mention is this: There is a Coloured woman living in Elsies River. Her position is that she is a widow, her husband has left her (he was a bad White man), she is getting nothing whatsoever from him and she has got no income whatsoever. The position is that under normal circumstances such a person would get a grant which she is getting now, and it would boil down to this, that the grant would be the basic sum of R12.25 plus R3 per month for the first child and the second child, R2 per month for the third child, and after that R1 per month for each additional child. Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that any person can clothe and feed a child on R1 per month. It is absolutely impossible. To quote this case further: It boils down to this that this woman gets a grant of R17 all in all for herself and her four children, to be exact R17.50 per month; her rent amounts to R6.30 per month, her electricity to 70c, her water to 45c per month, which leaves her R10 per month out of which she has to pay for the books of her children who are at school and she has to pay for wood and all the other necessities and for bus fare if they want to go anywhere. I had the occasion recently to go with my wife and visit that case, and I have never seen a case closer resembling any photograph that one saw of the thousands of cases that were photographed in Belsen or in Buchenwald. The woman is completely emaciated and starved, because she has been thinking of her children first and they have not got the money to buy the necessary food. I do feel that we have got to the stage where we have to give second thought to the old arrangement of 1928 when old-age pensions were first granted, of the 12:6 ratio in regard to White and Coloured people. The time has arrived when we have to take into account that the cost of living has risen, that the standard of the Coloured people has been lifted and that the Government is at the moment following a very much appreciated policy of raising the educational and general living and economic standards of the Coloured people.

Hear, hear!

Yes, we do appreciate it and the Coloured people do appreciate it, and I am grateful for the applause on the Government side, but if we raise the standard of living of the Coloured people and they endeavour to live our life with the education that we are giving them, and the decent houses we are giving them (for which they have to pay rent), then it is inconceivable that they can live, and raise a family, on grants that are being paid, especially if you consider that while a White Member of Parliament representing a White seat here has a just case in pleading for the increase of pensions for the Whites which is twice as much and in some cases more than twice as much. Because, Sir, if he has a case, then I feel I have an even better case as far as improvements are concerned. Sir, I wish to quote the same example that the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) quoted yesterday. Here I have in my hand a reply from the Department in regard to Coloured pensions of a case in Kokstad. These old people have lived thriftily, they have saved, they were in the position in the end to acquire their own plot of land and their own small house. I know their house, I have been to it. Now in their old age they are being punished for having saved, for having acquired their own little property and for not being a burden on the State. Here is the official reply from the Department that due to the means test (because they own that little property) they can get nothing from the State. I am not casting aspersions. We have lived through it all these years in which these means tests and these systems have applied, but I do wish to plead with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Coloured Affairs that if necessary a commission should be appointed to go into all these rules and regulations on which the pensions officers have to administer pensions and that a change be made, and that at least relief be granted to the Coloured war veteran, something which he is entitled to in accordance with the 12:6 ratio, and there should be a revision of the 12:6 ratio as such and we should have special consideration for these people who, while they were in the position to earn something, have saved enough to buy their own bit of land and build their own little home on it, however humble it may be, so that they are not a burden on the State and they do not have to wait for municipal and national housing schemes. They should not be punished for what they did by saving and as a result having their own home, but should be granted this relief.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) raised certain defence matters yesterday. I listened attentively to the hon. gentleman and I must admit he raised certain matters which deserve attention. Amongst others he referred to the attraction the Army had for its artisan and skilled staff. I readily agree with him that that attraction is not as strong as it ought to be because of the remuneration. I can, however, reassure the hon. member by saying that I think this aspect of the matter will shortly receive the serious attention of the Government and that an end will be put to the position where an ordinary gaol warden receives a higher salary than one of the pilots of a Mirage aircraft. I verily believe that stage would have been passed. I agree with him that that has been the trouble. The hon. member also said “We must achieve a maximum security benefit” from every penny spent. I want to tell the hon. member in our nine-month trainees we have a force which can practically be regarded as permanent, a force which is strategically spread throughout the country and which ensures that the Army will be able to hold the first line if the balloon goes up until such time as general mobilization can be embarked upon. In addition to that we must not forget that the reserves can be used to augment the Army. Where the hon. member said he thought a nine months’ training period was too short, I want to tell him that according to military experts a good fighting soldier can be trained in nine months. Considering the fact that we lack the facilities to train everybody who can be trained immediately I think this ninemonth period of training is sufficiently long to meet our basic needs. I wish to add that this scheme of training people for a period of nine months is the cheapest scheme in the world to produce a permanent force. They are armed, they are mobile and they can at any time be moved to the trouble spots. Compare that with the costs of maintaining a Permanent Force permanently. There is no comparison. I think we can regard ourselves as fortunate in having, through this system of training, an able-bodied and armed force with striking power continuously at our disposal. Previously the period of training was only two months; it has now been extended to nine months. As far as the hon. member’s criticism in respect of parliamentary control is concerned I think the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) last night replied adequately to him. As far as training in electronics and radar equipment is concerned and the handling of such equipment, we annually send a large number of men overseas to be trained in electronics and the use of radar and every year a large number of aspirant officers study at our military academy for the B.Sc. degree, for example. I want to add, however, that it is not such a serious thing when an artisan or skilled person who has received his training in the Army is attracted away by the private sector because he is not totally lost to our country. Surely he remains a latent force on which we can always rely in times of emergency. That is a reserve on which you can always depend. It is not such a dead loss as money. As far as research is concerned we have our Defence Research Board. We can make full use of the C.S.I.R. We send people overseas. I am firmly convinced in my soul that we in South Africa are indeed fully conscious of the fact that you cannot employ modern war techniques or conduct a modern war without making use of science. I want to go so far as to say that the scientist is the person who will have to win any modern war for us. Science was the deciding factor in the Second World War, not physical force. Science was the deciding factor. I think that will also be the case in future. In regard to the hon. gentleman’s concern about the fact that the machinery of the Public Service overshadowed the military aspect of our Defence Force I agree with him that it is necessary, particularly at a time when we are fast preparing ourselves to take a short cut, always under the express understanding that control will be exercised. I do think we have reached a stage where unnecessary channels should be eliminated. That, with the co-operation of the hon. member for Somerset East, I think, more or less answers the remarks the hon. member made yesterday.

I now wish to apply a number of tests to see whether our defence policy and our Defence Force and the expenditure spent on defence, within the framework of a generally planned policy, meet the demands we must make. I want to start off by saying that there are five cardinal basic considerations that have to be taken into consideration when we talk about defence and the defence policy in our country. Firstly, the Republic of South Africa, as a non-atom power, a small power, will not be able, if we stand alone, to deliver a decisive blow or to gain a decisive victory in any global war. My second submission is that in the event of a global war we shall have to depend on collective action. Sir, not one West European country, not even America, not even Britain, sees its way clear of offering resistance to the onslaught of the enemy without the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or without the South-Eastern Atlantic Treaty Organization or without this collective action. Thus we find that Australia has coupled herself to this South-Eastern Atlantic Treaty Organization in order to protect her frontiers.

The third point we have to take into consideration is this: We must acquire absolutely the best conventional retaliation and defensive weapons and equipment. Fourthly we must accept the fact that peace and the maintenance of peace cost more to-day than a war, (a) because of the terrific cost of war equipment and the terrific costs connected with the re search which goes into modern war equipment and (b) because of the rapidity of which war equipment becomes obsolete.

I wish to make the following submission: We have to study the front lines that may be opened against us very thoroughly and arrange our training, the acquisition of weapons and equipment and our defence programme accordingly.

Let us test our Defence Force against these five basic principles. I want to tell the hon. member for Simonstown that a large portion of the reply to him will flow from this analysis. As far as a global war is concerned we have reached a state of stalemate at the moment. Russia cannot move in Western Europe, she cannot move in the Far East, she cannot move in the Near East without running the risk of a global armed conflict. In other words, as far as a global war is concerned, for the time being, the big powers with the weapons at their disposal have reached a stage of stalemate. The Polaris submarine and the missiles are mainly responsible for this in addition to the exceedingly strong destructive force of nuclear power. As far as collective action is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the Republic of South Africa has repeatedly stated and still states that in any conflict between the East and the West, she will place her strategic position and natural resources at the disposal of the joint Western effort to meet any onslaught which may come from the East. As far as the acquisition of the best conventional retaliation and defensive weapons is concerned, I want to read something to show you the good testimonial which was given to our Defence Force from London. This wonderful testimonial was given to our Defence Force in the Sunday Express of 15 March 1964. A correspondent in England wrote the following based on information given to him by a British military expert—

I think as far as the acquisition of conventional offensive, defensive and retaliation weapons is concerned, we can be proud of the equipment our Defence Force has purchased. I think, for example, of the old Sabres and Dakotas. You could not have wished for better weapons at that particular time and for the specific purpose for which they were acquired. Visit our displays and you will see how effective our striking force is and how mobile the weapons are which are to-day being purchased. Do you know what the heading is of this article in the Sunday Express? “South Africa can repel almost any military attack.” I am pleased that they can say that about us in London. He writes—

Military strategic experts in Britain have been watching the arms build-up in South Africa and consider the Republic to be almost impregnable, either to an attack launched in Africa or from outside.

I am not boasting, I let others do the boasting for me, but I am very grateful. Then he writes further—

As far as the acquisition of weapons is concerned I want to add that that is done according to fixed procedure. We do not buy haphazardly. Our requirements for the particular position in which we find ourselves are firstly properly assessed. Then an accurate assessment is made of the types of weapons available, their striking force and accuracy and durability are studied thoroughly and the price is also taken into consideration. The experts then go and conduct investigations and make tests; they then report and make recommendations. Those recommendations are then submitted to the Minister and the Minister, on the advice of and in co-operation with his expert advisers, then draws up a list of what must be purchased. This procedure has elicited this testimonial from the Sunday Times via London, via that military expert. I, too, am quite satisfied after I have investigated the position.

I come to the other statement I made, namely, that to maintain peace was more expensive than a war. To maintain peace today requires larger defence expenditure than ever before. Let us make a few comparisons. The hon. member for Simonstown said: “Yes, if you would only make certain concessions and met the basic objections against South Africa’s policies, it would not be necessary to spend this money on defence.” But there are no “basic objections” to Australia who spends R60 per head on defence in comparison with South Africa’s R8. I just want to give a few figures. The United States of America spends 10.1 per cent of her national income on defence, Britain 7.8 per cent, France 9 per cent, Germany 5.2 per cent; a small country like Holland where they do not have apartheid, against whom there are no “basic objections”, spends 4.4 per cent and this year South Africa is spending more or less 4 per cent of her national income on defence. Where does the hon. gentleman get the idea from that it has become necessary for us to embark on this defence programme because of our refusal to make concessions as far as certain basic objections to our policy are concerned? That argument does not hold water. We must accept that South Africa, as a strategic base, has been drawn into the constellation and into the field of operation of Communism, Communism which makes use of a number of fronts stretching all along the international boundaries. Necessity relentlessly forces us to make our defences as strong as possible.

In conclusion I wish to deal with the fronts which are prepared against us. I say that no strategy or planning can be wise and judicious if we do not have a perspective of the fronts which are being prepared against us. That calls for a study of the main enemy’s strategy, of his operation bases, the allies he is going to use and the very essence of his onslaught. What is the strategy of our main enemy? Our main enemy is the main enemy of the West. We were shown who our main enemy was in Poland in 1947 when they formed the Cominform whereby Russia was designated as the leader of the communist onslaught on the anti-communist world. The world was then divided into the imperialistic and the “peace-loving peoples of the world”. Our main enemy is there. He confronts us openly. This enemy has changed its strategy after a position of stalemate has been reached in Western Europe; after a position of stalemate has been reached in South-Eastern Asia and in the Far East; he has changed his strategy in that behind his manoeuvres and the flood it sends into the world, he has built up an unequalled military force as a coercion force, a source from which to draw volunteers and weapons. Covered in all spheres it operates from there in the form of localized onslaught and localized wars. I maintain that Russia will only use the United Nations Organization as long as it suits her. If UNO should pass a resolution or if the Security Council should exercise its veto right in favour of South Africa or a veto which is in any way intended to or may by implication be intended to thwart or delay the onslaught of Communism against the Republic of South Africa, Russia will push UNO aside and it will slam down on another force in Africa, namely unripe Pan-Africanism. It is there where our danger lies. I am not afraid of UNO. It has been a failure throughout the world, in the Congo, in Berlin, in Vietnam, in Laos, in Goa and in Suez. It has never yet been able to maintain the peace anywhere effectively. The same thing is happening today in Cyprus. I am not afraid of UNO. I am afraid that Communism may veer away, that Communism may leave UNO and form an unholy alliance with the forces near to us. That is why they are trying to conquer and to obtain footholds all around Africa as recent history has taught us. They will then exert themselves and supply those willing with weapons and submarines. That is why Somaliland is to-day being developed as a submarine base along the East Coast of Africa and that is why they have the largest submarine base in the world on the West Coast of Africa. They will then try to drive a wedge into Southern Africa as they are today trying to do in Angola and as we can expect them to do in Mozambique. We shall be faced with the same problem which faces Australia to-day. I read the following in the Argus of 23 March 1962. I must admit I have a great respect for the military correspondent of the Argus because he is wide awake. He writes—

He is talking about Australia—

Since World War II, as a result of intensive immigration she has increased her population by half. But this has created a racial problem, because although Europeans, the immigrants have come from widely different nations. Nevertheless there is a regular army of 21,000 strong.

The Republic of South Africa has therefore taken the basic considerations into account and built up a strong military force on that basis. We have a clear appreciation of our enemy. Not only has he exposed himself but history has exposed him to us. We see him in his naked reality every day.

Thirdly we have strengthened our land, sea and air forces in such a way and brought them in such relationship that we can discourage external aggression; we have built up sufficient front line defences until there can be general mobilization when the balloon goes up. It is important that you should be able to retaliate. To be as strong as possible in present circumstances is a very important factor and we are busy with that. Fourthly we have ensured that the necessary mobility is there. You need only look at our equipment, Sir. We are building up the necessary manpower force not only to handle that equipment but which is basically equally important for its maintenance.

After 50 years the National Party faces squarely another party which was also established 50 years ago, the Communist Party. Just as the National Party was established by a small group of people the Communist Party was established in 1907 with 17 members; and in 1964 the Communist Party controls 1,000,000,000 people. The National Party cannot boast of wielding a sceptre over so many millions of people; it only wields its sceptre over a few million people but I wish to pay this tribute to the National Party in the year 1964 when it celebrates its 50th year of existence. Two great forces have made their appearances in the world. The one is led by Communism and the other by the National Party. Nowhere in the Western world is there a party which observes more the basic concepts of, which is so strong and faithful to, democracy as the National Party. You have this paradox that the smallest party in the world and the strongest party in the world stand face to face in 1964. [Interjections.] If I were such a renegade like you I would not open my mouth.

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

Then I want to call him another name.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw.

I withdraw it, Sir, but I want to call him another name.

I want to conclude by saying that the National Party as the smallest party against the biggest party which saw the light of day 50 years ago sees to the maintenance of that which it stands for.

The hon. member who has just sat down raised one or two matters that I will deal with in the course of my speech. But there is a more important matter that I must deal with. I had planned to speak solely on defence matters as they affect the Budget, but the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) raised the main Nationalist Party propaganda line, which is the line we have seen spread into the country; and it was even touched on by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling).

Now, this propaganda line is to this effect, that the United Party stands for making concessions to the world in order to buy off hostility, but that the Nationalists are strong and will not make concessions for this purpose or at all. That is a very strong line which has not only been repeated here, but even the hon. the Prime Minister has indulged in it, as I shall show in due course. I want to say that this line consists of grave misrepresentations, and I hope that after I have spoken hon. members opposite will agree with me.

The first misrepresentation is this, that the Nationalist Party are not themselves a party of concessions at all. I say that is completely untrue. They have just done that very thing in their whole policy of Bantustans. The whole idea of establishing Bantustans and trying to lead these Bantu states to independence is an idea of making concessions. [Interjections.] If hon. members say it is nonsense, let me tell them more. The point is that that is how the hon. the Prime Minister himself and the whole of the Government regarded the matter. Why else did we have this fantastic advertising campaign to sell this policy in the U.S.A. and Britain and France immediately it was announced in 1962? Why was that done, except to show that this was a great concession. And even now, when we had the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, the whole thing was advanced as a kind of quid pro quo to sit against the rights that are going to be granted the Bantu in the reserves.

The second misrepresentation is that although these concessions have in fact been made in the face of world opinion, the propaganda line is that that is not so at all. I refer, firstly to those advertisements that were placed in the papers to impress the West. Next I will read what the hon. the Prime Minister said. This is in interesting contrast to the hon. member for Ventersdorp, who apparently has the courage now which he did not have then, because he told us to-day that he was not afraid of UN. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister said in answer to ex-Senator Smit, who expressed dislike of the Bantustan policy. I will read certain extracts from a translation of that statement.

From the Sunday Times?

This is a perfectly true translation—

It is perfectly clear that these are the words not of the hon. member for Ventersdorp but of the Leader of the Nationalist Party, the Prime Minister of this country. It is perfectly clear that not only is this Bantustan policy a policy of concessions, but it is one which in the Prime Minister’s own words was introduced to placate the United Nations. The fact is that this policy has made not the slightest impression on the Western powers. They ignore it. It is very sad that they do, and I wish that they did not, but they ignore it.

The third misrepresentation which hon. members opposite are guilty of with this propaganda line is that our policy with its limited representation for non-Whites is a policy of concessions. [Interjections.] This is part of the propaganda line, and it goes further, and it says that these are the concessions we would make to buy off Western hostility and world opinion. Let me just show you how this line was used by the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech at Klerksdorp, reported in the Burger of 4 November 1963. He said this—

He regards those as concessions, and then he says—

Hon. members opposite forget that their whole policy is one of making concessions. [Interjection.] I say that this allegation against this party is entirely untrue, and I say it for this reason. It is well known that our policy of limited representation for non-Whites had been mapped out long before the world became such a dangerous place for South Africa. It is well known that the Coloureds had voting rights from the beginning of time in South Africa, and it is well known that we fought to keep them on the Voters’ Roll in 1952 and 1953. The same thing applies to the Bantu. It is well known that they had representation in this House from 1936 onwards. They had three Members of Parliament and they had four Senators then, and it was to be extended to six Senators. That representation was there then. I say therefore that these policies of ours are not concessions to the world. They are what our conscience tells us is the sensible thing to do in the interest of South Africa.

May I ask a question?

I should just like to finish my speech first.

Now we come to what the hon. member for Ventersdorp touched on also, and it has a bearing on defence. I think it is absolutely true to say that whereas this Bantustan policy cuts no ice with the people we want it to cut ice with, the Americans, the British, the French, etc., we have every reason to believe that our policy will make a very big difference. First of all, we know that from the representatives of these powers themselves. Secondly, you have only got to read the statements made by leading figures in these countries to see what a difference it will make. Let any hon. member opposite read the speech of Mr. Adlai Stevenson in the Security Council last year. Let him read the statement by Sir Alec Douglas Home, where he calls the policy of apartheid an inhuman policy and says it is the view of the British Government that it should be altered by the South African Government. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is perfectly well known that the whole line of our policy just happens to be a line which is acceptable to the West.

How do you know? Prove it!

This whole question of the attitude of the West towards us is immensely important on the question of defence expenditure. Everybody knows that it is immensely important to our national security. If anybody opposite does not think it is, let me quote from a source which they will doubtless believe. The first leading article in the Burger of 21 August 1963 contained this paragraph—

And what applies to the American front applies almost equally to the British front and to the French front.

So if in fact we in South Africa win the understanding and gain support for our non-White policies from the leading Western countries, South Africa would have taken an immense stride forward to ensure her safety and her national security. Can it be doubted when you weigh these two policies, that the United Party can achieve that and that the Government cannot? So it follows that when one has achieved that the urgency for defence will be much less. I am not saying it will vanish, but it will be much less, if we have a sympathetic attitude towards us on the part of the Western peoples. Therefore I say that it would make an immense difference to us if we had that change of policy.

Now hon. members opposite may possibly raise the question as to whether these are concessions. I say these are not concessions; it is a question of a policy. That was the policy followed by the Government until there was this sudden change in the face of attacks from UN. You cannot compare the question of concessions as between these two policies. There is an entirely different approach. You cannot say that the one involves concessions and the other policy does not; because there is an entirely different approach.

Perhaps the hon. member for Somerset East would like to ask his question now.

The hon. member has now stated that their policy is acceptable to the West and there will be no necessity for spending these big amounts on defence. I just want to ask him what proof he has for that other than these generalities he has mentioned? I would like him to give us some proof.

In the first place, I did not say that we would not have to spend money on defence. I agree that we must spend money on defence.

Do you differ from your party?

No, because the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) said the same thing. But in answer to the question, I say that the proof is the attitude we have found on the part of representatives of the West, and secondly, the statements of leading figures in the Western countries as to what in fact will make a difference to them. I refer again to the speeches of Mr. Adlai Stevenson, Sir Alec Douglas Home and Mr. Macmillan.

Admittedly you cannot get complete certainty on these matters, but that is what the indications are.

Now, in the short time left to me I should like to deal with the other questions raised by the hon. member for Ventersdorp in regard to the whole question of our defence expenditure. We on this side believe that this expenditure is higher than it need be because of the faults of the Government. We believe it is higher, firstly, because of their having left the Commonwealth, and secondly, because of their non-White policies. The hon. member for Ventersdorp asked what about the British military budget. I want to tell him that the British military budget has remained absolutely constant over the last seven or eight years, and in fact it has been dropping.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I do. It has been pretty constant for a long time, but let us see how our defence expenditure has gone up under this Government, and then I should like to know from him what has happened to make us increase our defence expenditure. In 1959-60 we spent R40,000,000, in 1960-1 it was R44,000,000, in 1961-2 it was R72,000,000, in 1962-3 it was R120,000,000, in 1963-4 it was R122,000,000 plus R26,000,000 on the Special Defence Equipment Fund, making it R148,000,000, and now we are budgeting for R210,000,000. During the whole of this time Britain, Australia, America and Canada all had practically constant levels of defence expenditure.

That is not true.

It is true. Give me the figures then. How can the hon. member for Ventersdorp tell me that there is no connection between the mistakes of this Government and the increased defence expenditure? I agree with the hon. member for Simonstown and others that the people of South Africa would be very wise to get a change of Government so that we will have a good chance of moving into a better position in regard to our national security, with a possibility in the not too distant future of placing some limits on this defence expenditure.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) said if there were to be a change of Government it would not be necessary to spend this money on defence. Before that can be accepted I think this side of the House and the country would like to know precisely how the policy would be changed. They have never yet been able to tell us that. Nobody believes that even those countries which are hostile towards us will be satisfied with those eight representatives they want to give the non-Whites in this Parliament. They must tell what that will lead to and before they tell us that it is unthinkable that that party will ever come into power because that is one of the cardinal points on which we differ from them. We can say where we are going and which direction we are following but that side of the House is unable to do so.

I want to confine my remarks mainly to the hon. members for Benoni (Mr. Ross) and Springs (Mr. Taurog) the last-mentioned not being here at the moment. I shall start with the hon. member for Benoni who is here. Last week the hon. member stated that it was the policy of the Prime Minister to force industries away from the Reef. He said: “Let us return to the cost involved in this crazy scheme of the Prime Minister to force industry to go where he wants it.” But he has no proof for such allegations. He simply manufactured them and because he had no proof he referred in his speech to what I was supposed to have said at Alberton, inter alia. The hon. member had a cutting from my speech and in order to prove his statement he said I had said that industries would not be allowed to establish themselves in that area. When he was challenged to say when I had said that he said he could read it out and when he did read it, it was not at all that that would not be allowed but that I had said that would be encouraged. There is really no excuse for that. The hon. member had the article in his hand and he said he would read it, and in spite of the fact that he had it in his hand, he accused me of having said they would not be allowed to establish themselves there whereas I had said they would be encouraged. [Interjections.] It was not even that he misquoted me; it was something more. He said something which was not correct.

The hon. member then went further and he said this: “My further information is that if a factory wishes to open in this country it has to import plant and machinery and it is hampered in every direction and to all intents and purposes it will not get the necessary foreign payments for that plant unless it opens where the Government wants it to be.” Sir, that is absolutely untrue. Nobody has yet been refused a permit because he does not want to go where the Government wants him to go. The same allegation was made in the Other Place and the Minister of Economic Affairs said he challenged anybody to prove that but so far that has not yet been done and I similarly challenge the hon. member for Benoni to mention one instance where a prospective industrialist has been refused an import permit because he wanted to establish his industry in a specific area. It is not the function of the Permanent Committee to recommend import permits on the basis of where they are to be established. The hon. member also created the impression, as did the hon. member for Springs, that the development of the border areas would do a great amount of harm to the Reef areas. In other words, the impression was created that Germiston or Springs or Benoni would suffer as a result of the development of the border areas. One would have thought there was retrogression. They said the relief which was given to the mines should have been given long ago. I am not convinced that there is retrogression. If hon. members wish to create the impression that Springs and Benoni have retrogressed over the past few years, I should like to have that proved to me. Can they prove that to me? Benoni and Springs have not gone back at all. On the contrary they have grown considerably over the past years. I need only refer to Benoni. In 1960 473 building plans were approved; 531 in 1961, and 461 in 1962, and last year building plans to the value of over R4,000,000 were approved. The position has therefore not been static. Nearly R1,000,000 have been spent on industrial buildings so industry is continually expanding. That was also the position over the previous few years. As far as Benoni is concerned the position has definitely not been static; no harm whatsoever has been done to the industrial development of Benoni as a result of the establishment of industries along the border.

As far as Springs is concerned from 1960 to 1962 more than 400 building plans were approved, and building plans to the value of R2,900,000 were approved in Springs in 1963. The position has therefore not remained static or deteriorated. I can give further data to prove this statement.

I wonder what has happened to Ananias?

When reference is made to ghost towns, hon. members are quick to say there are so many dying mines and more should be done for those places. But the fact of the matter is that data corroborate that there has not been any retrogression. On the contrary as recently as 1962 we read this heading “Springs is angry”. That was because somebody from Benoni was supposed to have said “Springs is slowly dying”. That caused a great uproar in Springs; they did not want to know about that. I have other data as well but I do not even want to refer to it. The fact remains that in spite of this border development there is not the slightest retrogression in Springs or Benoni or in any of those areas.

The hon. member for Springs referred to this assistance that was being given. He said it should have been given long ago; he referred in particular to the increased income we derived from taxation on gold mines. It is correct that the taxation is increasing but the hon. member forgets this. Why should that increase simply be handed out? Over the past years, probably in most cases over the past 12 to 15 years, those mines did not contribute a single penny in the form of direct taxation but the Government and the taxpayer had certain obligations. Just think of the goldfields of the Free State and what it cost to provide water and railway facilities and roads. Large sums of money were borrowed on which the taxpayer had to pay interest and capital redemption payments without deriving any revenue from those mines. I do not think this is the opportune time to refer to the tax which is to be levied in future.

The hon. member referred to the assistance given and that it was given so late. There have been negotiations all these years. The Chamber of Mines said they did not want a form of subsidy. That was why those two forms of relief were announced last year, and this present one. The one was to assist those mines on the East Rand who had water problems. Because mines close down the water is not pumped out and that water runs into the adjoining mines. Last year assistance was given in that regard to the value of R600,000 and provision for a slightly larger amount is again made for that in this year’s Estimates. The hon. member for Springs wants to know whether that assistance is only given to mines which show a loss. That assistance is only given to those mines which, within five years of every year the assistance is granted, have been faced with the threat of having to close down; only that group are taken into account. The hon. member asked for the names of those mines. We felt we ought to make public the names of those mines which are assisted otherwise there might possibly be speculation as to the effect of this assistance. The mines that are to be assisted under this initial scheme are Simmer and Jack, Robinson Deep, New Kleinfontein, Rose Deep, Crown Mines and City Deep. During the course of the year it was announced that further forms of assistance were being considered. This form of assistance is in respect of those marginal profit mines which work at a loss but which have a considerable amount of ore in reserve. We negotiated with these mines last year. They made application and all those who applied are assisted in the Budget proposals. Only those mines which have a considerable amount of ore in reserve and which may perhaps work for a longer period in the event of an increase in the price of gold are assisted. This assistance is given in the form of loans which are to be paid back if there should be an increase in the price of gold. The mines which are assisted under this second scheme can still operate for quite a number of years; they produce approximately 1,000,000 ounces of gold to the value of R25,000,000 per year. The mines which are assisted under this scheme are City Deep, Crown Mines, New Kleinfontein, Robinson Deep, Rand Leases and van Dyk.

It is argued to-day that this relief should have been given sooner. The Government has seen fit to assist the mines concerned in this way. The fact that the border areas are being developed does not mean that there will be unemployment when these other mines which did not apply for assistance close down. On the contrary, during the past few years there has already been a movement from the mining sector to the factory sector and this process is continuing to develop. It is not only the policy of the Government to assist the border areas but to assist industrial development generally. The Rand has had its share and is continuing to get its share. It is evident from the data made available by the new Industrial Committee that 55 per cent of the industries which applied for assistance or import permits established themselves in the Witwatersrand-Pretoria-Vereeniging complex, and of this number 82 per cent established themselves in the central Rand area. It is clear therefore that the biggest concentration of industries continues to be in that area; there is no danger of there being no development in that area. The hon. member asked why the assistance given to the border areas could not also be given here. The fact of the matter is that they do not need it. There is already a great concentration of industries and more and more industries are continuing to be established there. No further assistance is therefore required there.

As far as the distribution of industries is concerned I can only point out that at the last meeting of the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister it was recommended that decentralization should take place at a faster rate. They also emphasized the desirability that as much assistance as possible should be given in future. The fact remains therefore that the pace at which decentralization takes place is not increasing at a sufficiently fast rate. A very strong case can therefore be made out for further encouraging measures. Very few countries do not have these encouraging measures. They do so in Britain and in Ireland and the United States do so in respect of Puerto Rico and so I can go on.

In the last instance I wish to refer to the reference the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) made to the Cyril Lord factory. The hon. member said he thought too high a value had been placed on the machinery and that that was not a good buy. I wish to point out however, that when this machinery was purchased it was very thoroughly examined not only by the Industrial Development Corporation which has already had years of experience in this country of the textile and cotton industry and which also has good contacts overseas, but they also got independent valuators to conduct examinations. It appeared that to replace that machinery would have cost twice as much as the amount paid for it. They also pointed out that if similar machinery were to have been purchased it would probably have cost three times as much as the price actually paid for it. But apart from that very little new machinery was purchased. This industrial equipment includes, inter alia, an extremely modern sizing machine with a higher production capacity as is required at the moment. The weaving looms were manufactured after the war and are all automatic. In South Africa and even overseas a large number of non-automatic weaving looms are still being used. New and most modern machinery was acquired in England but particularly on the Continent, for the colouring and printing process. This factory will therefore use one of the most modern printing processes in South Africa, equal to any modern installation in the world. I therefore think it is unnecessary to create the impression that we have bought a pig in a poke. What is more, the purchase price of the machinery was not paid in cash. Cyril Lord invested it here in the form of shares. If this factory is not a success, therefore, it will mean that he too will lose. I am convinced the East London representative will not agree at all with this approach of the hon. member for Springs, because to East London and to South Africa it has meant that 92 trained persons from Lancashire have arrived here together with their families to work in East London. In all it has meant 303 new immigrants for the Republic and in addition employment has been created for a considerable number of non-Whites there. I am convinced that had the Cyril Lord factory been established in Springs we would not have had a word from the hon. member for Springs about this matter.

It will send up the cost of living.

The hon. member also referred to the rise in the cost of living the establishment of this factory will bring about. I do not know where he got his figures from. Our information is that there will not be such a marked increase in the price of poplin. By far the larger amount of shirt material will not be imported in a completely finished form so that the withdrawal of the rebate on poplin will not affect the price of manufactured clothing to the extent he tried to made us believe. Shirt material will be imported in the form of grey shirting on which the major portion of the import duty will be rebated while Cyril Lord and other manufacturers will do the finishing-off work. For protective reasons the duty on grey shirting cannot be totally abolished. A duty of 3½c per customs yard will be payable and it is only this amount, together with a small amount arising out of the higher costs to finish-off the product locally will be recovered from the public in the form of higher prices. On this basis the price of the average shirt manufactured from imported grey shirting can at the most rise by 12½c, even when the percentage increases in the margin of profit of the manufacturer and the trader are taken into account. It is impossible therefore for the price of this item to increase to the extent the hon. member tried to make us believe. The fact remains that the development of this border area must be seen in the light of the greater industrial development in the country which the Government is trying to stimulate. Where that has increased by more than 12 per cent in the past I can only say that the development of the border area has perhaps not as yet been what we would have liked it to have been, but I want to go further because it is not only a question of border area development it is also a question of the decentralization of industries over the entire platteland which has not taken place to a sufficiently large extent. It is the policy of the Government to try to encourage that as much as possible. But I also wish to point out that any border area development, any development in respect of decentralization on the platteland, will at the same time have its stimulating effect on existing industries. That has been proved throughout the world.

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us whether he is prepared to recommend the establishment of further industrial townships on the Witwatersrand? Will he make a statement of policy in that regard?

The hon. member asks whether I would recommend that further land be made available for industries on the Witwatersrand. My information is that in most municipal areas there are large areas which have already been approved. Unfortunately I cannot say at the moment whether that is also the position in the case of Springs but I understand that a few years ago certain estates were allotted. There are other limiting factors, however. You have the important question of water, etc. But in total hundreds and hundreds of morgen of land have already been approved as industrial areas on the Witwatersrand and the question is whether further areas must be approved while areas which have already been approved are still available. That is a question to which you cannot reply without going into the application of the city council concerned.

I am sorry the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) is not here because I want to refer to a few things he said. He referred to the overseas hostility South Africa had to deal with and he coupled that with the policy of the National Party and the amount for defence provided for in the Budget we have before us. Nobody will deny that the world outside is hostile towards South Africa. Nor will anybody deny that there is a show of overseas hostility towards South Africa connected with that and nobody will deny that they hope to achieve more than one object with this overseas hostility and this show of hostility. It is obviously part of an over-all strategic plan against South Africa but the immediately object of this show of hostility on the part of the world outside is to get South Africans to look for the reason for this overseas hostility in South Africa itself; to get us to develop a kind of guilty conscience; to make us begin to doubt the fairness of the set-up we have here; to make us doubt the basis on which South Africa exists and in that process to make us susceptible to the demands made on us in the name of freedom and democracy and human rights and in the hope that the majority of the electorate in South Africa would be prepared to agree to a kind of policy to which the United Party is prepared to agree, a policy whose first qualification must be that it will satisfy that overseas hostility. Mr. Speaker, the world outside wants that show of hostility to have the propaganda effect in South Africa which the United Party give it and that is to try to make the South Africans think that the fault lies with South Africa; that this overseas hostility is based on high moral indignation because of the policy of separate development which is followed in South Africa by the Government on the instructions of the electorate of South Africa. That is the whole object of this show of hostility—to make us feel guilty about this policy of separate development which the United Party presents to the world as justification for its hostility. Sir, surely we are not dealing with a party programme. The policy of separate development which the National Party follows is in fact a reflection of the entire basis on which South Africa exists. That hostility is not only directed towards this Government; it is directed at the basis of South Africa’s existence, and any Government who wishes to maintain the basis on which South Africa exists will surely be the subject of that hostility. I am not the only person who says that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Leif Egeland said that last year. He said—

The argument of the United Party, an argument which was again advanced to-day by the hon. member for Pinelands, is that had the Western states been well disposed toward our Government policy it would not have been necessary for us to spend this money on defence. But viewed logically the United Party tries to tell South Africa and the world outside that Government policy is to blame not only for the threats and agitation on the part of the communists and the Afro-Asiatic bloc but also for the fact that in debates at UNO the Western nations have to side with the Afro-Asiatic and communist states against South Africa. I want to put this question to the United Party: Do they want to tell me in all honesty that in a debate at UNO like the debate on supplying arms to South Africa the Western states sided against South Africa because this Government followed the policy which it did? Is the agitation in connection with the supply of weapons a sign of hostility against this Government or hostility against South Africa? I also want to put this question to them: Where the Rivonia case was discussed at UNO and the voting was 106 against one against us, would that voting not also have been against us had the United Party been in power?

No.

You are a baboon.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. Sir.

We know it is suggested that the people are only on trial because they are opposed to the apartheid policy. That is how it is represented. Let me read what they write in News Week—

That is how communists who commit violence are represented—as “anti-apartheid plotters” and that being the case it is rationalized that it is purely due to this Government’s apartheid policy that a stand is taken against us. The United Party forget that when this kind of hostile attitude is adopted overseas we are dealing with an important element which can be called the “appeasement” of these Afro-Asiatics. We are not the only ones to say that; I want to read what a prominent American publication says. I refer to the U.S. News and World Report. In the issue of 13 January this year the editor writes as follows—

It is true that when a stand is taken against us those Western nations are to a large extent influenced by this attitude that they must remain at peace with the Afro-Asiatics. Surely South Africa’s policy is not the only thing at issue. I want to give the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) an example. We have in South Africa an American satellite tracing station in connection with which we have given considerable assistance to the American Government. When the Addis Ababa Conference was sitting last year the Cooper space ship was in orbit and from that space ship a message was sent to Addis Ababa on behalf of the Americans extending the blessings of the latter to the Addis Ababa Conference and wishing them strength and success while that conference was devising plans to belittle South Africa. Surely it is not necessary for a friendly country to do anything like that unless their object is to appease those people. I am very sorry the hon. member for Pinelands is not here because he said their policy would satisfy the Western countries. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) goes further; he says their policy will satisfy certain Western and other responsible nations and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) says the same.

Let us in the first place get clarity in regard to the demands that are made; in the second place what is the essential of the United Party’s policy whereby they say they will satisfy the Western nations? It is no good the hon. member for Pinelands saying that the United Party already had its policy before the demands for concessions were made. What is the essential of that policy? I maintain that the essential of the United Party’s policy is to restore the old British Colonial policy which South Africa inherited and which was used in the rest of Africa to put the Nkrumahs and the Kenyattas and the Bandas in power. …

And which was a failure.

… The whole United Party programme is a reversion to the system of integration which South Africa inherited from the British Colonial Government. Since 1948 we have introduced a pattern of separate development in South Africa and to-day the United Party say they are going to repeal all those measures whereby separate development has been introduced into South Africa; they are going to restore the Coloureds to the Common Voters’ Roll; they are again going to give the Bantu representation in the House of Assembly; they are going to abolish race classification; they are going to give the Bantu the right to own property in the White man’s area. The United Party say clearly via the hon. member for Yeoville that they want to follow the opposite direction from that which is at present being followed in South Africa. He wrote that in the Cape Argus last year when he said—

The policy of the United Party is therefore directly opposite to the policy which is being followed at the moment. That, I say, is a reversion to the old British Colonial policy of integration, to the idea of one community with a common loyalty to one particular head of State.

A hotch-potch.

But the United Party cannot only go back to 1948; they will have to go back further. They will have to retrace their steps over the 1936 legislation; they will have to retrace their steps over the 1913 legislation; they will have to go back to 1853 when the Cape Province was given its Constitution by Britain and in which a system of integration and equality was created. But they will not have 100 years within which to retrace their steps; that is the difference. The United Party would have us believe that it would only require a few minor adjustments to buy the goodwill of the Western countries. Is that really true, Sir? Surely we have expressions of opinion by Western spokesmen to test what they want from South Africa. Let us look at America; surely that is a prototype of a Western nation and we have had many expressions of opinion from America against which we can test their attitude. Mr. Soapy Williams is Deputy Minister of African Affairs in the present Administration of the United States and surely we must take notice of him. Is any hon. member opposite prepared to tell me that Mr. Soapy Williams will be satisfied with any policy but the policy which is to-day being followed in Rhodesia— at the least? Will he be satisfied with another policy? Does the hon. member for North-East Rand think so?

No, he is waiting for a shock from outside.

It is interesting to note what Mr. Soapy Williams has to say. He says America’s policy is to bring about a change in the South African policy and the only time he had anything good to say about South Africa was when the Christian Institute was established last year. He then said: Now there is hope for South Africa; the only ray of hope came when a multi-racial ecclesiastical organization was established in South Africa with the object of exercising influence in the political sphere. At the moment we have Mr. Randall here who is saying many friendly things about us but I do not think Mr. Randall will hold it against us when we tell him that we have no illusions but that he is only subtly trying to convey to us that we shall have to change over to a policy of integration. It is very interesting to remember that when he was here two years ago he said to businessmen in America on his return: “You need not be worried about the racial policy which the Government is following in South Africa; there are progressive ecclesiasts who will see to it that that policy is changed.” But, Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the year Professor Gwendolen M. Carter has been here and she addressed the Institute of Race Relations here. I want to quote to the hon. member for North-East Rand what she said. You must remember, Sir, that she wrote a book about South Africa, the “Politics of Inequality”, which is accepted in America as quite a standardized work. My information is that she is a great confidante of Mr. Soapy Williams. She said this—

That is the Addis Ababa Committee. I now ask the hon. member for North-East Rand this: Is the United Party prepared to have consultations with UNO; are they prepared to have consultations with the Committee of Nine in regard to South Africa’s lot? If they are not prepared to admit that the things which are being said are said by responsible Americans, things which we are fully entitled to interpret as reflecting American opinion at governmental level, if they do not admit that that is so, why do they not get up and say that according to their opinion these people do not reflect the attitude of the U.S.A. or if they think that is the American attitude why do they not say: “You completely misjudge the Opposition when it says its policy will comply with your demands”? They do not say that. On the contrary they permit these things to be said and when they are said they get up and say to us: “We have a policy which will comply with the demands of the world outside.” By doing that they are either misleading South Africa or the world outside or both. I just want to state very clearly that if the United Party has a policy which will satisfy the United States and Britain the essence of that policy is integration in the first place. It is not difficult to submit an integration policy on paper and to say that the countries of the West will approve of it. The United Party must remember one thing: Once they have had their policy approved and they were to come into power in South Africa they will continually have to renew that approval; they will continually have to obtain that approval and that will depend on one factor alone and that will be the tempo of integration. Mr. Speaker, here we have Rhodesia to our north; their policy is a policy of complete integration and equality but they are faced with the greatest overseas hostility for one reason only, namely, that they cannot bring about that integration fast enough to the satisfaction of the Afro-Asiatics and for that reason they cannot retain the goodwill of America and the other Western nations. That is why, if the United Party say their policy will satisfy the world outside, they should also tell South Africa that they will maintain a satisfactory tempo of integration in South Africa so that that hostility can be warded off and then they must tell us what the consequences will be to South Africa.

My time is limited but I wish to refer to one other example of a Western nation and its demands. We have heard Mr. Macmillan say what Britain demanded in respect of this matter. But Mr. Macmillan’s party may perhaps lose the election and then the Labour Party may come into power. I just want to give the House this example to illustrate the trend of thought there. I want to quote what the editor of the Sunday Times wrote, and surely he is one of the high priests of United Party trend of thought. He was in Britain himself and he said—

Mr. Speaker, Members of Parliament of the Labour Party are saying these things. If the United Party says they can satisfy Britain with its policy they must tell me whether they are going to try to satisfy those people by complying with their demands. Because if they are not prepared to do that they cannot tell us they will satisfy Britain as a Western nation.

The United Party is giving this show of hostility in the world outside a dangerous propaganda effect in South Africa. That is all the United Party achieves by this claim of theirs. We should let the United States of America and Britain understand very clearly that the United Party does not enjoy any confidence in South Africa; that the electorate are to a growing extent beginning to realize that the future of South Africa cannot be entrusted to the United Party. The United States and Britain must realize that as the pattern develops in Africa there are fewer and fewer reasons to comply with these demands and to succumb to the threats and the pressure. They must realize that there are more and more reasons to be firm and faithful and honest and that the unity and strength to be that are getting greater and greater. Those countries must realize that we are not prepared, as the United Party very clearly make the world outside believe, to barter our future for a fleeting and a very doubtful popularity. They must also realize that the conditions of friendship they lay down, as I have tried to sketch them, are unacceptable to us because in the long run they will not only destroy our friendship with those countries but that they will destroy the whole of Western civilization in South Africa. That is why we cannot accept them. That is why the United Party, instead of making this ridiculous claim, should rather assist us in bringing the message home to the world outside that South Africa is not prepared to accept conditions which will lead to her own destruction. I have many reasons for saying it is a ridiculous claim, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to mention one of them and that is that the claim the United Party make is the same claim the Progressive Party make. How can the United Party honestly make that claim if the Progressive Party make it as well?

I shall be pleased if somebody like the hon. member for North-East Rand or the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) would tell South Africa once and for all that they are not prepared to fritter South Africa’s future away simply for the sake of appearing to be popular in the eyes of the world and for the sake of giving the impression to the electorate in South Africa that that popularity will solve South Africa’s problem.

In the short time at my disposal I really cannot stand here and deal with this old subject raised by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I do not wish to interfere in his quarrel with the Committee of Nine or with Soapy Williams.

I want to tell him this: It will be much better for him to worry less about the effect the policy of the United Party will have, and to concern himself more with the effect of the policy of the National Party and where that policy has led South Africa.

I should like to make a few remarks on defence matters. Unfortunately I cannot proceed to do that before replying to something said to me by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) the other day. I am sorry the hon. member is not present now, but I think his friends, to whom he affords so much pleasure will tell him what I am going to say now. The hon. member obviously checked on my ancestors and ended up in a synagogue. If it were true, which it possibly may be, it will not surprise me nor will it unduly bother me. I only hope that if he checks on his own ancestry, he will not perhaps end up in front of a Bantu hut in the Transkei.

On a point of order …

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said I hope that if he checks on his own ancestry, he will not perhaps end up in front of a Bantu hut in the Transkei.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, if that is your ruling I shall withdraw; I hope he does not go that far back.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw unconditionally.

I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, should the hon. member not apologize in view of the serious allegation he has made against another hon. member?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vereeniging had the temerity to brand me as a rotten Jew. That is not nice. It is a disgrace. It is not nice to brand one as a rotten Boer or a rotten Englishman or the like. I want his friends to tell him I think he resembles Yomo Kenyatta.

I wish to revert to defence and to reply to a few matters raised here, firstly by my dear good old friend, the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) and by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo). They have asked us this question: What is the attitude of the United Party in regard to defence? The hon. member for Somerset East asks: Are you going to stand by us if South Africa were to get into trouble? Why are they asking that question? Are they afraid we will do what they did the last time when South Africa was in trouble? If they are afraid of that, Mr. Speaker, I can only say to them: We do not propose to hold protest meetings, nor will we support organizations committing sabotage, murder and violence. We shall do no less than we did in the past. We realize that these enormous sums of money we are spending on defence at the present time are necessary, if we wish to safeguard our way of life and Western civilization here. We realize also that we are now paying for the neglect of the past.

The hon. member for Somerset East said we were accusing the Government and blaming them for being in the straitened circumstances in which we are at present. He asked further whether we do not realize that circumstances have changed in the Africa States. I concede that conditions have changed and changed very much, and no Government in South Africa can stop it. I am charging the Government and saying that it is their fault that we no longer have any friends overseas.

But let us omit politics from defence matters. I am very sorry speakers opposite steered the debate in that direction. If we realize the harm politics have done to our defence, I think it is high time we stood together and eliminated it completely. When we discuss defence matters we should omit all the nonsense, such as that spoken by the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais). We should stand together if we wish to defend ourselves. Come now, let us leave out politics now.

In the first place I should like to support very strongly the plea we have been making in this House for many years already. That plea was made by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) again yesterday. I refer to the plea for a Select Committee of Parliament on defence matters. I am very sorry the Minister is not here. We appreciate why he is not present. But I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister of Finance that it is not a matter affecting defence only. It is a matter affecting all of us in this House; it affects everybody in South Africa. It is the responsibility of the whole Cabinet. We are voting these large sums of money but we do not know what is going on. We know large quantities of equipment are being purchased, but we do not know what they are going to be used for; we know virtually nothing. The committee we have in mind is a committee that must have the confidence of the Government; a committee that will have military appreciation of the problems South Africa will have to face. I know if they have that, they will be able to satisfy themselves whether the steps being taken are adequate. And where there is a doubt, that committee will be able to gain the required information from the Army Chiefs of Staff. I do not for one moment argue that this committee should have a share in the planning of our defence forces. That cannot be. They must not have that. The total lack of information is reflected on both sides of the House. I refer to the insane and irresponsible speeches such as that of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) just now, that can only do harm. In other words, he challenges the world; he is boasting and he does not know what he is saying.

Mr. Speaker, may I on a point of …

And Mr. Speaker

No, wait a bit; sit down. Mr. Speaker, may I on a point of personal explanation tell the hon. member that I have never in my life been insane.

Order! The hon. member cannot do so now.

The hon. member is not listening; he is too scared to listen.

Order! The hon. member for Ventersdorp must listen and obey my ruling.

I shall with respect obey it, Mr. Speaker.

Order!

This kind of committee we are pleading for …

Quite insane.

Order! If the hon. member speaks again I shall ask him to leave the House.

This committee we envisage is nothing new. It is something that exists in great countries, in big countries that ought to stand by us, and by whom we ought to stand. I am thinking mainly of Britain and America. They have such committees and they do no harm. The knowledge they gain is not exploited for political purposes. Nor is it a question of highly secret weapons and methods being at stake; nor the names of the firms dealing in the equipment. In any event, any enemy worth its salt has that information.

It is wrong that this Parliament, which has to bear the responsibility to vote these sums of money, should be so much in the dark. This standing committee should have all particulars at its disposal to satisfy itself that the plans, the training, the manpower, etc., are adequate for the purposes for which they are to be used. I should like to express a warning that we should be careful not to take secrecy too far. When the last war broke out, we found to our regret how wholly unprepared we were for the conflict ahead. We should not allow Parliament to be in the dark again when something similar occurs.

Quite insane.

Nor do I think it will do the hostile Africa states any harm to know what a warm reception they will receive here if they were to come here. I should like to sound a serious warning that we should not allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security because we are spending these vast sums of money on defence and armaments. It will be extremely dangerous and in this connection I am addressing my remarks to the hon. member for Ventersdorp again.

Quite insane.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether the hon. member whom you have just warned cannot stop making these persistent remarks? He is doing it on a note which he hopes will not reach your ears. He persists in making these interjections and hopes you will not hear them.

I have regarded that incident as closed but I am warning the hon. member that if he continues I shall carry it out.

We should not permit these large sums of money we are spending to bluff us; we must not think it is the end of the matter. There is much more at stake, such as manpower, training and the hundred and one other factors. We have reached the position at the present time where this cold war is costing us more than twice as much as the warm war cost us.

Except the blood.

If this expenditure is going to prevent a hot war, it is money well spent. We on this side are not opposed to this amount. I personally and my colleagues have always pleaded for the Defence Force. We have always asked that the Defence Force should be strengthened; that they should be given the equipment and the material so that they can fulfil their task. We are not opposed to this amount. We realize that the equipment of a modern war at the present time is extremely complicated; we realize there is a great variety and that it costs a lot of money. We are prepared to pay that price if necessary.

Now I come to another very serious matter, and that of course is the question of manpower. It is the bottle neck we are finding not only in the Defence Force but in all the other sectors. I should like to say here that we can no longer tolerate the loss of trained men in all three branches of the Defence Forces. It is happening in the case of the land, sea and air forces. The men leaving us are people who are of a very high technical calibre. All our equipment, without exception, to-day consists of technical equipment. I think it was the hon. member for Ventersdorp who said that those men are not lost to the country. Right enough; they are not lost to the country, but they are lost to the Defence Force and when that modern equipment is purchased, we need those men. There are men who have been sent to Britain for a year or two to take the highest technical courses. They return and one after another they leave the force. We cannot tolerate that, Mr. Speaker. I regard it as a matter of national security that a stop should be put to that outflow of manpower. I ask the Government whether they have really taken all active steps to ascertain why these men are leaving us. I should like to ask the Government whether they have done anything to replace these men.

I feel that we are now at a point in our defence where the military authorities should be divorced from the Public Service Commission, as one hon. member has said already. We feel that the quality of our Defence Force is such that our Permanent Force should be expanded. I say the Permanent Force, for they are the men who will have to endure the first shock of a war. They must be there; we cannot at the outset rely on reserves. It is felt that drastic changes should be made in the conditions of service of these people whom we need so very badly. I admit that comparisons are not always fair, but you know police of and below the rank of major are drawing larger salaries than the same ranks in the Defence Forces. Not that I do not grant the police that; I think it is very good. It is only a minor point I wished to mention.

I have also made a note of what artisans in the Defence Forces are earning. A warrant officer, who is an artisan, is the highest qualified technician one can get, and his salary only rises to R2,640. That is only one aspect of the difficulty we are experiencing with technicians but it is important, for R2,640 really is very little for a highly qualified artisan in the industrial world.

We are also concerned about the preservation, the maintenance and the storage of the vast quantity of equipment now being purchased. I am speaking from experience, Sir. In most cases, the equipment is at hand before the requisite storage facilities are available. But what is more important is the fact that the equipment being used by the Defence Force at the present, is of such a nature that it has to be used almost every day to remain in working order. It is no good putting away those things in a store. It must be used otherwise it goes out of order.

I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Finance the immense secretariat in the Department of Defence at the present time. During the war years I had a good deal to do with the secretariat. I cannot recall that at any time we had such a colossal organization as the present one. This branch of the Department render accounting and administrative services. However, we must remember that all three branches of the Defence Force have their own administrative staff. There is no doubt that in many instances this secretariat is doing harm only. It is a bottle neck that causes delays and it seems to me that many of the delays could be avoided if the Defence Force could do its own administrative work etc.

To give you some idea Mr. Speaker, we find e.g. that in the Department there is a secretary, a deputy secretary, four assistant secretaries, two principal accountants, two senior clerks, three administrative control officers and plus/minus 40 senior and less senior officials. The salary bill for that part of the Department has this year been R500,000 more than last year. The cost of the civil staff—I am not now talking about the armaments factory or the non-White labour or the naval training centre at Gordons Bay—amounts to R6,500,000 whereas the salaries of the Permanent Force alone amounts to R26,000,000. Compare these two figures, Mr. Speaker. I think they are out of all proportion. It seems to me there has been a little Empire building, as we say in the army. It seems to me the tail is wagging the dog now. I should like to urge the Minister of Finance to have this matter investigated to find out exactly whether this enormous staff is necessary. Personally I do not think so.

The Public Service Commission has control over that.

We realize that fully, but nevertheless this tremendous Department exists.

Another matter I wish to raise is the question of the nine months training of our people. You know there are private undertakings that are so patriotic that they pay these young men their salaries while they are undergoing military training. Last year I told the Minister of Railways about this and I am doing it again to-day, because he does not do so. I have in my possession a letter from Iscor. It is a great and a mighty organization but they do not do so. I do not think that is right, Sir. I think that great organization ought to show greater patriotism and ought to pay their men while they are undergoing such training. The men themselves are making big enough sacrifices.

There is another matter that has come to my attention and which is not nice either. I hope employers will take notice of this. I understand there are certain employers who, when young men leave school and approach them for employment, first ask them whether they have completed their military training. If the boy says no, then the employer says I cannot give you employment. That also is unpatriotic, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to raise only one more point, Sir; I have already mentioned it, and that is the fact that South Africa is standing alone; South Africa is being persecuted by UNO. And it is being said we are not afraid. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is a UN which undertook the Congo operations and there is a UN which undertook a Suez. When you are dealing with a UN which dealt with Suez, it is no good us talking big and boasting. We must sit up and take notice.

I have no wish to reply to what was said by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst), because he did not raise any points which I feel warrant a reply. In the first instance, in considering the arguments advanced by the hon. member we must have some yardstick or other in order to ascertain whether there is any substance in those arguments or not. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member. I want to be fair to him. If the hon. member really believes in the statements that he made here to-day then I think he must weigh them up against the following facts: He left the army in the prime of his life. If he left the army of his own volition then I am surprised that he should now step into the breach for the Defence Force when he could have devoted the best years of his life and his knowledge to serving the Defence Force. If he did not leave the army of his own volition then it surprises me to find that he adopts such a strong attitude in this House and yet he was not strong enough to remain in the army. I am not trying to give the House the reasons for his having left the army but if he is as strong as he has tried to show us here in this House then I maintain that he would have been of more value to the army when he was in the prime of his life than he is of value to us here. Because he has been found wanting in this regard I shall not reply to the arguments he advanced.

The more I listen to the arguments advanced by hon. members opposite, the more it surprises me that educated, learned and knowledgeable people should have to struggle to such an extent to find some argument or other with which to attach the policy and these Estimates of this Government. One is amazed in this regard because they have had practically no fault to find with the Estimates at all. Before stating my case to the House I want to single out a few hon. members opposite and I want to single them out according to merit. I want to be quite fair to all of them. The first one I want to single out is the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). I have always had the greatest respect for the hon. member and in my speeches I have never referred to him with anything but the greatest respect but I was really disappointed in the last speech made by the hon. member. I was so disappointed in him that I want to leave the matter there because if I reply to him in kind, in the manner he deserves for having said that it is time for us to tell the outside world all about the oppression that takes place in South Africa, I may perhaps hurt other hon. members opposite for whom I still have a high regard. I may even hurt them as much as they hurt us. I am not prepared to do that and that is why I want to leave the hon. member at that. I am singling the hon. member out as one to whom I do not want to reply. Another member whom I want to single out, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross), has just left the Chamber. I know him very well. When I look at him I see his heart burning with so much hatred that it is practically hot enough to set him on fire. I do not want to give him any further encouragement because I am convinced of the fact that that hatred of his will burn itself out. But I would like the hon. member to continue doing what he is doing. As long as he continues to tell the world about the slave-labour we have here he will be doing the National Party a great deal of good because decent English-speaking people and English-speaking people in the country in general who feel that South Africa is their home—we come into contact with them quite often—will not tolerate statements of that nature. The hon. member does us a great deal of good thereby because by making statements of that nature he only succeeds in driving these people away from his party and into the ranks of the National Party. That is why I want to ask him most politely, if he wants to do anything for South Africa, to continue in that vein because he is doing good work.

The third hon. member whom I want to single out is the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl). I am very pleased that he is present here this afternoon. The hon. member wrote a letter to the Aberdeen City Council and opened his soul to South Africa in this regard. I want to thank him very much indeed for having done this. We know that he is a dyed-in-the-wool member of the United Party but we also know that he is a good South African. We believe in our hearts that he is firstly a South African and then a member of the United Party. He can attack us as much as he likes but we know in our heart of hearts that his feelings are our feelings in regard to this particular matter. He says this: “In matters affecting South Africa, I stand by South Africa.” I want to tell him on behalf of this side of the House that one day, when he reaches the end of life’s road, we shall be able to say of him with the greatest respect: “Here lies a dyed-in-the-wool member of the United Party but a good Afrikaner.”

There is another hon. member whom I should like to single out, not to any particular extent, but I should like to single him out just the same, and that is the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). He is not here now but he was man enough to tell the outside world: “When you talk about sanctions against South Africa you are also talking about sanctions against the Coloured people of South Africa. They are also South Africans and any sanctions you impose in order to harm the National Party will also affect them adversely.” We are very grateful to the hon. member for his courage. If some of the leaders of the United Party also showed that courage fewer attacks would be made upon South Africa by countries abroad and there would be fewer threats of sanctions.

I cannot contend that the Opposition are finding it difficult to advance arguments that hold water without proving my contention. I have just caught the eye of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) who is a dear and friendly person. I like him very much indeed. I cannot agree with his politics but he is a person whom I should not like to hurt; he is a man for whom I have sufficient respect not to want to hurt him. But before I forget to do so and before he leaves the Chamber again I want to reply to his speech. The hon. member has said that the policy of the United Party will be acceptable to the West. That may be so. I agree that the policy of the United Party is more acceptable than ours. But what will be left to us once that policy has been accepted? The country is prosperous at the moment. Our country is recognized by the world to be a prosperous country economically. Our country has many friends, even though hon. members opposite would have it otherwise. Business-men have confidence in our country. We have the confidence of the business-world. We are experiencing progress such as is being experienced by no other country in the world. This has been proved by the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha). He mentioned statistics of other countries that are comparable with South Africa. The finest thing of all in my opinion is that what he has said has not been refuted by one single hon. member opposite. He mentioned facts and figures and not one hon. member opposite has been able to refute what he said. Hon. members opposite have been trying shots in the dark— like someone trying to hit a bat flying past him. To return to the hon. member, I want to say that I agree with him. What would be our lot if we adopted the policy of the United Party? We would have a poor country. Hon. members opposite cannot mention one of the Africa states which is not dependent upon the charity of the West. They are all on the verge of bankruptcy and South Africa would be in the same position if we are taken over in the same way. We have to choose between a prosperous country with a prosperous economy and the kind of country I have just mentioned. We face a hostile world for reasons which we cannot eliminate and which the United Party cannot eliminate—not with the best will in the world—unless we abdicate, unless we capitulate, unless we surrender, which is what they say they do not want to do. If we follow their policy we will find ourselves in a bankrupt country following a policy that other people want us to follow. We are following a policy now which the people of South Africa want, and this fact has been proved repeatedly at election after election. We are following a policy which is strengthening our economy and which is providing the workers of the country with food. We prefer this to having a bankrupt country or no country at all. We want to speak frankly to hon. members opposite. Either hon. members do not yet understand us or else they do not want to believe us. I want to tell them that on the day when the policy of equality, which is supported wholeheartedly by the Progressive Party and to some extent by the United Party, is followed in this country there will no longer be one of us left in South Africa. There will not be one of us left. Hon. members can take it from me that as long as there is one of us left, this sort of surrender will never take place in South Africa. I want to tell my hon. friends opposite: Do not let us quarrel about matters of this nature. It will do no good because we will never give way. I shall not leave my home for somebody else to take over. I want to retain what is mine although I am prepared to concede to any other man what is his due. The Black men whose land was protected by my forefathers, are the men for whom the United Party are fighting. I am not permitted to purchase any land in their areas. I am not permitted to allow them to die out by taking their land from them. But neither can I permit them to take over the small piece of land remaining to me so to eliminate me. I cannot permit the Black man to enjoy his “family life” here. I am so sick and tired of this expression “family life” now that if my wife does not give me a big smile I shall leave! I cannot bear the expression any longer. The Bantu enjoy this “family life” in South Africa just as fully as they enjoy it anywhere else. Sir, can hon. members opposite mention one case to me in which the married life of the Bantu in our Bantu areas has been broken up? Can they point out one place to me where these people have been driven apart? It is nonsensical to tell the world what the hon. member for Simonstown tried to tell the world— that it is time for us to tell the world about the oppression in South Africa. That is what the hon. member said. I want to tell hon. members opposite that there is no oppression in this country, and hon. members in their heart of hearts know this to be true. Our consciences are clear. We do not begrudge the Black man what we ourselves want. We want to give him what is his due, but we do not want to give him everything. I think of the hon. member who has such a fine head of white hair—not a fine head but fine white hair—the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). I want to say with the greatest respect that the hon. member moves a motion in connection with agricultural matters every year in this House. I am sorry that he is not here now because I do not like discussing what has been said by an hon. member if he is not in the House. Why does he move this motion every year? He does so in order to get in a blow against the Government about a situation which is made possible by the elements—drought and hail. He does not move the motion in order to give advice; he does not tell the Government what to do in order to assist the farmers who have been struck down by the elements. No; all he wants to do is find a stick with which to beat the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Government. He does not tell us that his party is in complete agreement with the fact that the Minister and the Cabinet have drawn up plans to assist the farmers in the drought-stricken areas. He does not tell the House that he is pleased because these plans have been drawn up but he blames us for everything; he says that it is due to our negligence that the prices for agricultural products are so low. Has the hon. member forgotten that the Government has to protect the consumers as well as the farmers? Has the hon. member forgotten that the Government cannot raise prices indiscriminately because they have to consider the consumers, the people who have to eat those products? Has he forgotten that the workers have to eat those products as well? Before the hon. member makes another speech I should like him to come around to my office and then I shall tell him precisely what he is going to say. I shall write it all down for him because he has been saying the same thing for some years now. He always advances the same arguments and lodges the same objections. It is not difficult for me to acquire knowledge; I learn quickly and I well remember what he has said over the years. I shall be able to tell him in advance what he is going to say next time.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) asked us in his speech: “What is the man in the middle income group getting out of the Budget? What is the man with an income of R4,600 being given in this Budget?

Nothing.

My reply is that that is the wrong question to ask. The Afrikaner who loves South Africa asks: “What does this Budget do for my country?” He does not want it personally; he wants it for his country. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh but the country has to provide that man with employment, otherwise he will not be able to earn his R4,600. It is a privilege for him to be able to earn R4,600. If a Member of Parliament asks what the country is doing for this man, then the group of people with incomes of up to R4,600 have the right to ask: “Where shall we find a Government which can please all the people all the time, a Government which can give everyone what he wants, as suggested by the hon. member?”

I hope that the hon. member who is tired of family life will not expect me to follow him through the maze of matters he has touched upon. In the short time available to me I want to make an appeal to the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs, who unfortunately is not here at the moment, in respect of a group of people who are not the forgotten people that have been referred to by hon. members in many of the speeches that have been made during the course of this debate, but they are forgotten people in a different sense altogether.

I want this afternoon in these few brief minutes to deal with the Coloured folk in Natal. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that in so so far as their franchise is concerned, although they were on the Common Roll at the same time that the Coloured people in the Cape were, when the Government passed certain legislation dealing with the separate representation of voters, the Coloured people in Natal were not given the same franchise rights in respect of this House as the Coloured people in the Cape. The Coloured people in Natal who were on the Common Roll retained that right, but no fresh registration of voters could take place, with the result that with every year that passes their number is diminishing until eventually, I suppose, in the way of nature there will be none left who enjoy the franchise as far as this House of Assembly is concerned. Therefore they are in a very direct sense considerably worse off even than for example the Bantu in the Transkei to-day, although they are Coloured people and among their forebears had White people. Sir, one of the major difficulties that I think the Government has to contend with so far as the Coloured people of Natal are concerned arises from the fact that there are all told plus/minus 30,000 of these people spread over the whole of the province right from the north from the Mputu River down to the Umtamvuna in the south, and from the sea to the top of the Drakensberg Mountains, a few here and a few there; except in the case of a few municipal housing schemes that have been established, I think it can be rightly said that there are virtually even no small groups of Coloured people. They are distributed right throughout the length and breadth of the province. Another difficulty is that they are not in terms of their racial descent a homogeneous people. I was having a look at some figures that were obtained for me recently, and as a matter of fact, even if there is a certain amount of grouping, in so far as those 30,000 are concerned, while there is a small number of the Coloured people who down here would be called Cape Coloureds, they are in a very small minority. There are Griquas, there are people who come of a Euro-African descent, there are people from Mauritius whose forebears on the one side were French and on the other were Asiatics, there are people from the Seychelles, people from St. Helena, and the general picture presented is therefore one of groups of Coloured people who have nothing in common one with the other. In fact there is quite a degree of animosity between some groups and other groups that has manifested itself from time to time in matters like education, and so forth in the province. The handling of those groups of people under those circumstances therefore for administrative purposes is made very difficult. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister and ask him whether he will not give a truce to the Coloured people of Natal for say five years in so far as group areas and the associated developments are concerned. If he wants to establish townships for these folks—municipalities have already in some cases done so— let him continue to do so, let him provide housing in terms of the relative statutes which make provision for it and in terms of the discussions that have taken place in this House from time to time when these matters have been under discussion. Let him provide the housing and see then whether those villages or the areas set aside for Coloured housing in our larger municipalities will attract the scattered, solitary Coloured families that are now dotted about all over the province. I want to ask the hon. Minister not to use force, not to use compulsion. Let him tell the Coloured people that he is willing to build houses for them in areas set apart for them and to leave them alone under the Group Areas Act for five years and see how far the matter will adjust itself, because of the paucity of numbers and the fact of the widely divergent racial composition of the various groups. It would give these people an opportunity to try and adapt themselves under new circumstances and new conditions where they will have to find their place in our economy and the niche which they can fill. I want to say, Sir, that nobody can gainsay that amongst the most respectable, law-abiding, hard-working people that we have got in the whole community are to be found these Coloured people that we have got there. Largely, the lack of virtue that has been evident in some quarters, is not manifest so far as these people are concerned, and in all walks of life they have played their part and are playing their part at the present time. If instead of them feeling that there is a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads and that they never know when they are going to be caught up in the coils of our legislation, which they do not understand, they can be given that assurance and they can be left free to move then to the areas which are being established for them as towns and so forth, then I think it can only have a most beneficial effect. I cannot, in view of the paucity of numbers and the divergence of racial descent of the people, see how we are going to create what may well be termed group areas being set aside as, for example, we are doing here in the Cape. At the most it can only be a small area because of the paucity of the number of the people, but as they increase they are going to break the bounds of those little areas that might be set aside for them, and I would like to see them left alone. Sir, there is a sort of sword of Damocles hanging over them. In 1961, the hon. the Prime Minister gave an address to the Coloured Council in Cape Town, in December 1961, and in dealing with the question of the Coloured people as a whole he referred to those that were outside of the Cape Province and he said—

That statement has caused a tremendous amount of heartburn. It is true that the Prime Minister said that the movement would not take place forcibly. The Coloured people in Natal, except for that small group that one may call Cape Coloured people, have nothing whatever in common with the Coloured people of the Cape. Their racial derivation is totally different, and all that these people can rely upon is this statement that this removal will not take place forcibly, but the threat of removal, or the question of the removal hangs over their head. Whether on reconsideration the Minister perhaps has come to the conclusion that that final determination is not going to be necessary, and he may be able to give us an assurance that there is no question really of moving those people from the province in which they have been born and where they have their homes, and where they will be able to readjust themselves to the economic society in which they are living, I do not know. Let us take away this sword that is hanging over their heads that they are going to be threatened with removal to a province which is completely foreign territory to them. They know nothing about it, they do not talk the Afrikaans language; Zulu is the home language of many of them; they do not belong down here; French is the home language of a very large number of them. They do not belong down here in the Cape, and I still hope that it will be possible for the Minister to give that assurance and at the same time to say that he will accept the proposition of a truce of five years so that these people can find their feet in the new conditions that are coming about in South Africa.

I am quite sure that the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) does not expect me to reply to the plea that he has just made for the Coloureds in Natal. The request he made was directed to the Minister concerned, who could, unfortunately, not be here.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) is not in the House. Whenever any of his speeches are replied to, he just happens to be out of the Chamber. The hon. member made a very strange speech, having regard to conditions in South Africa and these Estimates which the hon. the Minister of Finance has presented to the House this year, Estimates which are a reflection of the economic growth and the prosperity and pro-gress in South Africa, an economic progress which is the result of the very sound economic policy that has been followed in South Africa recently. This policy has also been followed in previous years; it is a budgetary policy and an economic and financial policy which has been followed with the specific aim of bringing about this economic progress. I think that the Government has been highly successful in its efforts in this regard. But this economic progress has also been due to the very efficient economic planning which preceded this period. The Government in the person of the hon. the Prime Minister with his Economic Planning Council drew up very definite plans in advance in order to map out the direction to be taken in the economic planning of the country and it has been as a result of this planning that we have experienced so much prosperity in the economic sphere in South Africa. But this economic progress that is reflected in the Estimates is also the result of the peace and quiet that prevails in South Africa, something which is not coincidental but which has been as a direct result of the policy followed by this Government, the very definite policy followed particularly by the hon. the Minister of Justice in connection with the activities of saboteurs. The simple fact that the Government has taken such decisive action in regard to these matters has generated so much confidence in South Africa both inside and outside the country that this economic prosperity has been made possible.

But a very important reason which I believe to be responsible for this economic prosperity is not only the race harmony which exists in South Africa between the Afrikaans and English-speaking sections of the population but also the growing race harmony which exists between the Whites and the non-Whites. This economic prosperity has been made possible by that race harmony.

A last reason that I want to mention is the fact that we have had a superabundance of both capital and immigrants coming to this country. This flow of capital and of the desirable type of immigrant needed for our industrial expansion have also been the direct results of the confidence shown in South Africa by world finance.

What precisely is the policy followed by the Government which has generated this confidence in South Africa by the outside world? In the first place it is the Government’s handling of the colour problem—in other words, the application of a policy to cope with the colour problem, which is what the National Party is doing to-day. That colour policy of the Government has a very definite purpose— and it is succeeding in that purpose—which is to generate confidence in South Africa in the outside world. By means of the policy that it is applying the Government is proving to the world that the position in South Africa is unique not only in Africa but in the world. It is unique because South Africa is a country which is occupied by the Whites and which is rightfully theirs. This is a country in which we have a large highly-civilized and developed White population who have by means of White capital and enterprise worked this country up to a very high level. We are following a policy established on the fundamental principle that the White man and only the White man shall govern himself. If we deviate from this fundamental principle of the Government we will be admitting that the position of the White man in South Africa is precisely the same as that of the Whites in the Africa territories. In other words, if we make concessions and give the outside world the impression that we are buying ourselves a place to stay we will also immediately give the impression that our position here is precisely the same as that of the Whites in the other Africa territories and that we feel that this is not our rightful place, that this country does not belong to us and that we are not a White nation which has put down its roots into the soil at this Southern tip of Africa. That is the fundamental difference that exists between the Government party and the Opposition party—that we are the only party which acknowledges the fact that we are South Africa-orientated and that we spring from the soil of Africa. We are an Africa nation and it is not necessary for us to buy a place for ourselves from the Black man in order to be able to live here. We have every right to live here and all that we are doing is to defend that right and to stand fast by that right. We are not expendable.

What is the position? We have heard it said by various United Party speakers during this debate that we have to spend this large amount of R210,000,000 on defence as a result of the policy of this Government—the policy of separate development. The hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) dealt with this matter and I have this to say in reply to the speech of the hon. member for Pine-lands (Mr. Thompson). What is actually the reason for the struggle that we are waging abroad? Who are those waging this struggle against us, those who are organizing boycotts and training saboteurs to commit acts of sabotage here in South Africa? Who are those who by means of their misrepresentations are trying to stir up the whole world against us? Are they not in the first place the communists and the liberalists throughout the world? Is it not these people who have developed a sickly sentimentality for the Black man who want the White man to have nothing but who want to give the whole of the continent of Africa to the Black man only? Is it not the so-called freedom committees which have been set up in Britain and in Dar-es-Salaam to carry on the struggle against South Africa—not against the National Party—by any means at their disposal, immoral or unlawful or not, in order to wipe out White civilization in South Africa? I think hon. members will admit that this is the case; and if this is not the case then I want to ask this question. Hon. members of the United Party have contended that their policy will be acceptable and that if their policy is followed in South Africa—which will never happen—this heavy defence expenditure will not be necessary because then there will be no hostility to South Africa and efforts will no longer be made to undermine South Africa from countries beyond our borders. I want to put this question to the United Party. Why are these same efforts still being made against our neighbour state, Southern Rhodesia? What is the position there? There they do not have eight White representatives out of a total of 162 to represent the Bantu in their Parliament but they have 15 Bantu representing the Bantu races out of a total of 45 members, a far greater proportion than that suggested by the United Party in their solution to the problem. What are the results of all this? What has been the reaction of those same enemies of South Africa? The pressure has simply been increased. They simply say that one concession has been made and that the principle has been adopted that a majority group in that country has been given representation in a joint Parliament, in a partnership Government, so why should they be satisfied with a few members only? Why, if they form the majority in that partnership, should they not also form the majority in the Government? That is the pressure that is being brought to bear, not only by extremists in Southern Rhodesia but by extremists throughout the world, and particularly at UN. But the hon. members of the Opposition say that the West will be satisfied with their policy. What has been the reaction of the West to the policy of Southern Rhodesia? The Prime Minister of Britain who has people of his own flesh and blood living and governing in Southern Rhodesia, has already said at the beginning of this year that Southern Rhodesia must have a majority Government before it can eventually be given its independence. Mr. Duncan Sandys, one of the senior Ministers in Britain, said last year that the Commonwealth would have to decide on the future of Southern Rhodesia. We know what this means. The London Times had the following to say in this regard—

This is the pressure that is being exerted upon the British Government from all parts of the world, and from Britain herself, to establish a majority Government there in spite of the fact that there are 15 Bantu in a Parliament comprising 45 members. Do hon. members of the United Party imagine that a mere eight Whites to represent the Bantu of South Africa will provide a solution to the problem, that the West and the rest of the world will be satisfied and that the attacks upon South Africa will cease because this has been done?

I want to come back now to something that I said previously. I am pleased that the hon. member for South Coast is here because he is particularly concerned in this. The United Party say that their policy is that eight Whites should represent the Bantu in this Parliament in the process of an ordered advance towards race federation. It will not be in the Parliament of the race federation itself that these eight Whites will represent the Bantu; it will be in the Parliament as we know it to-day. Hon. members opposite must tell me if I am interpreting their policy incorrectly. If they come into power they will immediately establish a separate Voters’ Roll for the Bantu and they will allow the Bantu to elect eight Whites to represent them in this Parliament. I stated previously in this House that this would be the position, and it was denied by the hon. member for Pretoria (Rissik) (Mr. de Kock), I would not revert to this matter were it not for the fact that that denial was made on the instruction of the hon. member for South Coast. It is their policy to have a race federation. Not only do they want an “ordered advance”; this race federation is their ultimate aim. Once they have reached that race federation stage—I take it that the voters will have to agree to it—not only will there be the eight White representatives of the Bantu in the Federal Parliament but there will also be the representatives of the Bantu provinces or homelands in the Federal Parliament. The representatives of those federal states will also take their seats in that Federal Parliament together with the Whites. I want to ask them whether they deny that this is what will happen? Is this not true? And if they do not deny it I want to put this question to them. Why are they not honest enough to explain the position to the voters of the country? Why are they not honest in their dealings with the electorate? Since they have also issued a pamphlet dealing with their race federation policy, why do they remain silent about these matters? Why are they trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public? I shall tell the House why. I hope that I am not interpreting the position incorrectly. I say these things because on various occasions in this House the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that those federal states will be represented in the Federal Parliament. Why did they not make it clear in their pamphlet that the Bantu would have a maximum of eight White representatives in this Federal Parliament? I accuse them of trying to pull the wool over the eves of the South African public. They are doing what they have been doing throughout this debate. One speaker says that the expenditure of defence is too high and another says that it is not too high. They blow hot and cold and they are doing exactly the same thing in regard to the representation of the Bantu in this Federal Parliament. They may say that they have given the voters a guarantee that they will not go further than that. That is true, but we have already pointed out who the voters at that stage will be.

I also want to put this question to them. They are now going to approach the voters with a policy of an “ordered advance” towards a race federation. Apparently they will have a mandate to set up a race federation. They are trying gradually to condition the electorate to this way of thinking. Let me say this in conclusion. The hon. member for South Coast has repeatedly and publicly denied these contentions. He has repudiated his own leader. Not one of them will dare deny that what I have said is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, last week when the Minister of Finance delivered his “state of the nation” speech, he assumed the role of a successful fisherman. We rather like the originality that the hon. the Minister displays every year, and we look forward anxiously to next year to find out what new role he is going to assume, if he is still on the Treasury benches next year. But I think the Minister of Finance would have been much nearer to the truth if he had assumed the role of the rich man, the rich man who inherited his riches, who has everything his heart desires in the material sphere, but who has very little room in his heart for the less-privileged man; who is losing all his friends; whose life is in danger and who, physically and spiritually, is a sick and unhappy man. That type of rich person is known to all of us; he lives in a beautiful home and he is a model of prosperity. Sir every Government in South Africa inevitably finds itself in control of a country with vast natural riches. The Minister of Finance is in the position, therefore, of the rich man who inherited his wealth; he can do nothing about the fact that the signs of his riches are there for all to see. I leave aside the question as to what our position would have been in the material sphere if South Africa had been under better management. Just think, Mr. Speaker, what South Africa’s position would have been if the world had been less hostile towards us; think of what our position would have been but for the fact that we are being pushed out of the world community in every sphere; just think what our position would have been but for the fact that we are faced with boycotts and threats of boycotts; think what our position would have been but for the fact that we have had to spend millions on defence; just think what our position would have been if the continent of Africa, which is in its initial stages of development to-day—and we all know how important it is to get in on the ground floor—had been open to our trade and our investment capital. Under any other Government, a Government which at this stage of the history of the world was not committed to a racial ideology such as compulsory apartheid, the White man would have been freer and stronger and South Africa would have been in the same powerful position at the southern tip of Africa as America is in the northern part of the Americas. In our present position, however, the Minister finds himself in the position of a rich man, but one who is losing all his friends.

Three years ago when we were forced to leave the Commonwealth, there were Government leaders who openly welcomed it. It is understandable that there were Afrikaans speaking people who felt sentimental about this for historical reasons and who regarded this step as the end of what was known as the “British connection”. It is also understandable that there were English-speaking people who felt just as sentimental about this for historical reasons and who saw it in precisely the opposite light. But for South Africa our membership of the Commonwealth had a much deeper significance; it was in vain, however, that we tried to convince the Government of this. The harm to South Africa did not lie so much in our loss of membership as such; membership of the Commonwealth in itself was never something that was indispensable to South Africa, but the movement to throw us out was part of a global plan to isolate South Africa completely from her friends politically and socially and then to attack her physically. The harm that we suffered in London was that our ejection represented a dangerous breakthrough against us; it was in the nature of a victory, the first victory for those powers which because of the Government South Africa had, wished to isolate her completely from the rest of the world. That is why there was genuine disappointment in every important capital in the West and rejoicing in Moscow and in the capitals of the Afro-Asian countries, and, remarkably enough, in Pretoria as well. When this break-through was effected against us, it was only natural that the Government’s opponents abroad tried to follow up their break-through, and it is depressing for South Africa to-day to see what has been the outcome of our ejection from the Commonwealth; to see how we are being pushed out everywhere and how the plan to segregate us systematically, step by step, from every ally of ours is being carried to its climax. And there sits the rich man, surrounded by all his riches. His friends are leaving him one after another, and his enemies are attacking him from all sides; as far as the outside world is concerned he is without a single plan and therefore powerless to check this process. And, what is worse, as far as the internal position is concerned, he is completely unable to put his own house in order to be able to meet the impending onslaught. On the contrary, instead of putting his house in order, he occupies himself day after day with trivialities. Questions such as who is to be allowed to operate a taxi service in the Cape and who is to be allowed to play golf in Kimberley are still being elevated in these modern times to national issues requiring the personal attention of a member of the Cabinet. I know hon. members opposite will say, “We are, at any rate, building up a Defence Force.” Let them do so. Nobody stands in their way, because under this Government such a Defence Force is needed, but that alone is not sufficient. One of the Government’s own mouthpieces stated our position much more effectively than I could hope to do. This is what the Burger said on 29 April 1961—

Then follows this important statement—

What is the Burger saying here in effect? What it says is that in our internal politics we must behave ourselves in such a way that it will be possible for the leaders of the West to defend us and to step into the breach for us. This is such an obvious truth that one is almost ashamed that it should be necessary to quote this sort of statement in an attempt to convince the Government side of the realities of the situation.

There sits the rich man, unable to retain sufficient allies amongst the older states, his diplomats unable to over-trump the strategy of the younger states—not that our diplomats are of poorer quality than those of other countries. On the contrary, nowhere in the world could one hope to find diplomats of a better quality than our diplomats, but their difficulty is that they are powerless because they represent a Government whose domestic politics are such that countries like America and England and the other leaders of the West feel that they have no justification at all for helping to defend South Africa. On the contrary, in return for the trouble some of them do take they get nothing but insults from the Government benches. We are constantly told, both in this House and on public platforms, that “the West is sick” and that “the West has become soft”. That is the most arrant nonsense. On the contrary, it is the determined stand taken by the West that has kept the communists in check and which has caused them to suffer quite a number of defeats in the last few years. This argument that the West is sick is tantamount to this, that some of us expect the leaders of the West to continue to cling to out-of-date concepts and to practise political colonialism when we ourselves were the first state in Africa to rid ourselves of colonialism. If we want to build up security for ourselves, then we cannot simply build up a fine Defence Force and leave it at that; what we need above all is allies, and there are two places where we can win allies for South Africa. The first place where we can win allies is outside of South Africa if we manage our domestic affairs correctly. The second place is within our own country. The best potential allies of the White man, if only we set about things in the right way, are within the borders of South Africa. The best potential allies of the White man are the 1,500,000 Coloureds, the 500,000 South Africans of Indian origin and the 11,000,000 Bantu in this country. They can be our allies if we set about things in the right way. But how can those people become our allies if we continually come along with measures and pinpricks which drive the masses into the hands of extremists? What hope have we of enjoying the loyal support of the masses of the Bantu at a time of crisis if we keep on introducing measures such as we have had here during the present Session? How can we expect to have the loyalty of those people at a time of real national crisis if we break up the family life of the man living in the city and if he loses all interest in law and order? Sir, the hon. member for Rustenburg said a few moments ago that there was no such thing in South Africa; he wanted to know where families were being split up. Sir, the trouble is that some members are such blind followers of their political party that they cannot see what is going on in their own country. I should like to read out to the hon. member for Rustenburg what happened in the well-known case in Paarl, the case of Mrs. Maphele. I quote from the report which appeared in the Burger of 25 October 1962—

Just imagine, Sir! In every civilized country of the world the natural place for a wife to live is where her husband lives, and if she does not live where her husband lives, then the fact that she is living away from her husband constitutes a ground for divorce; but in this country, under this Government, when it comes to the basic concept of family unity this Government believes in different standards —one rule for the White family and a different rule for the non-White family. What earthly hope have we, at a time of crisis, of getting loyal support from the Bantu population if that is the course we adopt? What hope have we of relying on the loyalty of the Coloureds, the masses of the Coloureds, if we apply measures which insult their dignity as human beings and which force them out of their homes in areas in which they have lived for generations, and if they are prevented by measures such as job reservation to bring out the best in themselves? What hope have we as Whites of winning the loyalty of the 500,000 Indians when thousands of Indians in Johannesburg are driven with bag and baggage out of the municipal area of Johannesburg? They are simply given notice that they must pack their bags and go and settle in the veld 17 miles from the centre of Johannesburg. Go to Lenasia and there you will see people who scarcely have enough food to eat, but who have to pay 41 cents per day for transport from their homes out in the veld to their places of employment in Johannesburg. A place like Fordsburg is 95 per cent Indian, and even the Indians of Fordsburg are told to pack up and go and settle outside of the borders of the Municipality of Johannesburg. Sir, I do not want to pursue this matter; there will be a further opportunity to do so when the Vote of the Minister concerned comes up for discussion. But I say that if South Africa should ever find herself involved in a war and this Government still rules the country, then it will have more enemies within its own borders than it is ever likely to have outside of our borders. That is our danger, and even if we have the support of a small number to begin with, we will find as soon as we suffer the first setback that a position will develop internally which will be entirely beyond our control. The greatest danger to the White man in South Africa lies in the hostility which is created against him day after day as a result of Government policy. That is where the real danger to South Africa lies, and the question which must occur to every thinking South African is this: Where is all this going to end if the reins of government remain in the hands of this Government? Because there are only two important trenches left to us really before we come to the last one; the one is UNO and the other is South West Africa. It is debatable which of these two trenches will come under fire first, but judging by the Government’s world record of failures in the sphere of foreign politics we have no cause to feel at ease. We regard it as our duty on the Opposition benches to warn this country continually, to warn it until the very last moment, that it is being ruled by a Government which has chosen a course which has admittedly given it a temporary political advantage internally—it is always easy to score a political advantage with racial policies—but as far as this country is concerned the path which the Government has chosen has carried us step by step in the direction of national defeat, and there are no signs of better prospects for the future. I know that the Government sees a ray of light in the fact that foreign capital still continues to be invested here. Nobody denies that South Africa is an excellent investment field, but here I come back again to the example of the rich man. There are always people who want to share the rich man’s possessions with him, and that also applies to us. But the fact of the matter is this: What attracts investment capital to South Africa is not the political policy that is followed here; it is the country’s natural wealth. We need only look at the statements made by businessmen abroad who come here to expand their businesses.

Is there any country in the world where that does not apply?

They do not invest here because of the prevailing political policy. On the contrary, the reason why they invest here is because they believe that there will be a change in the political situation here; that it is only a matter of time before that change comes about. Let me mention two examples. Sir Aynsley Bridgeland, an important British industrialist who invested R6,000,000 in South Africa, gave an interview to the Cape Times when he visited this country, and this is What the Cape Times of 2 March 1963 reported—

But let me take a man who is better known, Mr. Charles Engelhard. Mr. Engelhard made the following statement a few months ago in New York in the course of an interview, as reported in the Star of 4 November 1963 under the heading, “Engelhard foresees a change”—

He sees political risks here—

And then he says the following, which is precisely what I have said here—

Sir, successful businessmen are usually soberminded people; they foresee a change in South Africa and that is why they are prepared to take this political risk in the knowledge that their investment here is safe.

I thought you were the champion of the poor man.

Mr. Speaker, what we want to say to these businessmen is this: “Your confidence in South Africa is absolutely justified, there is no better country in which to invest your money than South Africa; the political risk that you fear is of a temporary nature.” Changes in the South African political scene have always come about with astonishing speed. Until a year before it came into power the party which sits over there to-day was torn asunder and divided; it was the prey of group conflicts such as this country had never witnessed before. But the criticism against the then Government began to extend beyond the four corners of the Nationalist Party, which at that time was not popular at all; and the important fact to-day is that opposition to the present Government has also extended far beyond the four corners of the United Pary. A person who appreciates that much better than hon. members on that side is Dr. Piet Kroonhof, the chief secretary of the Broederbond, who made a speech a few months ago before the Afrikaanse Sakekamer in Johannesburg. I have the report here of the Sunday Express (24.11.63)—

That is absolutely true. Mr. Speaker, go and have a chat with the Afrikaans businessmen in the Here Sewentien Klub; go and hear what the Afrikaans academicians have to say; go and hear what the Afrikaans churchmen and the Afrikaans writers have to say—not even to mention Keerom Street. No wonder mouthpieces of the Government feel from time to time that they have to wage war against those whom they regard as deviates. There was the action against the leaders of Sabra, the action against the Potchefstroom professors, the bitter feuds against church leaders such as the Rev. Beyers Naudé and Professor Albert Geyser and others who supported the Cottesloe resolutions. Then we had the attack made by the Transvaler upon a man like Mr. C. H. Brink, managing director of Federale Volksbeleggings, because he had condemned “little” apartheid. Then there is the attack upon and the denigration of Dr. Anton Rupert by the South African Observer, which enjoys the support of the Nationalist Party. We notice the Vaderland’s concern because it fears that the South African Foundation will become a pressure group. The plain fact of the matter—and on this note I must conclude because my time has expired—is that criticism of the Government’s policy on matters of principle goes far beyond and has assumed much greater proportions than just the four corners of the United Party, and in due course this will also have the effect of forcing out the present Government and bringing about a change for the better for South Africa.

When one listens to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) one realizes why he deserted the National Party. He thought the last election the National Party would win would be the election of 1958, and that was why he decided to leave the party while he still had time. When one listens to him further one would swear that the natural riches of South Africa had only just been discovered and that that was the reason why so much money was being invested in South Africa. He made much of what the Government should do in order to obtain the goodwill and the co-operation of all races in South Africa. The fact is that we already have that goodwill and co-operation South Africa is the most peaceful and the quietest country on the Continent of Africa, if not in the whole world, and this is so because this Government has succeeded, forgetting for the moment the small group of agitators and communists and trouble-makers, in obtaining the co-operation of all race groups in South Africa. That is why South Africa is where she is to-day.

Not very much criticism has been levelled against the Government itself, but this has not been unexpected. This is a sound Budget which stands on its own merits and which provides for greater prosperity for every section of the South African people. The most important criticism that has been levelled against this Budget, and which has just been repeated by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, is the question of the amount of money to be spent on Defence. This has been the one point of criticism. The other major point of criticism has been the contention that too little has been done for the poor people in this Budget.

Sir, I do not want to discuss the question of Defence; there are other hon. members here who are more qualified to discuss this matter than I am. Indeed, discussing this matter will do me no good at all. The United Party do not believe me; they do not believe the hon. the Minister they believe nobody. I want to refer them to the speech that was made here by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). He gave reasons why this money was required. Actually, he said that the amount was too small. Hon. members opposite have over the course of the years believed what he has had to say in regard to many matters, and I hope that in this case too they will believe him for the sake of South Africa. As far as I am concerned, this is the best of all the investments this Government has already made for South Africa, and I should just like to say this to the United Party: They are not going to win the vote of one single voter because of their criticism of this Budget. On the contrary, they are going to drive the voters away from them because the voters, including these poor people whose case they have been advocating want this Government to make provision, ample provision, for the defence of South Africa. They are prepared and more than prepared to make their sacrifices in this regard.

The argument has been advanced here that too little has been done for the poor people. It is unfortunately true that there are still a number of poor people in South Africa and it is a great pity that this should be the case. But this is the position in any country in the world. This is the case in the richest country in the world—in the United States of America. But it is not true that no provision has been made for the poor people in this Budget. From the nature of the case the poorest of the poor are, after all, the old-age pensioners. Provision is being made for them, and even though this provision may not be as ample as desired by the Opposition, every old-age pensioner, every aged person in South Africa, is grateful to this Government, and, notwithstanding all the propaganda made by the United Party, will remain grateful to the Government. The United Party will not win a single vote in this regard either.

The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman), who is also the Secretary of the United Party, made a great fuss on behalf of the poor in regard to the question of indirect taxation. True, there is a fair amount of indirect taxation but indirect taxation, excise duty, is imposed mostly upon luxury articles, articles such as liquor, tobacco, cars and so forth. But why did the hon. member for Maitland not put the other aspect of the matter? Why did he not mention the subsidies for which provision is made in these Estimates in order to supply the poor people with cheap food? Provision is made for a very large subsidy on bread, on butter, on milk and on other food, stuffs. On returning home, every person who has been travelling overseas tells us how high the cost of living is overseas; they all long to return to South Africa with her cheap and ample food supplies. When they do come back here they say: We live in a paradise here.

The same arguments are used in connection with the Coloureds. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) stood up here and said that no provision had been made in these Estimates for the poorest people in the country—the Coloureds. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to read through the Coloured Affairs Vote he would have noticed that under Coloured Affairs alone provision is made for an amount of R36,850,000.

I could not discuss it because the Speaker would have ruled me out of order.

The hon. member can read the Hansard report of his speech; that is what he said. He said that no provision had been made for the Coloureds in these Estimates. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) made the same mistake. Provision is being made for these people to-day as never before. Provision is being made for their housing and for their health services. I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition: Are they not ashamed of themselves? The hon. member for Karoo, who is a new member in the House, ought to be ashamed of himself for having tried to stir up racial feelings in this country in his second speech in this House. Sir, the Coloureds are some of the most peaceloving people in this country and in the world. They ought to be very grateful indeed to the Government. But they are stirred up against the Government in this way; they are told that nothing is being done for them. The fact is—I admit it and I am sure that everyone will admit it—that the Coloured people are poor, but 30 years ago the Afrikaans-speaking people in this country were poorer than the Coloured people are to-day. Between 300,000 and 400,000 Afrikaans-speaking people were in indigent circumstances—and the National Party was not in power at that time. The poor-White Afrikaners have lifted themselves out of this misery over the past 30 years and for this they have to thank the Pact Government’s precautionary and safety measures, the measures taken by the first Nationalist Government, as well as the steps taken by this Government since 1948. The only hope of the Coloureds of South Africa to be freed from this yoke of poverty and misery lies in the Nationalist Government and in this side of the House.

Sir, to my mind the fault does not lie in these Estimates. There is something lacking, and most people in South Africa know what that shortcoming is. That shortcoming has been apparent in this House particularly since the beginning of this Session. It is obvious here but it is also noticeable among the public outside. That shortcoming is this: We are a country with a democratic form of Government. Our Constitution makes provision for a Government and an Opposition, and to have a good Government and to allow the machinery of Government to run smoothly, one needs not only a good Government but a good Opposition as well.

Where is the good Government?

The shortcoming that has become so apparent has materialized as a result of the fact that the Opposition, which forms part of the machinery of Government, is starting to collapse completely.

May I put a question to the hon. member? The hon. member contends that we have a good Government. Following his logic, is this not precisely due to the fact that there is such a good Opposition?

No, I said that the ideal position to achieve is to have not only a good Government but also a good Opposition. An Opposition Party must have certain policies which make the voters want to put that party into office. The tragic fact is—and one is filled with sorrow at the realization— that this Opposition has absolutely nothing which either the voters of South Africa or South Africa herself want of it. There is only one thing to which the United Party clings— and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout emphasized this point repeatedly—and that is the so-called unfavourable world opinion in regard to South Africa. Another fact is that that party and those hon. members try in every speech they make during every debate to make that unfavourable or so-called unfavourable world opinion even more unfavourable in order to try to hurt this Government.

I want to refer to something that happened in this debate—the so-called Jewish incident. That matter was greatly exaggerated here. Why was this done? It was done for one purpose and for one purpose only and that was to influence world opinion and to influence it unfavourably. What was more, it was very far removed from the truth. Sir, the tramp and the pedlar have, over the course of the years —and it is still even the case to-day—been received as honoured guests in the home of the Afrikaner. Those hon. members know this because they are acquainted with the history of this country and they are acquainted particularly with the history of the Afrikaner. It is terribly unfair—one could almost say it was shamefully unfair—that hon. members of the Opposition should make accusations of this nature against the National Party. Do hon. members opposite no longer have any sense of fairness? Surely it is not the right thing to do to accuse us of such an unfair thing in order to make this so-called unfavourable world opinion even more unfavourable in our regard? Sir, I have said that there is something lacking in South Africa because the Opposition do not want to be realistic about the Africa situation. The voters of South Africa are considering this situation realistically and because of their realistic approach to this situation they have no faith in the United Party. They have no faith in the race federation policy of the United Party because the country on which this policy was based— Cyprus—is on the point of disintegration. The United Party is becoming weaker and weaker because the voters no longer have any faith in it but the National Party is going from strength, to strength. It is a pity that this should be so because it does not make for a healthy state of affairs as far as this side of the House is concerned. We want a strong and sound Opposition. Let me give the Opposition this advice. If they are ever to come into power in South Africa again they must get closer to South Africa. When they do this they will also be getting closer to the voters of South Africa. At the moment nobody in South Africa takes any notice of them. Nobody speaks about the United Party in South Africa at the moment because it is too unimportant. Not even the United Party Press has anything to say about the United Party; anything with news value that it publishes is about the National Party.

The hon. member for Mal-mesbury (Mr. van Staden) took us back into history. Unfortunately he did not mention one point which I think the country should be reminded of at this stage and that is that it was a Nationalist Party Government which dragged this country into the greatest depression we have ever known. If he wants to prevent something similar from happening again, he and his party would not condemn this Opposition but they would take every opportunity of praising it because I found in my travels overseas that the information which is being spread throughout the world, I should imagine, by the Department of Information and other channels, had ignored the fact that there was such organization as an Official Opposition in this country. I say, Sir, the greatest disservice that the Department of Information can do is to give the impression to the rest of the world that we have a one-party system in South Africa. The greatest service the Department of Information can do is to indicate to the entire world that there is an alternative government which can come about as a result of democratic means. That is what should be spread throughout the world, namely, that the Opposition is well able to bring that about.

The Minister of Finance, when he introduced his Budget indicated quite clearly that everything in the country was going ahead very well except for one thing and that is the bottleneck of the shortage of manpower.

And the Opposition.

No, he did not mention the Opposition. He realized that the Opposition could solve this problem if given the opportunity. The Minister did not suggest what should be done to overcome this bottleneck in our manpower position. His colleague, the Minister of Labour delivered a speech to the Transvaal Chamber of Industries on the occasion of their 53rd Annual General Meeting, as reported in The Manufacturer of January 1964. The Minister of Labour dealt with what industry should do to help solve the manpower problem. I think it is necessary for us to take note of this speech, not only because of the solutions it puts forward but because of what I consider to be more to the point, for the difficulties the Minister is faced with in applying the solutions he has in mind. The first point I want to deal with is the way in which the Minister dealt with this vexed problem of job reservation. He gave, I think, for the first time, his interpretation of what the basic principle is in job reservation. He said this—

As I understand it the meaning of this basic principle must be that where job reservation has been applied there must first have been displacement in traditional spheres of employment in respect of the race groups protected by the job reservation determination. I think that is axiomatic. Where is the evidence to support this consideration? We have no evidence whatsoever that there has been displacement before job reservation has been applied. At this same function to which I have referred the Minister said that “some employers, when applying for exemption from job reservation determinations, have said in so many words that they required exemption until such time as the Department of Labour is able to supply them with trained labour”. And the emphasis is on “supply them with trained labour”. In other words, Sir, such employers must be asking for White trained labour because there have been no job reservation determinations in favour of non-Whites published as yet. What does the Minister say to such employers? When they ask the Department to supply them with White labour he says this—

No wonder, Sir, employers ask for the abolition of job reservation. This is what it means—

They are told it is their function to train such labour. They did not ask for permission, nor do they require it, to train labour. They ask for White trained labour because the application of job reservation precluded them from employing non-White labour. Once job reservation is applied they could not employ non-White labour. They could not get White labour and they asked for relief. Then they are told that they must train the skilled labour they require. But the question is where do they get the White labour from? If they have to train that labour that does not solve their immediate shortage. What a ridiculous and serious position for employers to find themselves in! They want trained White labour urgently but are told by the Minister that they should train such labour. That takes years and how will that solve their immediate White labour shortage? Surely the Minister must concede that where there is a serious shortage of White skilled labour, the application of job reservation can only aggravate the position. I think that is quite clear. How can there be an acute shortage of White skilled workers while there has at the same time been a displacement of White skilled workers by non-White skilled workers? I put the question, Sir, because the employer has to face up to the position that is developing as a result of the application of Government policy. Surely if White skilled workers are displaced by an employer they do not become unemployed; they will be engaged by another employer, otherwise there will be unemployed White skilled workers. All the evidence shows that we require thousands of White skilled workers, that there are unemployed White skilled workers. I ask the Minister why, under these conditions, has he applied job reservation in certain trades, in the building industry in particular? Does the Minister not realize that it is not possible as he says “to maintain the status quo and to prevent further displacements”, in a rapidly expanding economy? I say it is something you cannot do. If there are not enough White skilled workers to do all the work, and job reservation prevents skilled non-Whites from being employed, then our tempo of development will not be maintained, let alone accelerated. That is the problem we have to face, Sir. Just listen to what the Minister of Labour had to say in that same speech—

Can you beat that, Mr. Speaker; that because of the scarcity of White labour some employers are tempted to get rid of their White employees! And he goes on to give three reasons to support that statement—

But they cannot make use of that larger non-White labour market because the job reservation in the building industry prevents them from doing so. That is one of the reasons why that does not make sense to me. The second reason is—

How can they get a more stable and adequate supply of labour if job reservation says “you cannot employ them; this job is reserved for Whites”? That is the second reason why it does not make sense to me. The third reason is this—

But if they cannot employ the non-Whites then they cannot be saving on their labour bill and they are not going to get rid of their White labour, in the first place. This does not make sense. But there is a fourth reason which the Minister did not mention, why employers are discharging their White employees and that is because of Government policy. But the Minister does not say that the Government’s policy is that there should not be mixed employment. The only way in which you can avoid mixed employment is by employing one race group only. But the Minister does not advance that as a reason. I shall come to that later on.

I will be the first to admit that White skilled workers are usually paid more than non-White skilled workers and the Industiral Conciliation Act provides that there can be no discrimination on the basis of race or colour in wage regulating machinery. The minimum wage must be applied and any employer who pays more than the minimum wage, on a race basis, is not evading the law.

The truth of the matter is that most employers have to pay more because of the scarcity of White skilled labour, not because they want to get rid of their White labour.

But that is not the end of the story. In the same address the Minister of Labour went on to say—

That is so. In this respect the hon. the Prime Minister had to add something, of course. The Minister went on—

I agree with that, but then he added—

So you see, Mr. Speaker, we are back to where we were when we were dealing with the Minister of Labour. “It must not lead to mixed employment.” We now have the position set out in detail—

They must obviously have advocated such a course. The Minister of Labour says an employer must not displace White workers by employing trained non-White workers. And the Prime Minister says if non-White workers are used they must not be employed in such a way that it will lead to mixed employment. What a headache for the country, Mr. Speaker! And for the employers! What is the solution the Government offers to employers? They cannot get White workers; they want them but they cannot get them. Job reservation will be applied if they employ non-Whites. And once job reservation is applied they are prevented from utilizing non-White labour because that would bring about mixed employment. So we are up against this considerable problem as a result of Government policy.

I think there is a way out of the dilemma. But before I deal with one straightforward action that can be taken, I want to indicate what the Minister of Labour had to say in that same speech in respect of the solutions which he felt could be adopted by industry to overcome the manpower shortage. He had 12 main points. The first is “sound apprenticeship training”. In this respect, Sir, I am glad to be able to say that last week the improved rates of pay for apprentices in the engineering industry were published in the Government Gazette. I pleaded for this at the beginning of the Session. When the Minister of Labour introduced amendments to the Apprenticeship Act last year he said that was one of the ways in which we could overcome the shortage of skilled White manpower. But it has taken from May last year to 20 March of this year to bring about the gazetting of these improved wages. I think it is a tragedy that there has been this long delay in dealing with what the Minister said was one of the ways in meeting the manpower shortage. In this regard I just want to point out that the Railways have some 3,300-odd apprentices in training to-day. They have increased the wages of apprentices to R50 per month in their first year, and they have had no difficulty in obtaining their quota of apprentices. The iron and steel industry in the Transvaal applied new rates before they were gazetted, they applied them as from 1 January of this year to try to recruit apprentices for the industry. But for the rest of the Republic they have had to wait for the notice in the Gazette which was only published last week. They have missed the boat in respect of their intake of apprentices for this year. Very few youths will now be available to be recruited into industry because they have been absorbed by other employers. I think the delay in publishing the new rates of pay for apprentices may have cost this country dear in respect of future artisans.

The second point made by the Minister was that older workers should be employed. Well, we have no quarrel with that. His third point was increased employment of women to replace men in industry and commerce. Here we are faced with a very difficult position, Sir. We want the women for too many purposes in this country. We want them to increase our White population; we now want to put them into industry as well. If we mix the two too much I think we shall fall foul of problems which I do not think we are willing to face. That was one of the suggestions the Minister made. His fourth suggestion was “the employment of Bantu on skilled work”, with certain reservations made by the Prime Minister and which I have mentioned; fifthly, “greater use of Coloured and Indian labour”; sixth, “the training of adults in terms of the Training of Artisans Act”; seventh, “an orientation course for operators”; eighth, “the use of handicapped persons”; ninth; “incentive bonus schemes”. I shall deal with that in greater detail presently. Tenth, “the training of technicians”; eleventh, “pre-employment selection on a scientific basis”; twelfth, “good personnel relations within the employer organization”.

The first ten points that I have mentioned are of particular interest to the trade union movement. In the main these ten points require the active co-operation of the trade union movement. I want to emphasize that. When we think in terms of incentive bonus schemes they cannot succeed unless there is the closest co-operation between the workers and the employers. In other words, between the representatives of the workers, the trade unions, and the employers, whether it is by direct trade union activity or by the introduction of shop-steward activity, but the basis of an efficient incentive bonus scheme is the close co-operation which must exist between the workers and their union and the employer. There is no evidence that we are encouraging that type of trade unionism to-day.

I say the straightforward way of dealing with the manpower shortage in the shortest possible time is to give the employers and the trade unions an opportunity of working out the necessary safeguards and techniques so that trained labour can be suitably utilized and so that the training of skilled labour can be organized. That is the basis on which we can solve this manpower shortage problem. I think the Department of Labour should give organized labour and the trade unions an opportunity of seeing what they can do, with the necessary co-operation and safeguards, to bring about a big improvement in our manpower position. It has to be done on the basis of the closest co-operation between employer and employee. We must have faith in our recognized employer and employee organizations in our private enterprise system. The United Party placed its faith in these organizations in the past, in time of need and they did not let us down. You will remember, Sir, the tremendous success we had with the COTT scheme. And that was because of giving the opportunity to the employer and employee organizations of working out a scheme that would overcome the manpower shortage that existed at that time. I am pleading for a similar opportunity to be given to employers and the trade unions at the present time. There does not appear to be the necessary sympathy from Government sources towards this development in our country to-day.

As I say, Sir, the employers, if given this opportunity, will realize that if they do not play the game, the Government, through the Minister of Labour, has all the necessary legal enactments to intervene. As far as the trade unions are concerned they will soon know, from their members, if they were to endanger the livelihood of their members. So I can see no danger in giving this opportunity to organized employer and labour movements of going into this question and producing the results which I am positive they can produce as far as our manpower shortage problem is concerned.

Government policy being what it is, I doubt very much whether they will take this very sane course. They may, I hope they do, and do so quickly, because I cannot see any other way out of our manpower shortage problem unless such an opportunity is given to the bodies I have mentioned.

In the few minutes that are left to me I want to deal with something that has been mentioned in passing by other speakers on this side. I refer to the position of the civil pensioner. You will know, Mr. Speaker, from what has been said by the Minister that certain relief has been given to civil pensioners and as a consequence railway pensioners are also going to get a similar relief. But certain civil pensioners and railway pensioners are not going to benefit from the relief offered as a result of the Minister’s decision to increase what they refer to as their temporary allowance. The one point to which I want to draw the attention of the Minister is this, that on 1 April 1956 the income ceiling which made it possible to obtain this relief—I am dealing with married persons now—was fixed at R1,600. On 1 April 1959 it was increased to R1,800. This basic figure has not been changed. In other words, in the last five yeas the basic income ceiling of R1,800 has remained static. My plea here is this, that as a result of the factors that persuaded the Minister to increase the temporary allowance, it does not seem reasonable to me that we should still adhere to an income of R1,800 which was fixed as long ago as April 1959. There should have been an adjustment here as well so that the relief could have been extended to those who are prohibited from getting relief to-day because their basic pension exceeds R1,800 per annum. They are up against it in a certain measure as well as a result of the same factors that have convinced the Minister that this relief should be given.

I say this is another group of pensioners that feel they have been left out in the cold completely, together with the others mentioned by the hon. member for Umbilo.

Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned this point because I have already had correspondence, and I think hon. members opposite have also had correspondence in this regard. It has created an anomaly. It was unavoidable. But I do feel that over a five-year period there should have been some adjustment to give a greater number of pensioners this extra benefit.

To make my contribution to this debate I should like to return to the discussion with which we started, namely, financial matters. At this late stage of the debate one would expect the Opposition to have levied all the criticism they wished to levy against the Budget itself and for that reason I think we shall probably not have any further criticism at this stage.

The Budget has two peculiar characteristics namely the particularly large surplus of R88,000,000 and secondly the particularly large amount of R210,000,000 which is made available for defence. As far as the surplus of R88,000,000 is concerned it is not necessary for me to say much. The details of that are given on the much discussed page 19 of the White Paper which has been submitted to us. In regard to the second matter, namely, defence, I admit the Opposition did not say they were opposed to this amount being made available for defence. We fully realize, of course, that South Africa is being threatened.

It is not as though we require weapons to commit acts of aggression against any other country in the world but that other countries are indeed threatening aggressive action against us and that is why it is essential for us to equip ourselves in the sphere of defence as well as we possibly can. I wish to express my appreciation to the Opposition for agreeing with us that this amount should be made available for defence. It is no good saying why that is the position. The fact is that that is the position. It is a fact that South Africa is being threatened from various directions. I do not wish to talk about that. The fact is simply that to-day and yesterday and before that we were told that Government policy was the reason. I think we in South Africa are threatened not because the Government is following the particular policy it does or because of the policy which the Opposition would have followed had they been in power but African states threaten us because it is the White man who controls politics in South Africa. That is the only reason why they threaten us and if hon. members opposite were to think seriously about it they will agree with me. What the African states want us to do is to hand over. Africa must be there for the Black man. That is the big thing. And whether we follow our policy in South Africa or whether we make concessions as the official Opposition would like to, I am convinced that the dangers which threaten us to-day will just be as dangerous even if the United Party were perhaps to come into power.

However, I do not wish to discuss that particular aspect of the matter any further. The fact of the matter is that the world is to-day preparing itself for dangers. We probably have more reason to prepare ourselves for dangers which threaten us and for that reason I think it is good that we stand together and that we no longer reproach each other in connection with this matter, but that we stand together in the realization that there are dangers in the world which threaten us and that we must equip ourselves in the knowledge that in point of fact we are not threatened because of our policy. The hon. member over there may perhaps tell me that the threat would have been greater or lesser. Very well, we can argue that point. But the fact remains that that makes no difference. As long as we have the political control in South Africa and want to keep it we shall experience that threat. I want to give the hon. the Minister and the whole Cabinet the assurance that the people outside are prepared to contribute towards equipping South Africa as far as defence is concerned. I have not the slightest doubt about that. As far as my constituency is concerned, and I think all the other constituencies, the people would like to feel safe and would like to know that we are equipped for any possible danger.

As I have said we have heard the various criticisms of the Opposition. As I understood those there were two outstanding points of criticism. The first was that the middle and lower income groups did not get anything in this Budget. I do not agree with their objection. In the first place concessions are made to the pensioners. Concessions are made to those who fall in the higher income brackets. There is a portion of the population whose income is such that they do not have to pay income-tax. What concessions can you make to them? As far as I can see you can only do one thing and that is to reduce food prices as has been suggested. Of what benefit will that be? If the price of food were brought down by subsidization that will not only apply to the poor people but to the whole nation; in other words, it will not really be a concession to the lower income groups. It will be a concession but at the same time it will also apply to the other classes.

Who will benefit most?

The other possibility is tax relief. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, unlike the days when the United Party was in power, the present position is that a man with two children pays no income-tax when his income is R1,825 per annum; a man with four children only pays income-tax when his income exceeds R2,800 per annum. In other words, you cannot in any case make income-tax concessions to people whose incomes are below that because how can you take something away from a person which he does not really have? How can you reduce his income-tax if he does not pay any income-tax? I admit the classes I have referred to who do not pay income-tax have to pay personal tax but that is really something which we cannot discuss here; that is a matter that can be argued, but that is something which is in any case decided elsewhere. A man with five children can have an income of R3,255 per annum and yet not be liable for income-tax. Nothing can be done for them. The hon. member for Constantia referred to somebody with an income of R350 per month. That gives him an income of R4,200 per annum. Supposing a person has four children then he pays practically no tax if his income does not exceed R3,000 per annum. A person whose income is R3,000 and who has two children only pays R94 income-tax per annum and if a man has four children and his income is R3,000 he pays only R16 per annum. Do hon. members opposite argue that we should give relief in that respect? Should persons whose incomes are as high as that not make a contribution towards the State coffers?

Is that the only tax he pays?

I shall make my own speech. Take the figure mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia, R4,200. On an income of R4,200 per annum the man with two children pays R202 and the man with four children only R124 and above that we come to the super-tax class and it is there where the Minister has made a concession because up to an income of R4,600 the income-tax goes up by R45 for every R500 additional income. After that it shoots up very steeply. Where the income rises from R4,500 to R5,000 the tax increases by R73. Where the income rises from R5,000 to R5,500 the income-tax goes up by R125, whereas below R4,600 the increase is only R45. That was why the Minister felt that because the income-tax rose so steeply beyond the R4,600 mark relief should be granted there, and I think that is quite justified.

Let us study the second objection of hon. members opposite, namely that portion of the defence expenditure should have been defrayed from capital. I said a moment ago that they did not object to the R210,000,000 being made available for defence but they say a portion of that should have been defrayed from revenue. Let us analyse this objection of theirs. I think capital should be utilized to cover expenditure where you expect that investment to yield dividends in future. A very good example of that is water conservation. We find that all the money made available for Water Affairs, for the construction of dams and canals is capital money; the capital together with interest have to be redeemed but you get dividends from those undertakings. But the position is completely different in the case of defence. We naturally hope that the whole amount we are to-day providing for defence will be used. If the equipment is not used it becomes obsolete and eventually it cannot be used. But the result of that is that although it is essential for us to equip ourselves in the defence sphere it is nevertheless an investment which will never pay dividends in the form of rands and cents. I can best express it this way: The amount we make available for defence annually is actually a premium we pay for our safety. If the danger is great you pay a higher premium and you make more money available to ensure the safety of the country. If the danger is less the premium goes down. But it is actually a premium we are paying for our safety.

Why did you not argue along those lines last year?

I shall come to that. If you take out a life policy you do not pay your premium from capital but from income. The same applies in the case of defence. You pay the premium from revenue. We did indeed do so in the past, but I think—and this is my reply to the interjections made by the hon. member—you should and must only use capital for defence purposes when there is an ulterior motive. Last year the ulterior motive was to stimulate the economy of the country. But if there is no ulterior motive my humble opinion is that defence expenditure should be met from revenue and not from capital. I do not mind hon. members opposite differing from me, but let us be reasonable when we argue about this and not turn it into a political football. If we should dare equip ourselves in the sphere of defence from capital, I think it will have a snowball effect; it will go on increasing in size and the day we have to pay interest and redemption on capital we shall in any case have to do so from revenue; it continually increases.

I do not only want to justify the Budget but I also want to discuss it. The criticism I have to offer on this Budget is that not enough money is made available for water conservation. The amount the Minister mentioned as being made available for the development of the Orange River scheme, namely R13,815,000 sounded impressive but we were told on several occasions in this House that the development of the Orange River scheme would not interfere with the development of our water resources in other areas. Although greater provision is made today for increased capital expenditure on the Water Affairs Vote, that large amount is really as impressive as it is because it is for the Orange River scheme. Sir, with my knowledge of the shortage of water in our country, with my knowledge of how water can be used beneficially, I think it is tragic the way the water in our rivers in this country simply flow to the sea and that it is not conserved and used. Just look around you here in the Western Province, Sir, and you will see that most of the water in the Breede River runs to the sea. The water in the Doring River which subsequently joins the Olifants River below Clanwilliam, runs unused down to the sea; nothing is done in that regard and most of the water in the Berg River runs unused to the sea. When you look at the Estimates you notice that no provision is made for further development in these areas and I should like to plead that that should be done. I feel it is equally essential in the circumstances prevailing in this country that we use our water resources more beneficially and that we store more water in our country. In his Budget speech the hon. the Minister compared himself with a fisherman. I think the hon. the Minister will be the first to admit that you cannot fish on dry land. The first essential for a fisherman is to have water. Water is in all respects the most important pre-requisite and for that reason I think more money should be made available for water conservation. I cannot see how we can find R210,000,000 for defence—I agree whole-heartily with that—but cannot make more money available for water conservation. Just as we have to arm ourselves against the danger outside we have to equip ourselves locally to face up to the danger which threatens. I should honestly have preferred not to have seen some of these concessions and that an additional few millions were made available for water conservation. I said a moment ago that we paid a premium for our safety, but I think we should try to build up a reserve for further development in the sphere of water conservation in South Africa. I realize that there are technical problems. Our manpower position is one of our problems but the fact of the matter is that more money will have to be made available for water conservation.

For the rest I think hon. members will agree with me when I say that a wonderful balance has been struck in this Budget and that it is adapted to prevailing economic circumstances. One can say of this Budget, Sir, that it does not do the one thing and omits to do the other. The pensioner is being assisted and the taxpayer is also given relief. The Budget has been framed in such a way as to combat any inflationary tendency without hampering or affecting our economy while at the same time ensuring stability in South Africa. Sir, we have already seen some of the results of this well-balanced Budget. Last week more shares were sold on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange than ever before. I want to quote an extract from this morning’s Cape Times under the heading “Staggering Turnover of R21,200,000”—

During the second half of the week business is usually slack but last week there was an upsurge as a result of this well-balanced Budget.

That helps the poor man greatly!

And when the Minister replies next week there will be a greater upsurge.

I want to make a few remarks in connection with income-tax. Income-tax has always been the most general form of taxation in the past and when we look at the Budget we find that the income derived from income-tax constitutes no less than R418,000,000 of the total income of R955,000,000; that is to say, according to this Budget income-tax accounts for 43 per cent of the revenue of this country. As you know, Sir, income-tax was introduced for the first time in England in 1842. In socialist parties income-tax is naturally popular under the slogan of “soak the rich”. We have found in the past that income-tax has assumed tremendous proportions; during the war years income-tax was as high as 19s. 6d. in the £ in England. The question is whether contributions towards State expenditure should be made according to the cost of the service provided to every person, that is to say, in accordance to the benefit such a person derives from it, or whether it should be made in terms of the system of making a sacrifice on an equal basis. The method of sacrificing on an equal basis is the popular method which is usually followed for the purposes of income-tax.

I want to say the following with reference to what the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) has said. He too raised the political cry that enough was not being done for the poor man in this Budget. That was the only possible little bit of political capital the Opposition could find to make out of this Budget. The hon. member then said that indirect taxation was too heavy in this country. I want to discuss briefly the desirability of indirect taxation as opposed to direct taxation. I think if the hon. member for Maitland seriously thinks about it he will realize that direct taxation has always been the most unpopular form of taxation in the world. That has always been the most unpopular form of taxation because when anybody buys a packet of cigarettes he is used to paying 20 cent for it. He does not feel the few cents he pays on that packet of cigarettes in the form of taxation. From the nature of things that does not worry him. But ask that same person to pay R20 or R50 in the form of income-tax and he is immediately difficult. That is why I say it is generally known that indirect taxation is much easier to pay than direct taxation. The communist slogan is: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.” The income-tax scale has risen to such an extent in this country in recent times that it has now reached 60 per cent of an income in excess of R18,000 per annum.

No, 67 per cent.

That is possible. That progressive scale of an increasingly higher and higher percentage of income-tax as the income increases brings us very close to the communist ideal as a matter of fact.

During the time of the United Party it was 18s. 6d. in the £. We changed it.

That brings us close to the communist ideal and it has certain disadvantages. It is very clear that in future we shall either have to find other sources of income-tax or we shall have to expand our existing sources. As we become more self-sufficient industrially we shall find that we derive less revenue from customs duty. On the other hand I do not think we shall always have a surplus of R88,000,000 some of which we can spend on defence. I therefore think that it is good for this House to consider these matters and that we ask ourselves which of these two directions we should follow in future. Should we increase our direct taxation, namely income-tax, or should we think about the possibility of a further indirect tax, as for example, a sales tax? This tax has certain advantages and disadvantages. As long ago as 1951 Mr. Havenga spoke about the advantages of an indirect tax, a sales tax. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that he levied a tax at that time on sweets and cool drinks. It was known as the “gingerpop” and the “lolly-pop”. That did not remain in existence for long.

As a matter of fact we have indirect taxation to-day. Customs tax is nothing else than an indirect tax; it is actually also a sales tax. Our excise tax is actually also a sales tax; even transfer duty is a sales tax. Why is it quite in order when I sell my property to somebody else for him to pay a tax but when I sell my motor-car to him he need not pay a tax on that transaction? I am not pleading for much to-day, but I am only mentioning these things for consideration. In any case I do not plead for a sales tax in respect of consumer goods and essentials but I think we can in future think about imposing such a tax on non-essential consumer goods. There are many of those. I have in mind, for example, cosmetics and jewellery. If it is imposed on non-essential consumer goods a sales tax complies with three important requirements. Firstly it is volimtary. The person who does not want the article need not buy it. That is the position to-day in the case of tobacco and liquor. The person who does not want to buy those need not buy them. In the second place it complies with the requirement of progressiveness, in other words, the more you buy the higher the tax you pay. The rich man who is in a position to buy many things pays a large amount.

Are you asking for higher taxation?

No. The hon. member has apparently been asleep. In the third place, Mr. Speaker, it complies with the requirements of force. In other words, the person who buys pays tax.

Another objection I have to a further expansion of direct taxation in the shape of income-tax is this, that in our country, indeed anywhere in the world, it discourages the desire to work; it discourages the enterprising spirit of the individual. When I was on the Railways I often worked overtime. I had to work from five o’clock in the afternoon to eight o’clock at night. I often sat in my room and calculated that if I worked from five o’clock to eight o’clock and earned 10s. of which I had to pay 2s. in the taxation—it was hardly worth my while working overtime. That is why I say direct taxation discourages the desire to work in the individual. Recently Sweden, where they have always had a socialist Government, increased their sales tax and decreased their direct income-tax. They purposely did so for three reasons. They argued that the sales tax was more effective—I do not want to enlarge on that that can be argued—and that the ordinary man was in a better position to pay to-day, that he had a bigger income, and thirdly, particularly in the case where there is a shortage of manpower, you have to encourage those who can work to do so. He should be encouraged to work more.

Business suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, we have had some days now in which we have considered the nature of the Budget presented to Parliament by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The nature of the Budget became apparent from the type of speech made by hon. members opposite and even more the type of speech that came from members on this side of the House. From the members on the opposite side of the House we had many speeches which vied with one another in thanking the Minister, thanking the Minister for what he has done. But we got no defence from members on the opposite side for what the Minister has omitted to do and should have done. Our criticism on this Budget, all along, has been not that the Minister has been guilty of sins of commission, but that he has been guilty of glaring sins of omission. We pointed out these sins of ommission, the chief of which was that in this Budget there was no relief for those whose needs were greatest and most real. We pointed out, Sir, that the pensioners who are poorest, even as pensioners go, got absolutely nothing in this Budget; we pointed out that those pensioners who are victims of an obsolete and unnecessary means test got nothing in this Budget. We pointed out that the workers of South Africa, the people of the lower income groups, who made this Budget possible by their devotion to duty and their energy and hard work, got nothing. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller), to whose speech I listened with pleasure (at least did us the courtesy of trying to deal with the Budget), had a simple argument: How could the hon. Minister of Finance have done anything for the poorer groups of our poulation who do not pay any income-tax at all? More than half of his speech gave me the impression that the hon. member believes that the only tax levied by the hon. Minister of Finance is income-tax. The latter part of his speech, however, he devoted to indirect taxation, and he had a simple philosophy: Do not let us worry about indirect taxation, because it does not hurt as much as direct taxation. Sir, it may not hurt so much each of the frequent times we have to pay indirect tax, but it does hurt one in lowering the standard of one’s living. It means that you have less income to the extent that you are taxed. What interested me when I heard the hon. member for Ceres speak like that was that only to-day I had to read in the paper, although it was not an immediate part of the Minister’s Budget, that the working people, the poorer people of South Africa will have to pay as much as 7s. or 8s. more for a shirt, and the women will pay almost an equal amount more for a blouse because of indirect taxation, as I said on another occasion for the Lord’s sake, for Cyril Lord’s sake, in order to import into South Africa obsolete factory equipment that the British do not want anymore. The people of South Africa has to pay a tax on essential clothing, and they are taxed on the very shirts that they wear on their backs.

You are very stupid.

These are the things to which United Party members drew attention, the attention of the Minister and the attention of the Government. I want to admit at once that to a large extent we wasted our time, because a remarkable feature of this Budget debate was the lack of interest in the affairs of our nation by members of the Cabinet. A number of the members of the Cabinet were warned by the Opposition that we would like to discuss matters affecting them. They knew the date of this Budget debate since January, but the Minister of Labour who was warned that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) would raise important matters, disappeared. The hon. Minister of Economic Affairs who was warned that certain matters would be raised went off to Johannesburg.

To Europe.

He went to Europe via Johannesburg, and he went to open a show in Johannesburg. Surely Parliament takes precedence. The Acting Minister of Defence had all sorts of other things to do except attend to the affairs of our nation. No wonder that in the Nationalist Party, there is a growing movement that their own members should come out in rebellion. [Laughter.] That is why one reads in the Burger a leading article that they must form another Opposition, suggesting that this Opposition is not enough. It is true that this Opposition is not enough. We are not strong enough, I want to admit, to bring to the attention of members of the Cabinet what their duties towards South Africa are. Many of them have become complacent and smug; they are over-confident, they have been in power too long, they think they can ignore the interests of the people and they think that they can ignore Parliament. To them it does not matter. The people on the staff of the Burger who know this and who feel this, but who are paid to criticize the United Party, feel that they can criticize the Nationalist Party provided in the same breath they criticize the United Party, and then the directors of the Burger will forgive them. I think it is a shocking thing! Would it be heresy if I quote a British Prime Minister of the last century who saw the Cabinet as an extinct range of volcanoes? A range of extinct volcanoes! A few sputtered and bulched—I mean as volcanoes—but for the rest there was just a total disregard for Parliament. And many of the hon. members opposite who spoke did not speak in the interest of the people. Some of the more important speeches made on the other side, as always, dealt only with ideological questions.

I saw it typified in the instance of my favourite Nationalist member of Parliament, my namesake, the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn), who has good blood in his veins. I listened to his speech with great attention. We know he is the chief philosopher, I will not say sophist, Sir, but the chief philosopher of the Nationalist Party. He is the hon. member who is called upon from time to time to work out the underlying basic arguments upon which the Nationalist Party build their policy, and he had to do this again in this debate. He told us that his task would be to state and to prove no fewer than seven theses. As Martin Luther, he had to put the theses on the door, nail them there and justify them, and you know, Sir, it was interesting to see the reaction of the Nationalist Party Press. Every Nationalist Party newspaper had banner headlines to say that the hon. member for Kempton Park had exposed the barrenness of the “sap-leuens”.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member for Somerset East says “Hear, hear!” I want to ask him to say “Hear, hear!” again in a few minutes. He and I will have a lovely time, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Kempton Park's main thesis was that there is no correlation between the increase in the male Bantu population in our towns between 1921 and 1960 and the increase in our industrial output during those years. And he give a lot of figures. Another one of his theses was that under the Nationalist Government there was a stabilization (vaspenning) of Bantu employees in industry and even a decrease relative to production. Another one was that South Africa’s industrial growth is primarily the result of capital intensification in industry, supported by foreign capital formation. And another one, and this one showed that the hon. member for Kempton Park as a sense of humour, that the Nationalist policy has the best chance of finding a solution to the race problem of South Africa.

I am glad that at least there are people in this House who watch the correlation between statistics and facts. It is very important that these things should be watched. I was amused the other day, Sir, to read in one of the Cape Town newspapers that there is in fact no correlation between divorce and lung cancer. It is important that we should know these things. Apparently, Sir, if you are divorced, you smoke more, but in spite of that divorced people do not have more lung cancer. Wonderful logic. And that must have inspired the hon. member for Kempton Park. I was worried because I knew immediately when he stated his theses that he was palpably wrong. But then when he quoted his figures to substantiate these theses, my worry turned to consternation that an hon. member like the hon. member for Kempton Park, who is intelligent, who is a fine man—I have great respect for him, as I have said before—could allow himself to be used in this way. I am quite convinced that he did not do his own research. He is too intelligent to quote such wrong figures to this House. Let us examine his figures, Sir. Let us look at some of his careless mistakes, almost culpable mistakes. He said for example, talking about a comparison between 1951 and to-day: “Die Bantoe indiens-nemingsyfer styg toe in 1951 tot 375,000. … Maar die indiensnemingsyfer daal in 1960 na 357,000, ’n daling van 4.4 persent in die nege jaar.” He went on: “Ons nywerheidsproduksie was R558,000,000 in 1951 en dit het gegroei tot R1,125,000,000 in 1960, prakties ’n 100 persent produksiegroei in vergelyking met ’n afname van 4.4 persent in die aantal Bantoewerkers.” He went on—

But does the hon. member realize—because he accepted, I am sure, these figures in good faith from some research officer—that his comparison was utterly false? In the first instance he compared labour units—workers who can actually be counted in primary numbers on one’s fingers, who are constant, with value of production stated in terms of money, a variable factor, steadily depreciating especially under this Government where our money is constantly decreasing in value. The rand, compared with 1950, Sir, is to-day worth 65c. If he wanted to adjust the R1,125,000,000 of production in 1960 in order to get a fair comparison with 1950, he would have to reduce the amount by 35c to the rand, and that would reduce the actual figure in comparative terms to R800,000,000, and that would give an increase not of 100 per cent on the R558,000,000 of 1950, but less than 50 per cent. I want to say that nevertheless a 50 per cent increase in production is a fine achievement, and I want to pay tribute to the entrepreneurs and workers of South Africa for making this fine achievement possible, and I want to say how sorry I am that the workers who have made this achievement possible, were the forgotten men in the Budget of the hon. Minister of Finance. But that error of 50 per cent was the first mistake; he should be fair and accurate in his comparisons and should take into account that the value of our money has decreased.

But let us now examine the claim that the number of Black workers in industry decreased by 4.4 per cent in nine years. The hon. member should have another look at Table L3 of this very fine publication by this Government, the “Union Statistics for 50 Years”, published in 1960 when we celebrated 50 years of Union. Then we find that the figures for 1950-1 quoted there were 375,000 non-Whites—not Bantu. But the figure quoted by the hon. member for Kempton Park for 1960 was in respect of Bantu only, without the Coloureds and the Asians. Is that a fair argument? I am sorry, Sir, that is not the type of argument that I expect from the hon. member for Kempton Park. He was misled, he made the mistake of accepting Nationalist Party propaganda figures, and anyone who does that lands himself in trouble. He told us that there had been a decrease in the number of Bantu, but he ignored, in the one figure only, the Coloureds and Asiatics.

But that is not all. He made another mistake, the most shocking thing! I only discovered it because I suspected that the hon. member was arguing so assiduously about the Bantu that he forgot about the Whites. So I had a look at the figure for Whites and it puzzled me that according to the statistics the number of Whites in industry also decreased. In 1944-5, there were 184,334 and in 1954-5, there were 162,000, a decrease of approximately 20,000. But then I saw a line between those two figures, and a note, a note which drew attention to the fact that—

If the hon. member for Kempton Park had done his own research, he would have seen that, but I am quite convinced that he did not do his own research, because otherwise he would have read this—

That is not all, Sir—

That is not all, Sir—

Which meant, that the hon. member ignored 50,000 non-White workers in those industries in the one figure. If he had done his own research, I am convinced he would have spotted that.

That is not all. I have figures here, the true figures which the hon. member should have used and which the Nationalist Party propaganda machine should have used, because the true figures show, when all the employees are included that there was not a decrease of 4.4 per cent, but an increase of 18 per cent! But the hon. member bases his justification of the policy of separate development on these false figures. He was most neg ligent and careless. He did not do his work, Sir. He allowed himself to be misled by the Nationalist Party propaganda machine.

I quickly want to deal with one of his other theses. He said that his fifth thesis would be that South Africa’s industrial development was primarily the result of capital intensification in industry, and he quoted amazing figures, he quoted impossible figures, he quoted preposterous figures! He did not do his homework, Sir. He told us that in 1948, capital investment in industry was about R296,000,000 and he told us that in 1960 capital investment in industry had risen to R913,000,000.

Census figures.

No. I will give him the correct figures. I am sorry the hon. member had too much faith in the people who supplied him with these figures. He should have known that these figures were utter and inexplicable nonsense. First of all he should have known that the effect of capital intensification in any industry is to bring in more machines. What sort of machines? They are machines that split up work in simpler components. It is a form of automation and job simplification, and instead of one skilled man to be employed at a high price, more unskilled people at a lower wage are employed. The effect of capital intensification is to increase the number of unskilled workers, Black labour in South Africa. But that is not my main argument. I have here the Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics. You know, Sir, this is the official publication, but in the year to which the hon. member referred when he says there was an investment of R913,000,000 in industry in South Africa, the total capital formation of all sectors of South African enterprise, private and public, all, was R1,128,000,000, and the hon. member knows it. The hon. member knows that our total national income is about R5,000,000,000. He should have thought of that. A country is doing extraordinarily well if it can form 20 per cent of its national income into capital, which is what South Africa does. That is fine, the hon. member should have bragged about it, but the hon. member comes along and tells us that out of the total capital formation of a country like South Africa, 90 per cent is invested only in industry.

That I never said.

I am sorry, Sir, I am not going to argue with the hon. member. He did say it. He might not have meant to say so, but he did say it. And when I first mentioned it, he did not deny it, but said that those were official census figures. The hon. member must make up his mind. All I want to say is that the actual figures can be found on page 32 of the September Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics published by the Reserve Bank, and there he will find that R176,000,000 was invested in industry, but certainly not R913,000,000. That is, as I say, utter nonsense, But I forgive the hon. member. The purpose of his speech was to discredit the United Party’s practical policy of realizing that in fact God has put Black and White together in this country and we have to find a modus vevendi, we have to find a way of living together. He wants to discredit that argument and he also wants to prove that separate development is a policy which can lead to a solution. He wants to prove that you can base a policy on the shallow fiction of homelands where most Bantu can never go to live, to which more than half of the Native population of South Africa will never go. It was to defend something so shallow, so obviously impossible as that policy that my friend, my respected friend, the hon. member for Kempton Park allowed himself to be misused in this way. That is why I said that thank heavens he has got a sense of humour, because he came at the end and he said that this policy founded on an utter fallacy, this policy of separate development offered hope for the future of South Africa. Let us face the facts. I want to give a few examples to show how stupid this policy of separate development and border industries is. You know, Sir, that under the border industry policy, you get the most fantastic positions. I saw it. Thanks to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) I went to a place near Pretoria called Rosslyn. It is in the constituency of the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. What did I find? I found a Bundu, an utter Bundu, with lonely factories arising under the artificial stimulus of the Government. But I also found that there were no road or railway networks, no power stations, there were none of the essential things that are necessary for industrial development. But they were being provided at the expense of the manpower in South Africa that is so scarce. Manpower is being used in these isolated areas, when we know that there are hundreds of towns and villages in South Africa with railways lines, with power stations, with homes which are crying out for industries. But they are not encouraged in the same way as these outlying areas in the Bundu. Dr. van Eck has pleaded that the same inducement should be offered to industries to go to other areas to assist in the fight against the depopulation of the platteland. But that is not being done, and I say that in the face of the shortage of manpower in South Africa the policy carried out by the Government is stupid policy. That is not all, it is not only a shallow fiction and a stupid policy, but it is a dangerous policy. I saw it at Rosslyn. Talk about labour intensive factories! What does that mean? It means factories employing vast numbers of unskilled or semi-skilled Black labour with a few White people, but with White ownership, with White management. They are these factories on the borders of the future Bantustans, owned and controlled by White men but staffed by an almost disproportionate number of Black workers, and those Black workers according to the thinking of the Prime Minister are to become the subjects of foreign states, over whom the South African Government will have no control. It is a policy designed and calculated to make many of our industries—labour intensive industries—Dependent upon a labour force which will be the subject of a foreign state.

I am a fair man and I want to end with a friendly challenge to the hon. Minister of Finance. He is going to reply to this debate. I want to say to him: Give us one example in history, only one, where a state or a nation has been willing to make itself industrially, and to some extent strategically dependent upon a labour force that it will ultimately not control, but will be under the control of foreign governments! Give me one example before the advent of the present Prime Minister as Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa where a state has been so foolish to commit suicide like that, financially, too, of course, but to me so important from the strategic angle. It is a friendly challenge. Show me one other example of such folly, such stupidity, such lack of careful thinking. And then the hon. member for Kempton Park comes and says that this policy offers a solution for the race problems of South Africa. Sir, it is not a policy, it is just something utterly ridiculous and utterly preposterous.

To-night we have again had the customary bit of livening up by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). Usually when his party does not fare too well in a debate, he is put up to try to improve their morale a little. To-night he dared to set foot on the slippery road of finance, of economics. The major portion of his speech was devoted to an attack on the figures given here by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). Of course it was not his own effort. [Laughter.] I think hon. members will agree with me that nobody would ever suspect the hon. member for Yeoville of being so humble as to dig out figures of this nature himself and not to make use of somebody else’s efforts. But you know, Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to have figures. One must also know how to use those figures. I just want to give one example of how dangerous it is to use figures which one does not understand in the least. I just want to give one example, and I will not pause to deal with the whole of the speech of that hon. member.

The hon. member made a terrible fuss about figures which were given in connection with capital investment in a particular year and how terribly wrong the hon. member for Kempton Park was. But do you know what the hon. member did? He recognizes no distinction between capital investment in a particular year (what we call capital formation) and the total capital investment in industry which has been built up over a number of years. Anyone who is so ignorant of the elementary principles of economy, who does not know how to use figures, and who gives such a wrong picture—I do not say for a moment that it was done deliberately; I think it was due to absolute ignorance—cannot expect me to take his speech seriously.

I also want to mention a few figures to the hon. member and I want to state the proposition that there is a direct connection, a direct relationship between the flourishing state of our economy and the deterioration of the United Party. There is a direct ratio between the growth of our economy and the growth of the National Party. I have here the approximate figure of our net national income for 1948. I do not have the exact figure, although I have the exact figures for 1950-1, but the national income then was more or less R1,661,000,000. At that time there were 78 members of Parliament sitting on the Nationalist side, and I think there were 72 on the opposite side. Then we come to 1953, when the national income was R2,846,000,000 and the membership of the National Party was 93. We come to 1958, when the net national income was R3,751,000,000 and the number of nationalist members in this House was 103, and if I look at the last year I see that we now number 105, and the position is still that as the National Party grows, so does the national income also increase. There is a connection between the two, and putting it the other way around, there is of course also a direct connection between the growth of our economy and the deterioration of the United Party. Therefore I can quite understand that the hon. member does not feel so happy when I mention figures, but I want to give him the assurance that I am not confusing capital formation in any particular year with the total capital investment in industry which has been built up over the years.

May I put a question?

No, the hon. member has had his chance and I did not interrupt him while he was speaking. I gave the hon. member the opportunity to tell his story. If the hon. member has anything to say to me, he can do so during the third reading, and then I will perhaps chastise him a little more than I have just done. I just want to give the hon. member for Yeoville a friendly word of advice, namely this: Shoemaker, stick to your last. [Interjections.]

Order!

After hearing the criticism of this Budget by the Opposition, the people of South Africa heaved a great sigh of relief because the economic and financial future of South Africa is not in the hands of the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, there are two types of responsible criticism, which I have tried to avoid in this Budget. The first is that I have to any extent handicapped the economic activity we are now having by fiscal measures. That is the one point of criticism I wish to avoid. The other point of criticism I wish to avoid is that I unnecessarily increased the inflationary pressure to which the economy is always subjected in times of prosperity. These are the two real points of criticism which I wanted to avoid in this Budget, but I want to say that not even the Opposition saw any chance to attack this Budget on either of those two points. But I am attacking the Opposition on the last-mentioned point. If I were to have done what the Opposition asks, and what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has also asked again—and I am glad to see that he is now doing a little homework under the guidance of his teacher—I hope he will be quite prepared when we come to the third reading. I say if I had done what the Opposition, and particularly the hon. member for Yeoville, asked me to do, I would in fact have recklessly increased the inflationary pressure. I know— I am not trying to hide it—that there are proposals in my Budget which may weaken the anti-inflationary influences. There are, for example, some section of our defence expenditure. There are also, for example, the assistance given to pensioners. Both those proposals may increase the inflationary pressure, but in the case of defence it is necessary, and in the other case, the concessions granted to the pensioners, it is limited. But what the Opposition wants me to do is to increase the inflationary pressure on a large scale and almost recklessly. That is what the hon. member again asked me to do a moment ago, that I should grant tax relief. I must fan the fires of inflation. That is what the hon. member asked, as well as a few of the other reckless hon. members opposite. I say that is my accusation against them.

I viewed this Budget against the background of the economic circumstances I sketched in my speech, and in the light of those economic circumstances I had to choose between popularity and stability. This R88,000,000 surplus is a great temptation for every Minister of Finance to play Santa Claus and to hand out gifts in order to be popular. That was the temptation presented by this R88,000,000, but it would have been at the cost of the lasting stability of our economy, and I was not prepared to exchange our stable economy for this cheap popularity I could have achieved by doing what hon. members opposite wanted me to do, unless of course we neglected our defence and endangered our safety; and here I must say immediately that the responsible leaders of the Opposition, to their credit, did not expect me to reduce our defence expenditure and to jeopardize the safety of the country.

Here I just want to quote what an expert on taxation said in the Argus just after my Budget speech—

I want to emphasize those words. I may perhaps have achieved a temporary popularity, but it would really not have been in the interest of the taxpayer of South Africa in the long run if I now begin to play Santa Claus.

There are just a few points I wish to refer to. The first is that I want to refer to the arguments which prove how good this Budget is. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) blamed me for talking about largesse and he asked what largesse was? He says it is something like a tip one gives. Mr. Speaker, that is not so. I want to give the hon. member the definition given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which says that largesse means “money or gifts freely bestowed, especially on occasion of rejoicing”. [Laughter.] But of course it did not say whether it was “rejoicing” on the part of the Government, but quite obviously it is not rejoicing on the part of the Opposition. But let us have a look at this largesse. It is not a tip given to a waiter, as the hon. member wanted to suggest. In the eyes of the people Santa Claus represents the Minister of Finance. Whatever we might think as to the correctness of this, the Minister of Finance is looked upon by the people as Santa Claus. If he grants tax relief, he is the Santa Claus who gives presents. That may not be correct, but it is not I who created that image; it is an image which has been in existence for years already. We talk about concessions granted by the Minister, and the language used here by the United Party amounts to the same thing. But now my hon. friend blames me for having spoken about largesse.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) compares the globular amounts of public debt and taxation in 1947 with those of to-day. She says that in 1947 the public debt stood at a certain figure, and see what it is now. The hon. member says to-day it is R2,800,000,000, and then it was only R1,200,000,000, and we should note how tremendously it has increased. But the hon. member for Constantia will never make such a foolish mistake. He knows that the real test is what percentage of the national income it is, and if she had consulted him he would immediately have told her: In 1947 the public debt was 85.8 per cent of the national income, and in 1963 it is only 55 per cent. The public debt per capita has not increased. In fact the public debt to-day is less, taken as a percentage of the national income. [Interjections.] The hon. member should not try to get away from it now. He now wants to act protectively And she is not the only one. I am dealing now with what that hon. member said. Do you know, Sir, that if we had the same percentage of our public debt in 1963 which we had in 1947, our public debt would have been R1,562,000,000 more than it really is to-day? If to-day it constituted 85.8 per cent of our national income, the public debt would have been so much greater. I am not even referring to the fact that our debt to-day is almost 100 per cent productive, and we know what it was in 1947.

The hon. member also talks about the taxation levied by the Central Government. She gives only the globular amount. She has no conception at all that it should be taken in relation to the national income. In the year she mentioned it was 17.1 per cent of the National income, but in 1963 it was only 13.3 per cent of the national income. It seems as if this is just a mere 4 per cent less, but do you know what it means? It means that if we had levied taxation this year on the scale on which the United Party levied it in 1947, our taxpayers would have had to pay R192,000,000 per annum more than they are actually paying. But these are the figures quoted by hon. members opposite. They do not understand the position in the least. If one wants to compare the figures of a certain year with those of another year, one must bring them into relation to a fixed, constant factor, and that is the national income.

Let me go a little further. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) spoke about direct and indirect taxation and he said that the indirect taxation is such a heavy burden resting on us, and if I understood him correctly he said that proportionately more indirect taxation was paid by the poor man than by the rich man. Let us see what proportion of the national income consisted of indirect taxation in 1947. In 1947 it was 6.4 per cent of the national income, and in 1962-3, the last year, it was only 5.1 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I have to act here as a teacher year after year. I like to be a fisherman, but I am not so keen on being a teacher.

But I come to a third point, and that is the contradictions we had from hon. members opposite in their criticism of this Budget. You know, Sir, it is very difficult if one finds members of the Opposition contradicting one another as they did in this debate. On one occasion I told my hon. friends over there that: “Even the ranks of Tuscany could scarce forbear to cheer”. But now that I have seen what has happened here it seems to me that one can also say of hon. members opposite as Macaulay said: “Those behind cried ‘Forward’ and those in front cried ‘Back’.” The only difference is that some of them simultaneously cry “Forward” and “Back”. Just let me give a few examples of that.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) calls inflation “a bogy raised to avoid giving adequate relief to the poor taxpayer”. I am supposed to have scared up this bogy. It does not exist, but I have scared it up as a bogy to avoid giving relief to the poor taxpayer. But the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin), in fact sees the danger of inflation, but says it is not an inflation caused by the demand, but it is a price inflation. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) sees the sharks of inflation everywhere around him; wherever he looks he sees the sharks of inflation, and he wants me to feed those sharks. Those sharks of inflation, which he says I am not sufficiently aware of, must be fed by me by allowing more money to be spent. Now I ask you, Sir, what is a poor Minister of Finance to do if he gets such contradictory views? There is no policy; there is no direction. They just try to see what they can say about the Budget, no matter whether it agrees with what the other man says. The hon. member for Porth Elizabeth (South) feels that the financing of the Loan Account may be a difficult task, but the hon. member for Parktown argues that portion of the defence expenditure should be financed from Loan Account, particularly to withdraw surplus funds from the money market. The one contradicts the other. What remains over? The only criticism I have to reply to is simply to show how ridiculous the criticism is which we have had from hon. members opposite.

But in the opinion of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), prosperity is the result of economic integration. He says we are prosperous simply because apartheid has failed. He says: “The Budget does not attempt to translate the theory of apartheid into practice”.

Hear, hear!

Well, we think quite differently. But if the hon. member thinks that, why is he so sad about this Budget? Why does he not rejoice? Why does he not jump for joy? Or does he perhaps not believe his own story? We think differently from that hon. member, and we are cheerful and full of praise for this Budget, because we believe that we are correct, but he says we are wrong, and then he is still sad about it!

I now want to deal with a few of the points of criticism voiced here. I just wanted to point out what a lack of joint action we have had from hon. Members opposite. I could continue to show how speaker after speaker on the opposite side of the House contradicted one another. It is not really necessary for me to reply. I can just put the argument of the one against that of the other and they will destroy each other. But I now want to come to a few real points of criticism. The first is that the estimates I drew up last year were hopelessly wrong. But now I want to ask hon. members opposite which of them in March expected last year that the gross national production would increase by 10 per cent? Nobody could have predicted it. I did not even predict it, and neither did they, because who could expect that Inland Revenue would be 16y per cent more than we had estimated? We estimated Inland Revenue at the figure which we accepted as the possible rate of growth. It was not only due to our extraordinary prosperity, but there were also other factors which made our Inland Revenue increase so much that of the surplus of R88,000,000 we got R83,000,000 from Inland Revenue alone. I just want to say this. Take the tax receipts. We did not expect much during that eight months’ tax holiday, and I frankly admit it, but in fact we collected R12,000,000 more than we expected. Taxation, after the introduction of the P.A.Y.E. system, was in fact R37,000,000 more than we had expected. There was an increased number of taxpayers. We do not know what the figure is yet, but many more people have now been caught in the taxation net than we expected. If one analyses the R83,000,000 by which Inland Revenue exceeded our Estimate, it will be seen that companies were responsible for R35,000,000 of it. We had unprecedented prosperity, and we know that many companies during this time tried to concentrate on making the largest possible profits. Individuals were responsible for R23,500,000 more. The gold mines, which usually give us a very good estimate of their income, gave us a figure of R4,000,000 less than they really earned. Transfer duties and stamp duties—all signs of prosperity—produced R9,100,000 more than we expected. Just taking these few figures, we already have more than R70,000,000 than we expected. I admit that our underestimate of revenue was high. It is 13.7 per cent. It comes very near to the record of the United Party in 1946-7. We are now trying to rival them! But I think we should rather be grateful that our revenue is so resilient, and do not let us pull long faces about it as hon. members opposite do.

Another point of criticism raised here is that the middle income groups, the people earning from R100 to R350 a month, get nothing for this Budget. That is what the hon. member for Yeoville also said again. He spoke about the terrible injustice being done to these people. But I want to tell the hon. member this. A few of his colleagues have already experienced this. A Budget does not consist only of what is said in the Budget speech. There are many things in the Estimates of revenue and expenditure which do not appear in the Budget speech, and I just want to mention a few of them for the information of hon. members. One is the financial assistance given to universities, R13,300,000, as compared with R10,900,000 last year. Now suddenly that is being discovered. It is contained in the Estimates, but hon. members never looked at it. They started attacking me, and then the Minister of the Interior told them what we had done, and then they discovered that they had completely forgotten about it. There is R20,480,000 for Coloured education, but the provincial subsidies were decreased by only R15,850,000. In other words, here we have an additional expenditure. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) never did his homework. If he had looked at the Estimates of revenue and expenditure he would never have said the things he said here. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) would not have spoken as she did either, and she would certainly have found much more money being made available for Government bursaries than the R113,000 which she says is the only sum provided for that purpose. There is much more, but it is spread out. She should just look and see where everything is. Our favours and gifts are distributed right throughout this thick book. Hon. members should just look and they will find it. Bantu education is R21,170,000, as compared with R24,900,000 the previous year. The hon. member said there was a decrease here. But do they know what the position is? The Central Government’s contribution is R14,000,000 instead of R16,750,000 the previous year, 1963-’4, but the latter amount included R2,000,000 as arrear contributions to higher education. But they did not investigate the matter. If it is considered that education in the Transkei is now the responsibility of that territory, and that it will be financed out of the grant of R13,000,000 for the Transkei, it is clear that the total funds for Bantu education have not decreased in the least. This amount is being taken out and it is now being covered by the R13,000,000 fund for the Transkei which we have now put into the kitty.

The total provision by the Central Government for all types of education, including the provincial subsidies, was R155,000,000 in 1963-’4, the previous year. In this budget it is R170,600,000, or R15,600,000 more. But I did not make a fuss about it in my budget speech. The hon. members should just seek and they will find all these extra contributions we are making are spread right throughout the Estimates. Health services amount to R36,700,000. That is R3,000,000 more than in 1963-’4. Even the subsidy for kwashiorkor, which was mentioned by one hon. member, was increased by more than 50 per cent, and to a large extent this is still only an experiment, but it was increased from R40,000 to R65,000. The total provision for social services in this budget is 7 per cent more than in the previous year. All of this is contained in the Estimates, if only they will look for it. I cannot mention all these things in my budget speech.

Now I come to the third point of criticism of the hon. member for Constantia. He says this budget endangers our future stability. He asks: “Does not this budget, with its enormous future expenditure which is envisaged, constitute a serious threat to the financial stability of the country in the future?” That is a fair question. In other words, if we no longer have the large surplus of 1963-’4, will we be able to finance the large items of expenditure, e.g. on defence, the Orange River Scheme and the Bantu homelands, without increasing taxation to a dangerous level? That is the hon. member’s question, and it is a fair one. It is particularly for that reason that we cannot just waste this surplus of R88,000,000. R16,000,000 of it goes to the Loan Account, and a large portion of the remainder, R52,000,000, goes to defence from revenue. That is also why all defence expenditure is put to Revenue Account. If circumstances change next year or later we can always finance portion of the defence expenditure from Loan Account. It is not necessary to do so next year. We also have appreciable tax reserves. We still have the 5 per cent rebate on income tax as a reserve. The national debt is only 55 per cent of our national income. It is probably the lowest in the world. Here also we have space to move in. The hon. member for Constantia’s fear is therefore exaggerated, but it is still gratifying to me that he adopts this responsible attitude. It is in sharp contrast to many of the arguments advanced by hon. members opposite.

Then he moves his amendment and proposes that between R25,000,000 and R30,000,000 of the defence expenditure should be financed from Loan Account, instead of financing it all from Revenue Account, and that the amount which then becomes available on the Revenue Account should be used to establish a special fund for education and social services and food subsidies. He is careful not to say that this money should simply be spent. He is cautious enough not to do that. He himself says that the greatest portion of it will probably not be spent this year, but will be invested by the Public Debt Commissioners. In contrast with some of our followers, he does not insist that all this money should be given back to the taxpayers, as the hon. member for Parktown suggested, or that all kinds of tax concessions should be made, as was suggested by the hon. member for Pinetown. So doing the hon. member revealed a much greater sense of financial responsibility. A special account for funds of this nature, however, seems to me to be wrong in principle. These services form part of the State’s ordinary Estimates, and the necessary amounts must be voted annually in the usual manner. In so far as education and social services are concerned, I have already given an indication of what the State is already doing in this regard.

Some hon. members, like the hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for Pinelands, complained that our defence expenditure was caused by the policy of this Government. I can only say: “What happy, wishful thinking and even happier ignorance!” The hon. members for Somerset East and Venters-dorp have already replied effectively to this allegation. I just want to add what the Congo’s delegate to the World Health Organization said, namely that they have no enmity towards South Africa, but that all they want is the complete equality of races. In other words, they want one man, one vote. That is what they want, and as long as they do not get what they want South Africa will be compelled to keep its defence programme in the highest gear irrespective of whether it is the National Party or the United Party which is in power. If the United Party to-day had to bear the responsibility which we have to bear, they would not have spoken as they did. It is therefore not the Government’s policy which was responsible for the defence expenditure, but the world conditions in which we live. It is the Africa states which make it necessary for us to build up our defence, and there is no responsible member of this House who will say that we are devoting too much to defence, except to make a debating point of it. Therefore I am glad that they did not say so. However, I blame them for saying that our defence expenditure is caused by the Government’s policy. That is not true. Everywhere in the world defence expenditure has increased as the result of the conditions and the uncertainty in which we live. In fact, our expenditure is still comparatively low. But as long as the African states cannot get what they want, so long will South Africa be compelled to build up its defence, irrespective of whether the National Party or the United Party is in power. I want to go further and say that as long as. South Africa is an ally of the West in its struggle against communism— and I hope we will always remain one—Russia will not leave us in peace. In that regard we should not have any illusions. For so long our defence expenditure will be unavoidable. It therefore has nothing to do with the Government’s policy, except in so far as it is the Government’s policy to keep South Africa safe. And it is not we alone who adopt that attitude. Just look at the percentage of the budget in the U.S.A. which is devoted to defence, or in the United Kingdom, or in France or Australia. I really hope that we have heard the last now of this type of dangerous nonsense. As far as the West is concerned, we do not have the certainty to-day that no further concessions will be asked of us. I know it is said that our friends will not leave us in the lurch, but I want to give the assurance that our friends are also pragmatic, and if pressure is exerted on them they will not be satisfied either that we have already gone far enough. On the contrary. They will approach us again and ask for a further concession. Therefore I say that if it is said that no further concessions will be demanded of us, or that no further pressure will be exerted by the African states on the West to insist on further concessions, that is merely wishful thinking. We can forget about that.

I now want to deal with a few of the specific points raised. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) made a plea for food subsidies.

I am aware that subsidies play a role, but on the other hand if subsidies are exaggerated, production and the pattern of consumption may be disrupted and artificially sent in the wrong direction. We must be aware of that. General subsidies, i.e. for the poor as well as for the rich, cost a lot of money, while subsidies only for the lower income groups may foster the wrong spirit. It is therefore much better rather to be careful. It is preferable to attempt to increase the general standard of living. Apart from that, it is something positive, whereas food subsidies are artificial and therefore do not constitute a sound economic principle.

The hon. member for Constantia asked that provisional taxpayers should pay only two instalments during the course of the tax year, and then pay their final assessment after February. At the moment provisional taxpayers have to pay three instalments. If we reduce it to two, as the hon. member wants, it will mean that the taxation for the last six months, as in the past, will have to be paid in advance. The hon. member wants taxation on the income for the last six months to stand over and to be paid in the new tax year. Well, the whole object of the system is to collect taxation currently, and not a few months after the end of the tax year. The hon. member also asked what control there would be over the R13,000,000 granted to the Transkei. I want to point out that this amount is being granted in terms of the Transkeian Constitution. That Act makes the Government of the Transkei responsible for the expenditure of that money. Then I also have to point out that the accounts in this regard will be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General of the Republic.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) said that the reason why the full amount of defence expenditure is being paid from the Revenue Account is probably the greater repayment of loans in 1964-’5, i.e. R160,000,000 as against R100,000,000 in 1963-’4. Well, in fact, an amount of R175,000,000 was repaid in 1963-’4. The repayment of this R160,000,000 in the new year ought not to cause any difficulty. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) asked that the Department of Inland Revenue should keep reserve equipment, in view of the fact that at the moment there is only the one machine, and if it breaks we will be in trouble. Well, I have gone into the matter. To buy a second electronic machine will amount to a tremendous expenditure. Most of the time that machine will never be used. What is more, the agreement we entered into with the people from whom these machines are being rented provides that if the machine breaks down, the contractors must repair it within a week. In the circumstances I think it will be unnecessary to double the expenditure by keeping an extra machine in reserve. The hon. member for Jeppes and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) referred to the consumption of agricultural products which, they say, is static. They also said there was a falling trend in regard to export prices. But the information is somewhat out of date, because the latest data reveals the opposite trend. In fact, I pointed that out in my budget speech.

The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) asked whether the concession in respect of transfer duties would also apply to farms. Well, it does apply to farms. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) referred to estate duties, and asked whether it was not possible, where this tax is now on R12,500 for the first and the second children, to increase it to R15,000 for the third and the fourth children. That is a matter which can be considered. At the moment we are granting as much as we consider justifiable. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) made a plea for more financial assistance to local authorities. Let me point out to the hon. member that the Borckenhagen Commission was appointed particularly to investigate the financial relations between the Central Government and provincial and local authorities. We therefore have to await the findings and recommendations of that Commission. That is partly also my reply to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. van der Ahee), who touched on the position of divisional councils. The Commission to which I have referred received special instructions also to investigate that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House much longer. When I look back on this debate I involuntarily think of what the prophet Hosea said: “ My people are doomed because of a lack of knowledge.” If Hosea could have attended this debate and had heard what was said here, he would have said: “My Opposition is doomed because of a lack of knowledge.” And it is not only a lack of knowledge of financial matters. In fact, many hon. members opposite have that knowledge although they refuse to make use of it. But that is not what I have in mind. I am thinking more of the knowledge of what South Africa wants, knowledge of how South Africa’s heart beats, of what is in its interest, of those fundamental matters which are of importance in these disrupted times in which we live, etc. If the Opposition only had knowledge of its growing isolation from the electorate of South Africa! I already referred to its deterioration since 1948. If it only knows how it is deteriorating, it would not shut its eyes to that fact. If only it knows how it is being misled by some of the newspapers in this country which are not interested in a conservative or stable financial policy, or in a purely positive South African way of thinking! That is one of the reasons why the United Party is always making mistakes, and why they are retrogressing, as the figures ever since 1948 indicate. Because they have no knowledge of these matters, they are retrogressing. Just look at the clumsy attempt made by the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition the other day, either to catch Jewish votes or to spoil the picture of our country overseas. It was such a clumsy and obvious attempt. Let me tell them that a few speeches like that of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) in regard to Ronald Segal, and a few letters of the kind written by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) in regard to the boycott in Aberdeen would do much more to give the United Party a South African outlook than all the stories about anti-Semitism, the Broederbond, etc. They should rather act positively and show that they are South African by speaking in favour of South Africa, as the hon. member for Peninsula did when he spoke against a member of his own race, and the hon. member for Green Point who, irrespective of the fact that he is a member of the Opposition, felt that here was a matter where his services were required. If they reveal that spirit here, they can expect to achieve something. That is what I ask of the Opposition. If it has this knowledge, I am sure they will not be doomed because of their ignorance.

The Opposition’s criticism of the budget to a large extent reflects the opinions of the political correspondents of the English language press. It was not necessary for me to guess what the United Party would talk about. All I needed to do was to read what the political correspondents of the English language press said, in order to know what the argument of the United Party would be. And let me frankly admit they did not disappoint me! If only they had listened to the financial editors of those newspapers, they would have acted much more wisely here. The financial editor of the Rand Daily Mail said the following the day after the budget was introduced—

But in this House the United Party knows nothing about that. The financial editor of the Argus wrote on the same day—

If in fact the United Party read this, it could only have gone in one ear and out of the other. In any case, the relevant financial editor continued to say—

That in fact is what I tried to do here—not to stifle, but also not to put us in greater danger of inflation, whether it is cost inflation or demand inflation. But what do we get from the Opposition? We get criticism which is confused and even contradictory. There are no firm guiding lines; there is little that is constructive. It makes no difference to them if they contradict one another. And yet our economy to-day is the bulwark for our continued existence, the main artery leading to an increased standard of living for both the Whites and the non-Whites. It is in the interest of and it is the duty of every South African to assist in making that foundation as strong as possible. Therefore we would like to see a changed outlook on the part of the Opposition, so that they can assist us in making this wonderful economy of ours even greater and stronger.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.