Mr. Chairman, I rise to-day to plead for a little more realism in world politics. I think no one will deny that the world finds itself in difficult crises all over the globe to-day. Just think of Vietnam; think of the crisis in the Middle East; and think of the general nutritional problems of the world. It is calculated that within the next two or three decades we shall have world starvation because we shall not be able to provide the population of the world with food. If one considers the armament problems as well, one arrives at the conclusion that there are great problems in store for the world, problems which indeed require a little more realism to-day. Mr. Chairman, in recent times we have also had various demonstrations in various parts of the world, demonstrations which sometimes started at universities, such as in Berlin and everywhere in Germany, in France and in Britain, and even in Eastern countries. One does not know whether these demonstrations, which are usually led by young people, are merely student pranks which are creating “crises” in the normal course of events and bringing student leaders to the fore and which can to a certain extent serve a good purpose in that sense. Neither does one know whether these demonstrations amongst the youth of the world are aimed at obtaining a greater share in the social and political order for themselves. Neither does one know whether they are leading to normal evolution, to new freedoms and a rebellion against the existing order of conservatism on the world front. But there are three things we do know.

In the first place we do know that all these disturbances promote a certain measure of chaos and that this can test good order to the utmost. Secondly, we also know that this confusion and the existing disturbances can only promote Communism, and that it is not only Danny the Red’s hair that is red, but that It goes deeper and that there are essential differences which must put the Western world on its guard. Thirdly, we know that these disturbances which have broken out especially in France to-day, may occur in Rome or in London or in Washington or in any place in the world to-morrow. They are not limited to one particular place. Therefore I plead that greater responsibility should be displayed by the Western world and that we should resort to wiser statemanship and that the West must try to consolidate itself in this confusion. I think the Western world must begin to make a revaluation as to who are its real friends and must not simply accept that those who pat it on the back are good friends, but must bear in mind that it might be someone who is just looking for a soft spot to put a dagger in later. Therefore I say that it is in the interest of the Western world to-day to consider these things and to make a revaluation. It is time that the Western world asked itself whether its actions everywhere in the world, at the U.N. or elsewhere are really promoting the true Western ideology and the freedom it must serve. I want to address my speech to the great powers of the world such as France, Britain, Italy, Greece, America, etc., and I want to plead especially for better relations between South Africa and the United States of America, and for a better attitude. We cannot get away from the fact that past occurrences—one calls to mind the Independence incident and that of the Franklin D. Roosevelt—have caused trouble between the two countries, and it causes concern that it is between two Western countries that these unnecessary incidents have led to estrangement. It is true that in the U.S.A. there are certain elements which would seek South Africa’s downfall. This cannot be disputed. It is also true that there are those in South Africa who take delight in the fact that America has great responsibilities in Vietnam and elsewhere to-day, because they accept that America is a great danger to us at present. But I want to ask the question whether these differences existing between us and other powers, and especially between us and the U.S.A., are not merely normal differences which occurr in world politics in any case from time to time.

I think that we should really have perspective in these difficult times in which we are living to-day, that we must take our perspective towards the U.S.A. into review and that we must acknowledge in the first place that America is to-day one of the greatest obstacles in the way of communist world domination. In the second place, we must acknowledge that in the U.S.A., both amongst the population and in the Government, there is an enormous amount of goodwill towards South Africa. Thirdly, we must acknowledge that there are striking similarities which one can emphasize in the relations between these two countries. I want to mention a few of them. I want to mention the fact that both South Africa and America are nations which are in the modern sense of the word relatively young to-day. If one considers the history of the Mayflower and the Dromedaris, one sees that there is not much difference. Both countries have their racial problems and, indeed, each of them believes that it is capable of solving its own problems in its own manner and in the best way. Both have fought shoulder to shoulder in two world wars and in Korea as well. Both are strongholds against Communism. Both maintain judicial administration of a high order, freedom of speech, etc. Both abhor the policy of interference. Both have enormous economic strength. South Africa has 70 per cent of the gold in the free world. Both can be regarded as nuclear powers to-day. Therefore I say that if we emphasize these similarities between these two countries, it might lead to better relations between them.

I believe that now is the time to do so. I want to mention the following points in particular: In respect of missile research, in respect of our strategic position, as a result of the Suez crisis, and in respect of the U.N., where there is at present a new representative in the person of Mr. George Ball, and especially in the light of the presidential election, I believe that a period may now arrive in which (better relations can exist between these two countries. And I am addressing myself to America especially. But I want to emphasize that better relations can be established in one way only, and that is that we must accept that the racial problem in America can be solved by the population of America only, and that they must accept that the racial problem of South Africa, as we have it to-day, will not be resolved in the councils of the U.N. or at international conferences, but by the population of South Africa and by no one else; also that the South West problem, as it is before the U.N. to-day, will not be resolved at the U.N. or elsewhere. It will be solved by the population of South West Africa. If we accept this, I think that the opportunity exists for these two powers, which must play such an important part in Western politics in the future, to find a great deal of common ground, and that they can develop this to the benefit of the Western world.

Mr. Chairman, it is gratifying to find the hon. member for Middelland adopting a somewaht different attitude in regard to our relations with America. I think that this approach may in fact bear fruit in the future. I am really rising to say a few words in connection with the development which has taken place abroad since we met here last night. It is a development which can place the Government before very difficult decisions, and potentially it has many dangerous complications for South Africa. I am referring to the unanimous resolution of the Security Council in connection with mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia. We have not yet seen the full text of the resolution. At this stage we therefore want to do no more than inquire whether the hon. the Minister is already in a position to inform the country about the standpoint of his Government. I should like to add—and I am doing it on behalf of the Opposition—that, as hon. members know, we have always adopted the attitude in the House that there are certain matters of an external nature which are of such serious import to South Africa that the Government and the Opposition should try to reach the closest possible agreement on them. It is common knowledge that this has always been our attitude, as for example in connection with South West Africa. The fact that the Government took a different view of the position is of course its responsibility. We have always felt that the initiative for an informal dialogue in such matters should naturally come from the side of the Government. It cannot come from the side of the Opposition. If the Government does not want to consult the Opposition in what we regard as an extremely important matter, it is naturally its rightful responsibility. Then the Opposition is free to act independently. We feel that here, as in the case of South West Africa—I am again referring to the mandatory sanctions, as decided upon by the Security Council—we are also faced with a matter which may have such drastic consequences for South Africa that it may eventually affect our entire relationship with UNO. It is a matter which eventually may even affect our membership of UNO. Because we regard it as a matter which is potentially so fraught with danger, we want to say that it is also a matter in regard to which we are prepared, if the Government so desires, to conduct informal discussions with it with a view to trying to find a common approach to the problem.

I just want to refer briefly to last night’s debate. I want to say personally to the hon. the Minister that we on this side have a particularly high regard for him. We regard him as the best man the Government has available to fill the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs. But we feel that the hon. the Minister is a little weak when he should take action against persons on his own side who say and do things which are detrimental to South Africa and his own case. I say that I find it a pity that we sometimes gain the impression that the hon. the Minister is a little afraid that he will be regarded as someone who is not a good party man and that for that reason he does not take action. Therefore I want to say in all seriousness to the Minister—and when I have finished saying it, then, as far as I am concerned, the matter is closed … [Interjections.] … but if the Government wants to resume the matter, then I shall do so too. However, I am prepared to regard the matter as closed then. If the sort of thing which took place here last night in this House continues under a Vote which is the responsibility of this Minister, then I want to say that we shall implicate the Minister’s position in the matter and we shall find means of registering our protest even more strongly.

We have documents before us in which the Government, the Minister and his Department did their best to cause UNO to change its views. We know that UNO is constantly attacking South Africa and saying that people in this country are not allowed to criticize and to attack the Government’s policy. In their resolutions they constantly refer to the “victims of apartheid”. Now the hon. the Minister himself is issuing publications and writing replies to UNO to prove that that is not the case and to prove that people in this country are free to criticize the Government and apartheid. But what must happen now if the Hansard of last night should get to UNO and be placed alongside the “Rule of Law” and the publications issued by his Department? Last night we had the position that a man was denounced as a traitor for criticizing the Government.

Order! The hon. member withdrew that word, and I shall not allow any further reference to it.

Mr. Chairman, he did not apologize.

What has been withdrawn has been withdrawn. I ruled that it had been withdrawn and the hon. member must not refer to it.

Then I shall not refer to that hon. member at all, but I shall refer to the general complaints made by the Government from time to time when its policy is criticized. We have the spirit of the Kremlin here.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by that? It is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, in what way is it a reflection on the Chair?

It is a reflection on the Chair to say that the spirit of the Kremlin is allowed here.

Of course that spirit prevails among those hon. members.

It is the duty of the Chair to see that something like that does not happen here.

Mr. Chairman, I am referring to the attitude on the Government side as a Party.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout entitled to make the accusation against this side of the House that the spirit of the Kremlin prevails among us?

What is wrong with that? It is purely a political matter.

Order! The hon. member must moderate his language and not refer to the ways of dictatorial countries.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that a ruling was given in this House in the past to the effect that the word “Moscow” was not to be used in reference to any hon. members. The hon. member must explain what he means by “the spirit of the Kremlin which prevails here and that the Chairman does not notice it”.

I have already stated that the hon. member may not say that.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the ruling given in this House by Mr. Speaker was that an hon. member who used the word “Moscow” in making an accusation against another hon. member had to withdraw it. I appeal to you to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to withdraw those words, because it is scandalous for him to refer to hon. members in such a way. It reflects upon the dignity of this House.

Mr. Chairman, my standpoint is …

Order! I want to ask the hon. member what he means when he refers to the “spirit of the Kremlin”.

I am talking party politics, and I am perfectly entitled, according to the rules of the House, to attack a party about its political methods.

What does the hon. member mean by “the spirit of the Kremlin”?

“The spirit of the Kremlin” means that there is a spirit of intolerance towards anyone who criticizes the Government on its apartheid policy. This happened repeatedly last night. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House are becoming tired of it. The Minister of Foreign Affairs …

Order! “The spirit of the Kremlin” has a much deeper and worse significance than it would normally have in popular usage.

But what happened here last night was very serious.

Order! It is for me to decide about what happened last night and whether it was permissible or not. The hon. member must cease to cast reflections on the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member never apologized to me, but I am perfectly prepared, and I shall assist you

The hon. member must leave the question of “the spirit of the Kremlin” out of this debate, otherwise he will get into trouble now.

I am used to getting into trouble.

Yes, but the hon. member will get into trouble with me.

If you will tell me where I am contravening the rules of the House, I shall submit to you immediately.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, a ruling has been given in this House that if an hon. member accuses another hon. member of displaying a Nazi attitude, it is a violation of the rules of this House. I now ask for your ruling as to whether the reference to a “Kremlin attitude” is not a much more serious accusation.

I now rule that in future it will be taken to have the same meaning as when an hon. member refers to “Moscow”. I shall not allow it any more. In any case, the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I proceed …

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I shall condescend to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout this afternoon. But I do want to refer to what he and his namesake sitting just behind him, the hon. member for Sea Point, held up to us last night. For a moment we may have been shocked to think that two Bassons belonging to the same party could differ so much in what they had to say. We may have been astonished this afternoon to see that the two hon. members were still members of the same party, but upon reflection one finds that that is the United Party as we know it. Last night the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke from the heart of the United Party. The hon. member for Sea Point spoke with a view to the 1971 elections and the South African population outside.

You are speaking with a view to the capital of Russia.

That is the difference between the two of them. That is the policy of the old S.A. Party.

Order! If hon. members persist in making direct or indirect references to Russia and its ways, I shall take immediate action against them.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I did not say Moscow; I said he spoke with a view to the capital of Russia.

Moscow lies in Russia. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, why are we debarred from referring to Russia or Moscow? [Interjections.]

Order! What is the hon. member’s point of order?

My point of order is: On what grounds are we debarred from referring io Moscow or Russia?

Comparing hon. members of this House with people in Moscow, with Russians, is not allowed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may we then refer to Peking?

Order! The hon. member should not try to be funny. I shall send him out of the House. The hon. member for Waterkloof may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! I have given my ruling. Would the hon. member resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, could you indicate in what context one should not refer to Russia, etc.?

Order! The hon. member cannot raise a point of order on hypothetical matters. Would the hon. member for Durban (North) kindly resume his seat. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, may I …

Will the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member for Waterkloof may proceed.

It was with a fair amount of malicious joy that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred last night to the diplomatic suburb which is to be established in my constituency. I want to extend to the hon. the Minister my hearty congratulations on this brilliant solution he has found for the thorny problem of housing for diplomats as such, which is a world problem. It is precisely the problem of housing that has been solved, and there are no strings attached as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wanted to have it.

The fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is opposed to it, bears testimony to the fact that this decision was taken by a sober-minded and sensible person in possession of all his faculties. He tried to drag me into his argument by referring to a meeting which I had allegedly attended and where a certain motion was introduced. In this ease a newspaper furnished him with incorrect information, for which he fell. The tenor of his speech was that he did not want to be associated with this Government’s attempts at correcting South Africa’s image abroad—distorted through ithe actions of his party as well. All he really revealed about himself last night, is that he is an embittered man. He is embittered about the success and the breakthroughs the National Party has achieved under the leadership of this Government. He is particularly embittered because to this day not one of his prophecies of doom have come true. He spoke of tourists who visited South Africa and were then astonished at finding in South Africa an image different from the one they thought they would find. That is so because they came to South Africa with a U.P. created impression. Then they leave. South Africa with a N.P. made fact. Last night he tried to dictate to and tell this Government how to act in Africa. This Government started to move outwards of its own accord and without his dictates. That party has never moved outwards, but only inwards, into England.

I do not wish to devote any more of my time to the U.P. We in South Africa are irrevocably bound up with Africa. We who speak Afrikaans and call ourselves Afrikaners, prove this by the fact that we are the only people who have a language rooted in Africa as regards its name, and who as a nation are bound up with Africa.

Who are the Africans?

The hon. member asks me who the Africans are. The Africans are Africans, just as the Europeans are Europeans. Just as we are bound with Africa, so we also have age-old ties with Europe. Since we are on the point of moving into Africa and. forging ever closer and more and more ties with Africa—a line of action which I support fully —I want to express my conviction that I believe that we should at all times retain our Western ties and should, in particular, strengthen and extend our ties with Europe. I want to state frankly that I believe that we should specifically move closer to the European part of the West and in that way also to other Western-oriented parts of the world which have, just as we dp, ties with Europe.

Do you regard yourself as a European?

I am a white African with European ties, in case the hon. member does not understand it.

But not the English-speaking people?

Yes, if they want to be that. If you want to remain an Englishman, you can do so. I believe that one of the ways in which we can prove that we are in earnest about the retention of European ties, is by learning other European languages. I believe that our Department of Education, industrialists, businessmen and others should tackle this matter in earnest. One stands amazed at seeing what doors are opened to one if one has a command of a European language. Spanish, for instance, is a European language which, apart from being spoken in Spain, is also being spoken in 20 Latin-American countries; to put if differently, it is the official language of the whole of Central and South America, including Brazil. In addition Spanish is also being spoken in the East and in Africa. In fact, it is being spoken by 200 million people. As for French, it is a language which is being spoken by 150 million. people all over the world. These 150 million people are scattered over 31 countries of which 24 have French as their official language and the other seven are conducting their higher education through the medium of French. French is the official language of 18 countries in Africa alone. It is in addition the Administrative and cultural language of Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Cambodia and Laos. In the same way I can elaborate on German, Italian, Portuguese and other European languages. I just want to say that it is my conviction that by having a command of European languages we could gain friends for ourselves and for our country and open doors which have up to now remained closed to us in Africa and in the outside world.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterkloof stated in his speech that the word “African” in relation to Africa meant the same as the word “European” in relation to Europe. I would like to know from the hon. member whether he would take it amiss if I were to refer to him as the hon. African member for Waterkloof. The hon. member for Waterkloof has stated that his party is responsible for the outward policy in South Africa and that the United Party has always been looking inward. I would like to challenge the hon. member to mention one slightly or largely outward-looking aspect of policy adopted by this Government which has not been suggested by the United Party in the past. We do not agree, of course, with all the outward aspects dealt with by the hon. the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I noticed that according to a S.A.B.C. news report he stated some time ago—

I think that he should explain this to the people in his constituency in Beaufort West. They will be interested to know exactly what he meant by that.

I now want to deal with what the hon. member for Middelland has said. He spoke about improving relations with the United States of America. I cannot agree more, but I want the Government to ask themselves to what extent they are to blame for the worsening of relations between our country and America. I want to mention one example. If the Government were to say that the United States of America was using millions of. dollars through its secret service organization to undermine and indoctrinate South Africans, would that then be making friends with the United States of America? Because that is actually what has been said Iby a Minister of this Government. He accused the C.I.A. of spending millions of dollars in supporting the American Field Service to get our children to go to America for the purpose of indoctrinating them there against “hulle vaders hier in Suid-Afrika”, to use the words of the present Minister of Health. We want improved relations with the United States of America and I think the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs should get up and tell us whether he agrees that the Secret Service, the C.I.A., of the United States of America is being used, as stated by his colleague, to indoctrinate, through the American Field Service and other organizations, the youth of South Africa. That statement was made by the hon. the Minister of Health at Ermelo last year and it was repeated by him in effect this year in Parliament.

Sir, I actually stood up to deal with a matter which I believe is of a less contentious nature, and that is the question of closer diplomatic relations with Israel. To me it is an anomaly that we have in South Africa a Consulate General of Israel while South Africa has not got diplomatic representation in Tel Aviv. To me it is an anomaly that South Africa has representation in Beirut but not in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Sir, there are reasons for this. They are based partly on misunderstanding and partly on the failure to appreciate that diplomatic tactics are not always similar and are not always completely comprehensible. My purpose in suggesting a closer rapprochement with Israel is to see whether we cannot remove some of that misunderstanding. I believe that the reasons for this closer diplomatic relationship are important, and in the short time available to me I should like to mention at least eight of them.

First of all, Israel and South Africa are both young and robust nations. They are facing great odds and hostility in. the rest, of the world, whether at the United Nations, or against the communist bloc or against the Nasser League. Secondly, there is a great deal of natural, traditional sympathy between South Africa and Israel. I could go back to World War I. It might have been a General Smuts and noit a General Allanby who liberated Jerusalem in World War I if there had been a few changes in the decisions at the High Command of those days. The name of General Smuts is perpetuated in many localities in Israel to-day. The Nationalist Government was one of the first Governments to recognize Israel as a new state—and all honour to them.

Let me mention a third reason, a strategic reason. Israel and we in South Africa occupy important strategic positions in relation to die route between the West and the East. Suez and the Cape are supplementary to eaoh other on that route; South Africa controls the one and Israel the other. Surely there are matters of common concern that we can discuss. Surely there should be more diplomatic representation between the two countries. Fourthly, it is in our interest to have Israel remaining a stabilizing force in the Middle East as a bastion of the West. When the recent war broke out, however neutral and correct our Government’s attitude may have been, the hearts of the people of South Africa were not neutral and we were indeed very pleased when we saw the Israeli Army reaching the Canal and establishing peace again in the Middle East. Fifthly, both Israel and South Africa have interests in the countries bordering on the western Indian Ocean, particularly now that the British influence in Aden has been removed. Again these are matters of common concern which we could discuss through greater diplomatic representation.

Sixthly, we have to-day no person to speak officially on South Africa’s behalf in Israel itself. We have many personal friends there and we thank our personal friendly ambassadors, South African citizens, in Israel, but that is not enough. We should have the official voice of the Government in Israel itself, and here I also have support from the hon. member for Krugersdorp and the hon. Senator Loock who were in Israel recently and who said almost the same thing there that I am saying now. Sir, the seventh reason is this. There are in Israel at least 5,000 to 6,000 South African citizens. Some of them are coming back; some might intend to stay there, but do not let us look at the very small number, who are not allowed to return to South Africa; they are not representative of the South African citizen in Israel. There are these other people—amongst them tourists, intending immigrants and people who are coming back—who need a South African consul or a South African representative in Israel. The eighth reason is that the economic ties between Israel and South Africa are increasing; our trade is expanding; we have a regular international airline operating between the two countries; the volume of trade is growing, and all these matters make it necessary to have closer contact with Israel.

Sir, these are the interests between South Africa and Israel which overlap—economic, cultural, social, traditional, historical, strategic, religious, and the issue of national independence and self-preservation. I know that negotiations of that nature are delicate and it would be wrong to expect a reply from the Minister of a definite nature, unless of course he wishes to give such a reply at this stage, but I do feel that it might encourage the hon. the Minister to know that we on this side of the House are interested, and sympathetically interested, to see a closer rapprochement with Israel with some form of diplomatic representation. It might be by means of a Consulate or something more than that. If our assurance can in any way strengthen the hon. the Minister in such negotiations which he may have started or intends starting with Israel we gladly give him the assurance of our support on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove. I believe that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will do so himself. I should like to confine myself to our relations with the black states of Africa. It is an unfortunate fact that, but for the exception of our neighbouring states, there is very little affection for us on the Continent of Africa. In fact, we have grown accustomed to regarding the black states of Africa as our enemies. I do not want to place the blame for this state of affairs on the shoulders of the black states, as I hope to indicate, but I want to emphasize that we may not acquiesce in this state of affairs. That hostility arises from their approach to our domestic policy of separate development, but that hostility is based on a total misconception of our domestic policy. Therefore I want to approach this question from the angle of the realism of our domestic situation, and I think that once the realism of this situation has penetrated to the black states of Africa, we shall have made a great deal of progress towards eliminating these misconceptions in regard to our policy. What is the realism of our domestic situation? It is that South Africa has a multi-national, in contrast to a multi-racial, character. Apart from the White nation, there are in South Africa at least eight Bantu nations which differ in regard to language, culture and traditions, eight Bantu nations each of which wants to retain its own identity and work out its own salvation. In spite of the liberalist view taken by the hon. member for Houghton and in spite of. the integration story of the United Party’s —i.e. that we are a multi-racial state, that we are one state and one nation—the realism of the situation in South Africa remains that the Xhosa want to remain Xhosa and the Zulu want to remain Zulu, that the Tswana want to remain Tswana and that the White nation wants to remain White. Our policy of separate development is based on the realism of multinationality, and it is not a race policy. Our aim is to retain and develop this multinationality, and that is why we grant each nation its own right of self-determination. This realism of the multi-nationality of South Africa is also the realism found on the Continent of Africa. The unrest and the wars we have on the Continent of Africa at present, are the after-effects of the fact that the former colonial powers did not have due regard to this multi-nationality. Within arbitrary borders they tried to build one state out of different nations. Our endeavour to develop each nation in South Africa in its own state, and our policy to grant the right of self-determination to each nation, is in fact the endeavour of the black nations of Africa as well. That is what they demand for themselves. The awakening nationalism of Africa is in fact our best ally and our best bulwark against the surging communism which threatens the multi-national character of Africa with obliteration. Then the question that remains is how can we make the necessary contact with those nations, for if we have this common premise between us and the black states of Africa, I believe that we with our technological skill and our rich resources can counterbalance communism in Africa.

We are fortunate in that we have very friendly relations with our immediate neighbours and with Malawi. To us and to the nations under our guardianship this contact is of inestimable value for gaining a better understanding of our objectives and aims in Africa. This better understanding cannot be effected without diplomatic relations on an inter-state level. However, there is in our country quite a number of misconceptions about black diplomats, and the whole matter is being obscured by side-issues. In this regard I want to mention and emphasize the following two points in our relations with foreign envoys.

The first is that these diplomats have been accredited in South Africa to the white nation in the White state of South Africa, and not to the non-White nations under our guardianship. I do not expect my guest to play with my children in the nursery if I want to entertain him in my lounge, or to move in with my wards if he is my guest. The second point I want to emphasize is that non-White members of the nonAVhite nations under our guardianship find themselves in our White homeland for the purpose of rendering service there. They do not form part of the White state, but part of the nations under our guardianship. I do not expect my guest to associate with my servant in the servant’s room if he is being entertained by me as my guest. On the basis of these two points we have already in the past blamed foreign embassies for trying to enforce integration in our country through their receptions and for not obeying the said two rules or urbanity, but we realize that we do not, have first-class, and second-class diplomats or envoys in South Africa, and we do not want them either.

Order! What is the hon. member reading from?

I am referring to my notes.

The hon. member may proceed.

My time is very limited and it is a pity that you interrupted me, Sir.

Wrong notes.

Order!

We cannot afford to have our foreign inter-state relations prejudiced. I believe that through our friendly black states, with whom we have already entered into relations, we may promote other relations. Once black Africa realizes that our aims and objectives are the same as theirs, it would also be possible for us to counterbalance communism in Africa.

May I put a question?

No, I do not have the time. In conclusion I want to ask this, i.e. that consideration should be given to appointing an itinerant envoy in Africa, and that through the goodwill and good co-operation of our friendly black states we should also try to create contacts where we do not have them at the moment. On a visit I paid to our northern neighbouring states last year, it became apparent to me from talks with certain black politicians that there were certain states which regard us as enemies today, but which are becoming concerned about the rise of communism amongst them and would like to liaise with us as Malawi is doing at present, with this basis as the approach, namely that we grant each nation the right of self-determination. This could serve as a common basis, and then I believe that we can find in that a basis enabling us to make new contacts, and this should also be utilized.

I am not going to try to reply to the hon. member for Heilbron, because he is really giving us an expose of racial policy, and I feel that there will be another opportunity to do that. I just want to point out to him that if he really wanted to have friendship with the other states in Africa, there is a much easier way to do it than the way he has suggested, which was to try to explain certain Government policies to them in terms of developing African nationalisms within South Africa, and that is simply to start removing race discrimination. He will then find that the way to friendship is very simple and we will have no trouble in building up good contacts with the other African states. I would say, too, that he could perhaps do a little cross-examination of some of the millions of Africans in the urban areas in South Africa, to find whether what they are yearning for is tribal nationalism or whether what they are yearning for are all the manifold advantages that Western civilization can bring to them, with higher standards of living, etc. I would also like to point out to the hon. member, and while I am at it to the other hon. members who have taken part in this debate last night and this afternoon, that a far greater service is rendered to South Africa if this country presents the image of having people disagreeing with the Government, and not simply people who are bleating praise of the Nationalist Party, which apparently to the hon. members is synonymous with patriotism. By far the greatest asset that South African can produce is indeed a picture of a country with diversification and people who not only object, but are seen to object, to Government policy. The hon. the Minister will know what I am talking about when I say that the assets in this country are not the people who go overseas fulsomely bleating praise of this Government, but those who quite openly criticize it and are able to come back to South Africa and to continue criticizing it. When people go away from South Africa, having visited this country, the one thing that strikes them, and which perhaps gives the lie to any exaggerations about this being a police state, is the fact that there is a free Press in South Africa which is openly critical of this Government, and that there are people in the Opposition who speak out quite openly and maintain their point of view—far more, I can tell the hon. member for Jeppes, than people simply accepting that the Nationalist Party Government is synonymous with South Africa. It is no such thing. The Government has been put into power by a very narrow majority vote. [Interjection.] This is a fact. The Government has a great number of seats, but this does not mean in any case, even if the Government had come in by a huge majority instead of a narrow one, that the Government is synonymous with the people of this country, because the ability to replace the Government is surely the hallmark of democracy … [Interjection.] I represent a very considerable body of opinion in this country, and indeed, I might say civilized opinion.

And do we represent the uncivilized opinion?

Well, a great deal of it is not civilized, and if you listen to hon. members talking nonsense the way they did last night, it is a highly uncivilized point of view to imagine that because the Government is in power anyone who disagrees with it is thereby not patriotic. That is utter nonsense.

I want to know whether hon. members have heard Tories who have come to South Africa, and whether they have listened to them criticizing the Labour Government. Are they traitors to their country, or are they anti-Wilson people? That is all they are. In fact I heard one of them on the S.A.B.C. the other night. He was a well-known Tory who visited South Africa. He was given time by this Government on our radio to criticize his own Government in England. What on earth is the Government thinking of—giving a “traitor” to England time on the S.A.B.C. to criticize the Wilson Government? It is exactly the same analogy.

I want to get away from that point. I just wanted to dispose of it because it was so rritating to have to listen to all those nonsensical speeches last night. I want to ask the hon. the Minister one or two questions. Could he tell us whether there have been other countries that have submitted notes of objection to South Africa, as Finland has, which note was publicized, on the actions of the Government in regard to South West Africa and the recent Bill which was passed in this House? Have there been any other objections to the powers taken to divide South West Africa up into Bantustans?

Then I want to follow upon the point which was raised right at the end of last night by the hon. member for Karoo, namely the question of the barring of the Canadian mission from coming into South Africa. This, I believe, will come under this Minister’s portfolio. Canadians do not need visas. That I know. They do not need visas to enter South Africa. Therefore they must have applied to somebody. Presumably they would apply to the Foreign Office in this country, otherwise I do not know how they knew that the mission would not be welcome. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will clear this matter up for us, because this is clearly just an indirect way of making it impossible for Coloured people who wish to emigrate, to leave this country, since Canada is one of the few countries to which they can go, and since now under Canadian rules, an interview is required with applicants who wish to leave the country. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can clear this up. It is a mystery, because if they did not apply to his Department, I cannot imagine to which Department they did apply, since, as I have said, visas are not required by Canadians entering this country.

The third point I want to make is that the hon. the Minister yesterday made mention of reports which were put out by the United Nations on South Africa, which are inaccurate, which are out of date and which contain statistics which are not correct. I have no doubt of course that there are such reports. I have seen them myself. They do contain exaggerated statements and they contain statistics which are out of date. But may I say that we are by no means blameless in this regard. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout touched on this matter. I want to go a little more specifically into this new publication entitled “South Africa and the Rule of Law”, which we have just put out. I must say that if we are criticizing other people’s inaccuracies we should be very careful indeed that all the information that we put out under the auspices of our Foreign Office should be beyond reproach and should be absolutely clear in so far as presenting the truth and not half-truths is concerned. There are numerous statements in this document which are so open to criticism. Indeed I see that the London Sunday Times of 12th May has already come out with some of the very obvious criticisms of this document. I want to point out one or two such instances, and say that we do not do our case any good by presenting a case which is obviously full of pitfalls. For instance, there is a statement on criminal procedure that when the accused pleads not guilty he puts at issue all the allegations contained in a written charge and the onus of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt is placed upon the State. We have numerous statutory provisions, and everybody knows about them, in our law under the Suppression of Communism Act and various other Acts which places the onus fairly and squarely on the accused. I think that if we say this we ought always to qualify the statement and explain that this may be a fairly general rule in South Africa, but that there are many exceptions to this rule. Of course this is one of the first points which will be picked up by any critic of South Africa. There is also a statement on page 12 of this document that if an accused is found not guilty, he is acquitted and that is the end of the matter. As far as our ordinary courts of law are concerned, that is the end of the matter, but it is certainly not the end of the matter as far as the Minister of Justice is concerned and it is not even the end of the matter as far as the Minister of Prisons is concerned, because we have laws on the Statute Book which enable people to be kept in gaols long after they have served their sentences. We have had very many examples in South Africa where, after a person has been acquitted of a charge under the Suppression of Communism and other so-called security laws, they are immediately placed under bans by the Minister of Justice. So it is not the end of the matter at all, not as far as the individual is concerned. That is the sort of obvious thing that anybody is going to notice immediately. If it were true that once one were found not guilty in a court of law and were set free, that was that, it would be fine, but nothing like that happens to a great number of people who have been accused and acquitted of charges under so-called security legislation.

Then we have something here about the Criminal Procedure Act making imposition of certain sentences compulsory in certain cases. That is absolutely true, but there are large numbers of other compulsory minimum sentences which of course are not mentioned.

Order! Should the bon. member not raise these matters under the Justice Vote?

No, Sir, this is a publication put out by the hon. Minister’s Department. He is therefore surely responsible for it. One will find this document, presumably, in South African embassies overseas and in information offices belonging to the South African Government. This is put out by the hon. Minister’s Department. He was kind enough to supply me with a copy.

Are there not reports by many Departments in that book?

On the book it is stated: “Published by the Department…”

Answer his question.

I am answering his question. This document was put out by the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Africa. If it refers to a dozen different Departments … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to waste my time on the hon. member for Houghton, except to say that it is a very great pity that she has tried to run down a very good publication. Of course she has been true to herself and has tried to get her information from the London Sunday Times. She has tried to suck poison here in South Africa for the use of people overseas.

Sir, I wish to come back to the question of our relations with the United States of America, as mentioned by the hon. member for Middelland. It must be admitted, unfortunately, that certain serious problems and difficulties have arisen in the course of the past few years as far as our relations with the United States of America are concerned. These are differences and problems which we did not create or desire and which we seriously tried to avoid. It must also be admitted that these differences and problems caused a considerable amount of tension in the relations between these two countries. This is a great pity. We find to-day that there is a growing anti-American feeling in South Africa which never existed before. This unnecessary and unwanted tension between two countries which have co-operated very well for many years is a great pity.

I firmly believe that there is no other nation in the world with which we have so much in common as the United States. Because of that, Americans understand our problems much more easily than other nations do. Not only did our ancestors originally emigrate from the same European countries, but there is also a very close similarity between the histories of the two countries. The covered wagon of the American pioneer played the same important role there as the kakebeenwa of the Voor-trekker played here. It has been their task, as it has been ours, to cultivate and civilize part of a vast uncivilized continent. They also have a colour problem for which there is no easy solution, as we have. For many years it was their national policy and their firm conviction that no other nation had the right to interfere in their internal problems. We also believe in that policy of non-interference.

South Africa and the U.S.A, have a very long and happy history of close co-operation. Side by side we fought through two World Wars, and again in the Korean War we fought alongside them against the communist onslaught. We also played our part in the Berlin airlift. In the field of science there has been very close co-operation. We have assisted them as far as satellite tracking is concerned. Most significant from their point of view is the fact that we are perhaps one of the only countries, if indeed not the only one in the world to-day, which has never criticized or reprimanded the Government of the U.S.A, for their Vietnam policy.

On 19th February last year our Prime Minister expressed our nation’s view in the following words:

But we have even more in common with them. We also have in common with them the fact that our two countries form part of the new world, a new world with a different task and a different duty towards mankind. There are signs that the old world is passing away and that a new world has to take the lead. Together we stand side by side in the struggle against Communism, which is endangering and (bedevilling their way of life as well as ours. The U.S.A. is to-day generally accepted by the free world as the undisputed leader in the struggle against Communism. Seeing that we have aligned ourselves firmly on the side of the West, it is most important that we have good relations with them. We do not overlook the fact that while other western nations sometimes have a very lukewarm attitude towards Communism it is the U.S.A. which is involved in a very bitter struggle against the encroaching Red army. We do not overlook the fact that thousands and thousands of young Americans have died in that war. We acknowledge and indeed salute the U.S.A. as the chief protector of the free world. We do this in spite of some very nasty blows that have been aimed at us by the U.S.A. Some of those blows were indeed very much below the belt and very painful to us because they were dealt out by a very good friend and ally. One of those painful blows was the unfortunate incident during the visit of the Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1966. More than anything else, this fiasco caused a feeling of uncertainty and ill-will against the U.S.A, in this country and even caused South Africans to speak of the U.S.A. as a danger and an enemy.

Mr. Goldberg, the U.S.A, representative in the United Nations, made some very unfriendly, one can even say irresponsible, statements about South Africa and surely contributed more than anybody else to the deterioration of good relations between the two countries. Indeed, when reading some of his condemnatory speeches one wonders whether good relations were at all possible between the two countries. We sincerely hope that his successor, Mr. George Ball will have a more realistic approach towards South African affairs. Basically, however, the cause of tension and trouble between the two countries boils down to a different approach to the colour problem. They believe that they can solve their colour problem by means of forced integration. We believe that we can solve our problem by means of separate development. We believe that this policy is morally justifiable. We believe that in the light of our own special circumstances and our experience over a period of more than 300 years in this matter we know how to solve this problem. Ultimately we have the same goal, namely freedom and self-determination for all nations. I firmly believe that if the true picture of separate development can be put before the people of the United States objectively they would accept it or at least regard it as an experiment worth looking at. Unfortunately this would be an almost superhuman task because of distortions and smear-campaigns against South Africa carried on for many years. Many responsible people in the U.S.A, to-day realize that integration is not the solution to the colour problem—at least not for South Africa. If one views the American scene and observe what a struggle and how much bloodshed and tears their efforts to integrate only 11 per cent of their population have brought about, it stands to reason that it will be an insurmountable task for South Africa to integrate more than 82 per cent of her population, this 82 per cent consisting of people with vast differences in cultural background, religion, civilization and way of life. But whatever is right or wrong in this matter we expect them to accept our honesty. We firmly believe that it is the inalienable right of every nation to solve its own problems in its own way. We believe that international co-operation and friendship should be based on mutual respect and non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries. On this basis we wish to co-operate with the U.S.A. Our Prime Minister stated on 19th February last year:

We stand together with the U.S.A. in the struggle against Communism. Together with them we believe in freedom and self-determination for all nations. Together we have an enormous task on the continent of Africa, to restore peace, order and stability and to dissipate suffering, ignorance and anarchy. If this is so, one certainly has the right to ask: “Why then is the U.S.A, not with us in the struggle against terrorism and Communism? Why is this uncertainty and tension being allowed to develop between two friendly nations? Why do they refuse to sell us the weapons we need to defend the Cape route and to make sure that this most strategic bastion of the South will never fall into the hands of Communists?” To these and many other questions it is sometimes most difficult for us to find an answer. Nevertheless as in the past we will in the future strive with dignity and self-control to maintain friendly relations with the U.S.A. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member dealt with our relations with America in a very responsible way, as did the hon. member for Middelland. I just want to say to both these hon. members that if this represents a change in their point of view, we welcome it. If it does not represent a change in their point of view, I am surprised that they have been so quiet about this in the past.

I too should like to make a small contribution to this discussion which I hope the hon. the Minister will see as a positive attempt to be constructive. I believe that if you look at the international situation at the moment vou find that there are certain trends and developments which are of great consequence and might affeot our whole approach to the international situation.

The first development of consequence is that since the war there has been a tendency to revert more and more to a system of multilateral diplomacy rather than the bilateral system which prevailed before the war. There are very obvious reasons why this should be so. The second development that I think is of consequence is what the technical people would call “regionalism”. Immediately after the war there was a tendency for nations to hive off. There was a process of fragmentation. Since then they have learnt for various reasons that it is necessary for them to group them’ selves in alliances or economic unions and alt sorts of other forms of international togetherness. As a result of this there might also follow a third tendency, namely a tendency towards decentralization in international affairs. I believe that there may be locked up in this idea certain decided dangers as far as South Africa is concerned. It is known that the United Nations Organization for various reasons is not an effective body. Quite apart from that it has become so cumbersome that it cannot handle many of the problems that come before it. There are very many knowledgeable people who believe that this body will tend to decentralize some of its activities to some of the smaller regional agencies. Could we, for example, imagine what would happen if the United Nations Organization were to decide to delegate the problem of Rhodesia or South West Africa to a body such as the Organization for African Unity? If this were to happen the voice of calm reasoning would be excluded. Wiser counsels would not prevail and the more sober judgment which we might find in other bodies would either be lacking or completely stifled. Certainly if this development were to take place, it might lead to conflict, and set the whole of the African continent alight.

But I think that there is also a fourth important development and that is what I would like to refer to as “leapfrogging”. Israel is a typical example of how this principle is applied. Hemmed in by a solid ring of hostile Arab states Israel has tended to jump over this ring to try to establish goodwill and proper relationships outside. They have done this by means of technical and other forms of aid. As far as Israel is concerned, this has had effect because whenever the Israel/Arab issue comes before the United Nations, Israel can rely on a pretty solid chunk of support from some of the African States.

I believe that certain of these principles apply also to South Africa. At the moment we have a diplomatic offensive to the north of us. This is proper and it is necessary that it should be done. At the same time we must be realistic about it because we are going to run up a pretty hostile ring; but this is where the principle of leapfrogging comes in. Already there is significant diplomatic activity on the part of South Africa in South America. Yesterday the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also mentioned Malagasy. I think we could be more ambitious. What about the Far East? Here I think particularly of places like Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and possibly even Indonesia. Here I might also suggest to the hon. the Minister that the ground there might not be as unfertile as it might appear at first glance. The situation in that part of the world is changing. One can notice that in Indonesia, where five years ago they kicked the Dutch out and yet to-day the Dutch are streaming back there. This is a part of the world which is of real consequence. The communists have always maintained that the road to world communism runs through the East and it is certainly true to-day that the Indian Ocean, this tremendously important strategic ocean, is being controlled from three points: From South Africa, from Australia and from Singa pore. One is surprised by the success Australia had had in that part of the world. They have managed to establish active trade relations and direct diplomatic links. In many cases these things stem from small factors. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, for instance, once studied at an Australian university and consequently there is much goodwill from that part of the world towards Australia.

It does not seem to me that we are doing enough in that part of the world. It is true, of course, that we have consular representation in Hong Kong but this is only a free port; it is not a country; and it is not of international consequence. I want to suggest that there are unlimited opportunities for trade with that part of the world and once trade relationships have been established things may develop into something more significant.

We have representation in Japan and in Taipeh.

Yes, but I was thinking more of the Singapore complex and the area further south. But, as I see it, the great difficulty we are going to encounter in our moves in that part of the world is certain rigidities in our domestic situation. I am not trying to make political capital out of this but I think it is necessary that I should say it. I regret the fact that I have to draw myself into it but last year about December I happened to be in Indonesia. One day there came the news of the heart transplant by Professor Barnard. This was given front page treatment. It was featured by every newspaper, including the communist papers. IBut on the back page one could find a further instalment of the sad case of this little girl, Sandra Laing, who is neither white nor non-white. Our own people play tennis against India and the fact that South Africa had beaten the Indian team in the Davis Cup was featured in all newspapers in the East. But if you read further you could also read about the South African born ship’s captain who is married to a Japanese wife but cannot bring her to South Africa. The image created of South Africa is that of a technologically advanced society but an inhuman one. We all want to see the Minister having success in this field. I do not know what his influence in the Cabinet is—I hope it is considerable. I want to tell him that as long as we have these pinpricks he will have very limited success. In this modern world people do not understand how we can say that a Japanese wife cannot live in South Africa. It is not understood. After all, we have made them honorary Whites. In this case we have decided that pig iron is more important than pigmentation but when a Japanese wife wants to come here, she cannot be allowed in. That also is the answer to the hon. member, as far as America is concerned. They do not expect us to follow suit always. I have been told this a hundred times. They say it is like driving along a road; we do not expect you to drive at the speed at which we do. You can even stop from time to time to effect repairs to your car, but why must you drive diametrically in an opposite direction. That was the point of view I wanted to put to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, for a few moments only I shall return to the debate conducted here in regard to the question of Government policy and South Africa’s attitude in that connection, and whether the policy of the Government is in fact South African policy, and so forth. I want to start by saying that there may be a difference in regard to the official implementation and practical application of this policy of separate development as such, but that it has been the traditional South African way of life for more than 300 years, and that there will not be one unit in this sphere, but equality along individual lines. This is South African policy, and not merely Government policy. That is where the difference comes in, and that is where I agreed with the hon. member for Sea Point last night Our policy of being separate as such, is not necessarily linked with this party only; this has been the case for more than 300 years. The outside world did not revolt against this party and its policy. The outside world and especially U.N. revolted against the traditional South African way of life. I want to illustrate this very briefly. I think I can illustrate this very well. In 1947, before the National Party came into power, before there was any talk of the concept of apartheid as government policy, when General Smuts was Prime Minister and when South Africa was very popular with the world because it had just emerged from the Second World War on the side of the victors, U.N. was addressed by one of its foundation members, namely General Smuts. Even at that time, without the policy of apartheid, he was in disfavour with India and with the whole of U.N. owing to our traditional way of life in South Africa. Therefore it has nothing to do with the policy of apartheid as it is being implemented now. It has to do with our traditional way of life. The world of to-day and U.N. simply did not want to accept it. But I think that we have made a great deal of progress. It was in particular the responsible, calm and collected action taken by this Government. and pre-eminently by this Minister, that was largely instrumental in showing the outside world and illustrating to them that our traditional way of life could be implemented domestically without deviating from principles in any way, and was nevertheless reconcilable with the twentieth century world without being a discordant note to them. This is possible, because our domestic policy is based on the question of the equality of people, each in his own sphere. There is, therefore, no discrimination in our policy of separate development. We grant everybody equal benefits in his own territory. That is why this policy is acceptable to the world. We have only to be afforded the opportunity of conveying and bringing it home to the outside world. That is why we thank this Minister and his Department very cordially for all the publications which appeared in recent times and to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also referred; the publications in which it is being indicated plainly, practically, straightforwardly and by means of facts what our position in South Africa is, what we are doing in regard to these matters, and how everybody is being afforded his opportunity in South Africa on an equal basis. I want to invalidate this argument in one single movement: I say that all of us, whether we are Nationalists or United Party supporters or Progressives, can, in the first instance, be faithful and loyal South Africans abroad. We can differ with the Government on the implementation of its policy, and we can criticize it abroad with the greatest pleasure, but we dare not do an injustice to the traditional South African way of life or pretend that it does not exist, because then we would be untrue to ourselves and to South Africa. That is what the Whole matter is about, not about the question of whether or not the party’s policy and the policy of South Africa is uniform. Mr. Chairman, what is the primary task of the Government of South Africa, also in respect of foreign affairs? Its primary task is to maintain law and order inside South Africa. It is the basic, primary task of any government to maintain internal law and order, i.e. stability and a good way of life for everybody. If that is our fundamental task, then I say that it does not matter what means we employ in order to do so; basically that is our primary task. Once we have done that, even though those measures may be incomprehensible to the world, even though they may be unpopular abroad, then I say that it is nevertheless our fundamental duty to say that South Africa and her interests come first, to set matters right here first and then to bring home our policy to the outside world and to explain to the outside world why we are implementing it and why we are implementing it in this way, in spite of the fact that sometimes they do not understand it or do not want to understand it.

The whole situation in this regard is very clear to me. Once we have set matters right domestically and once we have created for all the population groups in South Africa opportunities of their own, as we are in fact doing, it is the task of our country—and it would be foolish not to present the other side of the picture—also to set right the image of our country abroad and to develop it there so that it will be possible for the outside world to understand us as well as all our problems, and so that it may also become acceptable to them. Mr. Chairman, we have made a break-through in a certain sphere, and I want to say at once that this is not a specific situation which has arisen now; it was the logical, obvious consequence of our policy, namely that we now have liaison with Malawi. For the purposes of the record I want to read out here a report on an interview conducted by President Banda of Malawi with Dr. Germani, a correspondent of Die Welt, a German publication, just to show you, Sir, how much goodwill this leader of black Africa already has towards South Africa and the objective view he takes of the whole matter. I want to read just a few thoughts from this report. The German journalist put the following question to Dr. Banda: “But your country does not believe in boycotts.” President Banda’s reply to this was: “No, I do not believe in boycotts. Of course, it will not work. Boycotting South Africa will not work; I repeat that.” Then the German journalist asked the following question—

This was Dr. Banda’s reply—

Sir, where would one previously ever have found a Black African leader adopting this calm, sensible and responsible attitude, at which even certain European countries might as well look with respect. Dr. Banda adopts a very distinct attitude in this regard, but I want to add at once: Various appeals were made here to the hon. the Minister by members on that side, appeals to the effect that he should, without any delay whatsoever, start entering into diplomatic relations with a number of black states; the names of certain states were mentioned. Madagascar, for instance, should be drawn in as soon as possible, and last night the hon. member for East London (City) said that all the former British Protectorates should now all of a sudden have ambassadors here. To-day this request was extended in all directions, even Zambia, etc., was included. Sir, I want to make a very serious plea to the hon. the Minister, i.e. that we should act calmly, composedly and responsibly in this regard, as we have done up to now, and that we should not act precipitately. The appeal I want to make to the Minister is that in this regard we should uphold the principle which has rendered the agreement with Malawi possible, namely that diplomatic relations will be established when the time is ripe and that we should not force this issue artificially; secondly, that we shall do so exclusively on a basis of unconditional friendship on both sides; thirdly, on a basis of non-intervention in each other’s affairs. If these factors are not present, then I say that the time is not ripe for us to enter into diplomatic relations with such states. I think that we should be calm and collected in this regard and that the State should act in a responsible way, as it has done in the past. I want to implore the Government to continue to act in this way. Mr. Chairman, what are the aotual facts of the matter? The actual facts of the matter are that the Whites in South Africa occupy a very special position. The Whites of South Africa ought to be the link between Western Europe and Africa and not the fly in the ointment, for the Whites of South Africa know the traditions, the culture, the customs and the civilization of the Western countries, but the Whites of South Africa have primarily been inhabitants of Africa for 300 years and they know Africa. That is why they ought to be the key to Africa and not the fly in the ointment. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a coincidence that you should call me immediately after the hon. member for Rand-fontein, who has now just resumed his seat. I should like to say a few words about a matter which he touched upon here. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation towards the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister for the work the Government has done and for what has been achieved as far as our relationships with our black neighbouring states are concerned. I also want to point out at the same time that we are doing South Africa a disservice when scoring cheap debating points in connection with what happened when the Prime Minister of a Black neighbouring state visited us and when certain Ministers of another Black neighbouring state visited South Africa. I am referring to the suggestion which was made here across the floor of the House to the effect that a permit had to be obtained in order to entertain them in the Mount Nelson Hotel. I want to warn hon. members that they are doing South Africa a disservice by making this kind of statement. They are merely supplying our enemies with ammunition and they are merely succeeding in prejudicing and presenting in a bad light those persons who have good relationships with us.

I want to confine myself to Malawi in particular. I know the country fairly well. I was there for quite a time during the war years, and I have a sound knowledge of many aspects of that country. I feel that it is my duty, pursuant to what the hon. member for Randfontein said here, to pay tribute to-day to those forgotten ambassadors who made it possible and who laid the foundations for South Africa to maintain friendly relations with Malawi today for us to have a friend in the person of the president of Malawi, namely those missionaries of our church who have gone to that country since earliest times. We are to-day reaping the fruits of their labours. I want to refer particularly to the educational work which was done there. It all began at a ministerial conference held at Cradock in 1886, when a number of ministers of religion came together and declared their intention of dedicating themselves to mission work. The place which they chose was Nyassaland. There were no funds and they had to build up funds out of their own salaries with which to do mission work. The first missionary was the Rev. A. C. Murray, who went to Nyassaland in 1888. The following year the Rev. Vlok also went. They collaborated with the Scots who were there already. The first Dutch Reformed Church mission station was established in 1889 at Mvera, which means “obedience”. I knew the country during the war years, when it was to a large extent a wild and fierce country, but in those years the Acewa were the subject of the Angoni. Raids were executed; wars were waged and the missionaries were in the midst of it all. The people pursued heathen practices, but the missionaries continued with their work. In 1889 the British Colonial Administration achieved a measure of orderliness when British administration was established there. The synod of the Dutch Reformed Church only took over the mission there in 1903, and more funds were made available. In 1922 there were five mission stations in Portuguese East Africa. In 1922 the Portuguese authorities closed down those five Dutch Reformed Church mission stations and the Afrikaner missionaries were driven out. I think that they regret that fact to the present day when they see what is happening in Malawi compared with what is happening in the Portuguese territory. I say this notwithstanding the fact that they have our sympathy.

To-day there are still 1,000 members of the Dutch Reformed Church or Presbyterian Church in Portuguese East Africa. The missionaries went there to teach the people about God and His Commandments but the missionaries found that one could not teach a man about God and His Commandments if he was illiterate and could not read and write. The mission work was based on a system of education and a fine system of education was established there. I say proudly that it was our Afrikaner missionaries who went to Malawi and who were responsible for the fact that Dr. Hastings Banda was educated in one of their schools, as were some of the Ministers who were here in South Africa.

In 1961, when the church there seceded, the educational properties, hospitals and so forth were worth R660,000. During 1967 the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, without laying down any conditions, granted R167,710 for educational work in Nyassaland. The main station, Mkoma, which I know well, has a hospital, a training centre, a theological school, a trade school and a printing press. Magnificent work has been done there. Just imagine what those people sacrificed and suffered. Children died there of tropical diseases. Their children who did survive were taken away from them at 7-8 years of age and sent to the south, and they only saw them every five years because there were no educational facilities for white children. My wife was one of them. My father-in-law was there for 40 years.

Sir, I want to apologize here for something I did a few times in my life when there was turmoil in Africa. Whenever countries in Africa became independent one had chaos and disorder. When the independence of Nyassaland appeared on the horison, and I frequently said to my wife: “Why did the people go there to waste their intellects, their time and their lives; look what is happening now; what have they got for it?” Mr. Chairman, I want to withdraw those words here, because to-day we are reaping the fruits of their labours; of the sacrifice which they made. At the time when I was there my father-in-law’s motor car in which he travelled and which is still in our possession to-day, travelled for the most part on chains because the roads were not negotiable. The Whites there never saw their own children, and to-day we are reaping the fruits of the work which they did there. Sir, it has almost been said jokingly in my presence that the conditions prevailing in our black neighbouring states to-day are only attributable to circumstances. That is not so.

If it were merely a question of circumstances, then an Afrikaner by the name of Louw Pretorius, who was principal of the high school at Mkoma during the time when I was there, would not have been appointed by President Banda a few months ago as chairman of the Censor Board of Malawi. I think that we as South Africans can feel proud of the fact that so much faith is placed in South Africans that a South African is appointed to such a responsible post. In other words, there we have an example of a sensible man with a sensible government which draws on the experience which we have gathered here in the south with the civilization and system of government which has been built up here. I think that we can pay tribute to those people who sacrificed their lives and careers and everything else. We are reaping the fruits of that to-day and I want to congratulate the Government and say only this: Go forward carefully but go forward on this road; carry on with the good work and the good relations which have already been established.

We on this side of the House have noted with appreciation the Opposition’s standpoint in regard to Rhodesia and the responsible spirit in which it was stated. Of course, the Government’s standpoint in respect of Rhodesia has been crystal clear since the beginning of Rhodesia’s independence. The Government’s standpoint has remained unchanged since U.D.I. It amounts to this, that the Government does not believe in boycotts, and especially not boycotts in Southern Africa, where the economies of all the states are so very closely interwoven and where so many serious attempts are in faot being made at the present moment to expand the economy of Southern Africa. The Government has believed all along that the Rhodesian dispute is a matter between Britain and Rhodesia, and not a matter for the U.N.; that it is a matter in regard to which Britain and Rhodesia themselves must and ought to find a satisfactory solution. The Government sincerely hopes that in spite of what has happened at the U.N. now, these two parties will nevertheless succeed in finding a solution to this dispute. I have still to study the text of the resolution adopted yesterday by the Security Council of the U.N. This is of course a matter which one should not discuss precipitately. I think hon. members opposite will agree with me that I should not comment upon it at this stage, particularly in view of the unanimity existing between the Government and the Opposition in respect of Rhodesia, particularly of late.

Amongst the speeches made under my Vote, there were good ones from both sides, speeches to which I could listen with appreciation and interest, and I am certain that some of them will be read with interest and will find a response in many parts of the world. It is not my intention to comment on all the speeches, but I shall confine myself to replying to questions that have been put to me. I must honestly admit that I was disappointed with the speech made by the main speaker of the Opposition yesterday. After my first reaction last night I pondered the matter again and I must say that I can find nothing or very little in his speech which was really useful and constructive. The hon. member need not be concerned about the utterances and actions of members on this side of the House. They will not embarrass me. I think he should rather concentrate on his own utterances and those of his fellow party members and see to it that those utterances do not prove an embarrassment to South Africa and to me.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout again discussed the unacceptability of South Africa’s domestic policy to the outside world. This is of course a very old theme which we have debated ad nauseum in this House, and to repeat those debates is quite fruitless. I have a great deal of proof and I can quote many resolutiions of the United Nations to you from which it appears unequivocally that the policy of the United Party is also unacceptable to the extremists at the United Nations, that it is as unacceptable to them as the policy of the present regime in Rhodesia, or the policy of the Portuguese. No, this is a case of the pot not being able to call the kettle black, and our position in the outside world does not depend upon concessions in respect of our policy either. The attacks which are being made on South Africa are aimed at the Whites here. The non-White extremists and the communists in the world want South Africa for themselves as a sphere of influence, and all of us in South Africa are opposed to that, not only we and our Opposition, but also the non-Whites and the responsible leaders of our non-Whites. In this regard there should be no suggestion of any disunity in our ranks.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also discussed the publications which were recently compiled by my Department with the assistance of other Departments and which we distributed abroad. I find it a pity that he made no constructive comments. I find it a pity that he expressed no appreciation for this work. I know these publications are not perfect, but I do think they are particularly useful and I think a word of appreciation would have encouraged my own officials and the officials of other Departments who gave such valuable assistance, and would have meant a great deal to them.

The hon. member for Houghton also referred to one of the publications, but it is very clear to me that she had not read that publication herself and that she had only read reviews of it. She thought that she had come across certain misrepresentations in that publication in regard to our court procedure. It is only natural that we would set out the normal court procedure in South Africa in a document of this nature. We did this, but we also went further. If the hon. member would take the trouble of looking at page 38 of this publication, she would see that we deal there with the extraordinary procedure in the case of communism and the special measures taken to protect our safety; and if she would read page 49, she would see that special procedures in our courts in regard to terrorism are dealt with there.

I have read it all.

The hon. member for Houghton asked whether any other objections had been received by the Government in regard to our legislation on South West Africa. The reply is yes. The hon. member also wanted more information in regard to the proposed mission to recruit immigrants for South Africa in Canada. I must inform the hon. member that although the application was dealt with by my Department, it is a matter which does not fall under me and that a question in regard to this matter has already appeared on the Order Paper, which will be replied to next week.

But to return to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: He launched a vehement attack in regard to the diplomatic residential area. However, the hon. member was not well-informed, or perhaps he was simply being wilful. He said that this type of diplomatic suburb was only to be found in communist countries, except in the case of Brazil. But we must remember that Brazil was planning a new capital where it was possible for them to introduce this advantageous system. There are other non-communist countries as well which have diplomatic residential areas, such as in New Delhi in India, and Canberra in Australia. Are they communist countries? No, the hon. member was trying to sow suspicion on the basis of facts which were not correct. As regards the cost of this diplomatic suburb, a question in this regard was replied to in the House of Assembly in February of this year. Unfortunately I cannot furnish final figures. At this stage negotiations are still in progress in regard to the price of the land.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked me to make a full statement of the Government’s policy in regard to diplomats from Africa. What is the purpose of that question? Is the purpose perhaps to cause friction or incidents in South Africa while there is no friction and while everything is functioning normally and smoothly? I need make no statement in this regard. What has been said, is quite adequate. All that I can say in this regard, is that nowhere in the world are there first and second class diplomats, not here in South Africa either. I have said this before, and I have repeated it, but apparently the hon. member does not want to accept it, i.e. that all diplomats, regardless of their colour enjoy the same privileges and immunities everywhere in the world, and in South Africa as well. What is more, the hon. member must not concern himself about air-hostesses from Malawi. In the first place they are not diplomats, and in the second I have received no complaints that their affairs have not been properly arranged. In fact, my information is that completely satisfactory arrangements have been made in their case.

The hon. member for East London (City), as well as the hon. member for Karoo, also discussed diplomatic representation. The hon. member for Karoo asked why we were exchanging diplomats in the case of distant countries, but not with our immediate neighbours. The reply is that this is so because it is impossible to communicate directly with those distant countries as we do in the case of our two neighbouring states, and incidentally, this direct method is much cheaper. Do hon. members realize how much it costs to open an embassy? If hon. members would take the trouble of paging through this book in which our Estimates appear, they would see that in the case of merely consular missions in Mozambique and in Angola, the cost of salaries to staff and allowances alone amounts to between R50,000 and R75.000. This does not make provision for the expenses in regard to the accommodation of these people. Where must our neighbouring states get the money from? Must we give it to them? And suppose they did have the money, could they not spend it much more profitably in their own countries on essential services and on the development of their own territories? Is that not a much more sensible, realistic and sober thing to do?

What are their wishes in this regard?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also referred to Madagascar. Now, there has been a good deal of speculation about the Malagasy Republic. I think hon. members know by this time that I am not unnecessarily secretive in regard to such matters, and that I take them into my confidence whenever it is in any way possible to do so. In this case, as in many similar cases—and there are many—there is no statement to be made at this stage. I hope the hon. member will accept this.

As regards South West Africa, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked me whether we were prepared to try to find a solution by continuing the dialogue. The reply to this question is contained in the document from which he quoted, namely a communication from myself to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In fact, the reply is contained in the same sentence; he just omitted that part. I should like to read the entire sentence to you—

There is therefore no question of give and take, as the hon. member insinuated. Our object with this kind of discussion in the past, and at present, is to convince the world that South Africa is best able and equipped to undertake the development of South West Africa and the emancipation of its population. That is the purpose of these discussions. It is to prove to and to convince the world that we can do it better than anybody else or any establishment or institution. We are continuing with discussions of this nature. Recently, for example, we held discussions in this regard both here and in the United States of America. These discussions are continuing. A question was asked in regard to what had happened about the invitations to heads of missions to visit South West Africa. Several of them have already visited the area, but unfortunately not all of them have gone there. A question was also asked in regard to the reaction of the Secretary-General to South Africa’s offer to receive his personal representative here. We have not received an official reply yet, but as hon. members have probably noted in the Press, certain circles and certain states are interested and are attaching value to this particular proposal. The hon. member for Karoo asked how African states were actually to know what treatment their people would receive in this country if they came here, whether officially or unofficially. Such persons from quite a number of African states are continually paying visits here. I want to point out that as far as official visits are concerned, an average of more than three such official visits from various African states were paid to South Africa per month in the past 12 months, while an average of more than four official visits from South Africa were paid to various African states per month. However, that is not all. During the past 12 months there were no fewer than 136 cases of Ministers from African states either visiting or passing through the Republic and making contact with us. I hope that hon. members on the opposite side will take note of this. I may also tell them that in all these cases we received only the highest praise and appreciation for the treatment accorded these persons here in the Republic. I hope that hon. members on the opposite side will cease to alarm potential visitors by insinuating that they will not meet with a good reception when they visit the Republic.

As far as mixed receptions in South Africa are concerned, the policy of the Government is very clear, as it has been ever since the late Dr. Verwoerd stated it here in this House. When both white and non-white South Africans—please note, South Africans—are invited to receptions held by foreign organizations, we do not attend those receptions, and we do not approve of them. That is the policy. But let me add at once that there has never been any objection on the part of the Government to such functions which were attended or even given by non-white diplomats, of whom we have for many years had several here in South Africa.

Reference was made to statements which my colleague and friend, Minister Schoeman, and I had made in regard to the possibility that South Africa should in future adopt a neutral attitude. Sir, what I said was that it was no wonder that many South Africans were beginning to ask themselves whether it was in South Africa’s interest to stand unconditionally by the West at all times. That is what I said, and nothing more. All I want to add to that to-day, is that the Western countries are and will remain our natural friends. It is a pity that our loyalty to and faith in the cause of the West do not always receive the necessary appreciation.

The hon. member for East London (City) has apologized for not being able to be present here. Both he and the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the possibility of establishing diplomatic relations with Israel. Let me say at once that we do have diplomatic relations with Israel. The possibility of exchanging diplomats with that country, just as in many other similar cases, is a matter which is constantly receiving the attention of the Government. It is true that we have no mission in Israel. Israel does, however, have a mission here. They have many interests in South Africa. There is a large, prosperous and happy Jewish community in South Africa. But then hon. members must also bear in mind that for several years Israel has not appointed an envoy to the post here, and that the post of head of their mission has for several years been filled here by a temporary charge d’affaires. Besides, Israel’s spokemen at the U.N. and elsewhere are inclined to try to win the favour of others by making hostile statements on South Africa’s domestic affairs. Sir, I hope they realize that this will not benefit their country and that it is not (the right procedure to win friends.

While I am on this subject, I may perhaps just say that the rest of the world would also do well to take note of this. There was a time when it paid the West to condemn South Africa left, right and centre, and when this was a sound political investment. If is also common knowledge that many Western governments have made it their aim to create the impression that they are the champions of the so-called “underdog”. It enables them to make a strong emotional appeal to the voters. But when they fail to improve the position of the “underdog” on their own home front, they look for a scapegoat. Then they look for a lightning conductor. When that happens they come forward with their attacks on and condemnations of South Africa. But those times are rapidly passing, if they are not already past. The time has come when more and more African states and African statesmen who have recently come to know us better are helping to rectify the distorted image of South Africa abroad. I need not refer you to a number of newspaper reports in this connection which have appeared recently, in the past week or two. I predict that this will happen to an increasing extent in future. I hope that it will also find an echo outside Southern Africa.

A great deal has been said about our relations with Africa. I listened to this with great appreciation. I want to say a few words about one of the most important states in Southern Africa, namely Zambia. The President of Zambia knows precisely where he stands with South Africa. Our Prime Minister and others have repeatedly stated our attitude towards Zambia quite explicitly. We have repeatedly warned him against the dangers of terrorism. We have made the aims of our Defence Force, i.e. defence and not aggression, very explicit, and have also pointed out that if it should become necessary, South Africa can hit back hard. The President of Zambia also knows very well what our policy is in regard to our neighbouring states and to co-operation, and on what conditions we are prepared to co-operate with others. But I think it is high time he begins to realize that he is sounding a discordant note in Southern Africa, where good neighbourliness is being practised, where the principle of non-interference in the affairs of others is being respected, and where we do not dictate to others how they should solve their internal difficulties. I think that it is in Dr. Kaunda’s interests to reconsider his attitude—in the interests of his country and all its people. The time has come for the leaders of Africa to realize that it is no longer always possible to win the favour of others by inveighing against South Africa and condemning us, or to take the lead in the vendetta against South Africa, as in the case of the so-called liberation of others, or to provide headquarters or other forms of assistance to terrorists. If Dr. Kaunda wants to play the role of a statesman in Southern Africa—and I believe that he is capable of doing so—and if he wants to promote the interests of his own people and his own country he should rather abandon the methods of Dr. Nkrumah and should take his cue from other African leaders who are co-operating with us, and who do not hesitate to tell the world that they are co-operating with us and that they believe in peaceful co-existence. He should do this rather than try to stir up feelings against us. It is true that Dr. Kaunda has in fact tried to rectify what he said last week, but I want to say to him now that he must reconsider his position. He must reconsider whether he should not play a more constructive role in Southern Africa, and whether he should not follow a policy of good neighbourliness towards us and others.

The hon. member for Etosha, who has also apologized for his absence, rightly pointed out the importance of railway links between neighbouring states to the development and the promotion of good relations. He referred, inter alia, to the possibility of constructing a railway-line between Livingstone and Grootfontein. Such a scheme would affect a large number of countries. For some it would entail great advantages as well as disadvantages, and for others perhaps disadvantages only. Before something of this nature could ever be considered, all the parties concerned would have to be consulted, and the co-operation of all of them would have to be obtained. But I think the hon. member will not expect the South African Government to become enthusiastic at this stage about such a scheme if Dr. Kaunda persists in the attitude he adopted last week.

The hon. member for Sea Point tried to be constructive. I appreciate that. He pleaded for a referendum to be held in South West Africa. But the extremists and the communists at U.N. have already shown repeatedly that it is not the wishes of the inhabitants of South West Africa that weigh heavily with them. They have proved quite clearly that it is not the interests—I think the hon. member referred to self-determination—of those inhabitants about which they are concerned. Their main objective is to expel South Africa there, come what may. On a previous occasion when a referendum was held they paid no heed to it. There is conclusive proof at the moment that virtually all the national groups in South West Africa are still on our side to-day. The leaders testify to this regularly and openly. They did so only last year when our Prime Minister visited most of them there. But these ring-leaders at the U.N. pay no heed to this either, because it simply does not suit them to do so. They will only be interested in the result of a referendum as long as that result will further their interests.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout put a question in regard to the expenditure of funds under the item “Aid to and co-operation with foreign countries”. This expenditure is of course not of a secret nature, and is subject to scrutiny by the Treasury and the Auditor-General. But I can inform the hon. member that these funds are being utilized mainly for technical aid, for example the provision of experts in many fields, the combating of diseases and plagues, the supply of drugs and medical equipment, the training of staff and experts, the rendering of assistance in regard to planning in general, and so forth. The hon. member also asked what the position was in respect of the final account in connection with the court case in The Hague. I may say that the costs amount to approximately R98O,OOO. I can only furnish an approximate amount, because all the accounts have not yet been finalized by the Paymaster-General.

The hon. member for East London (City) asked why there had been such a large reduction in the staff of our mission in London. In this regard I want to explain that the expansion of State purchases on the Continent of Europe in recent years has necessitated our having to expand our staff for this particular purpose on the Continent. Paris was chosen for this purpose. This entails a reduction in the number of administrative staff members who were previously used for this purpose in London. I may add that the diplomatic staff in London remains the same, and the mission in London remains one of the largest as far as purely diplomatic staff is concerned. The hon. member also referred to certain increases and decreases in expenses in the case of missions where the number of staff members remained the same. The explanation in this case is that the salaries of individual officials falling in the same grade vary quite considerably, because the scales are long ones. Some receive much more than others, although they are on the same scale. In addition, the allowances, which are included in this amount, depend upon factors such as the sizes of the families concerned, which fluctuate from one case to another.

Since I am now dealing with officials, I should like to make an announcement in regard to officials stationed abroad. I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to the Secretary of my Department and his staff, at head office and abroad for the hard work and faithful service which they have rendered under great pressure during the past year. My Department has indeed worked under very great pressure. They have acquitted themselves of their task very well indeed. Accordingly I am pleased to be able to announce here that officials stationed abroad will in future qualify for home leave in the Republic after three years of uninterrupted service abroad. The period used to be four years. The additional costs in this regard are exceptionally low. It amounts to R 18,000 for this year, because there are considerably more people who now qualify. But in future.

once the scheme is in full swing, it will be considerably less. In addition I can announce that the existing concession as regards the travelling privileges of children studying in the Republic is being expanded to cover two return trips per child per financial year, provided that during the financial year in which the parents visit the Republic on home leave, the concession in respect of the children will be restricted to only one return trip per child. In view of the fact that exceptional circumstances may sometimes arise which will necessitate the presence of one of the parents in the Republic, provision has also been made for one annual visit to South Africa by one of the parents, in lieu of one of the annual visits of the children to their parents.

In conclusion, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to statements which had been made by my respected Leader and Prime Minister in regard to the international position of South Africa. Let me say at once that the Prime Minister as well as I, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, and other members of the Government, have pointed out the encouraging progress which we have made in recent years in regard to our foreign relations. I think that hon. members will all agree with us that such progress has been made and is still being made. The entire world is impressed by this. But both the Prime Minister and I warned very specifically that as we progress, the onslaughts against South Africa will be intensified, that our enemies will become increasingly desperate and that their actions will become increasingly irresponsible. This is precisely what is happening. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to it. I must also remind hon. members of the fact that South Africa’s international difficulties are of course in many cases being aggravated by factors which are entirely beyond our control. In view of all this, the hon. the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet have all along emphasized the need for us to resist onslaughts from abroad more firmly than ever before, and the need for us to display a united front to the outside world. I want to repeat that warning here to-day. I want to appeal to members on the other side to make it possible for South Africa to face these onslaughts unanimously. Only when this unanimity exists can we go to meet our uncertain future with determination and with confidence.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes 41,—Commerce, R6,750,000, and 42,—Industries, R10,220,000, and Loan Vote J,—Industries, R4,750,000:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring two main headings to the attention of the hon. the Minister in the form of questions. First of all what is the Minister’s policy in regard to private enterprise and what is the Minister’s policy in regard to the Board of Trade report on retail price maintenance. I propose to deal firstly with the Minister’s policy in regard to private enterprise. I want to deal with this matter firstly in regard to the Industrial Development Corporation and secondly in regard to overseas businesses investing money in South Africa. I shall deal with the I.D.C. first. I would remind the hon. the Minister of the objects of the I.D.C. as set out in section I of Act No. 27 of 1942 which provides—

The objects of the corporation shall be—

1. (a) with the approval of the Governor-General to establish and conduct any industrial undertaking; and
2. (b) to facilitate, promote, guide and assist in the financing of—
   1. (i) new industries and industrial undertakings; and
   2. (ii) schemes for the expansion, better organization and modernization of and the more efficient carrying out of operations in existing industries and industrial undertakings,

The Minister will see from these objects as set out in section 3 of the principal Act that the emphasis is on industrial development. I should like to say at the outset that I have no criticism of the directors of the I.D.C. and the I.D.C. itself in so far as it has assisted the development of industry. I think that there are many industries in this country which would not be where they are to-day had it not been for the Industrial Development Corporation and the expert advice given by their technical officers and the men in administrative positions. I do feel that the I.D.C. in recent years has had the tacit support of the Government in going beyond this main object of industrial development. As I have said the emphasis is on industrial development. Yet how can the hon. the Minister justify the I.D.C.’s investment in mutual trust funds? How can the Minister say that it is in the interest of the country that the I.D.C.’s management and technical staff, and as the hon. the Minister knows they have great difficulty in getting technical staff, should be used in the field of mutual funds and take a prominent part in funds of this kind? I do not want to mention the names of particular funds. The Minister will know the funds to which I am referring. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would at a later stage indicate whether he approves of this development of the I.D.C. entering into the field of every industry whether there is room for development or whether the development is adequate or not. One gets the impression that the I.D.C.’s investigating staff, and they have young technical men qualified to investigate various schemes, are seeking to become executive officers and subsequently directors in the new companies taken over by the I.D.C. I cannot blame young men who wish to aspire to these executive positions but one gets the impression that the I.D.C. is empire building. Particularly in regard to the textile industry some of the leading figures in the textile industry fear that the I.D.C. can become one of their greatest competitors. I do not deny that the I.D.C. by its initiative has done a great deal to develop the textile industry. The textile industry would not be where it is to-day if it were not for the I.D.C. But has it gone far enough or has it gone too far? We do not get all the information. We get complaints from industry and when industry comes to us with these complaints there is a certain amount of fear on their part. They say: “This is the information and we can assure you that it is correct but please do not mention our names.” That is the unfortunate position in which the Opposition finds itself. On the other hand one does not want to mention the names of individual firms in this House. But that there is unrest and a certain amount of fear is obvious from the discussions we have had. When one goes overseas one is concerned about this position. As most South Africans who have business do, we encourage overseas firms to come and invest in South Africa. One is surprised on occasion when one hears what is said. They say: “We have been advised by the overseas staff of various embassies that the best way to get our business into South Africa is to contact the Board of Trade and the I.D.C. If you can get the I.D.C. interested in your company and give them a share in your company and preferably give them a seat on the board you generally have a very clear field afterwards.” That is another tendency which I have noticed in recent years, namely the tendency of the I.D.C. to demand a share of the equities. I do not think that it was ever intended that the I.D.C. should remain in many of the companies they have assisted. Companies come to them for a loan, the loan is granted after proper investigation and then the company goes about its business and subsequently repays its loan. I know of many companies which have been successful in this regard. In some cases the I.D.C. takes a quarter of the shares. In recent years there has been the tendency on the part of the I.D.C. to demand a share of the equities. My submission is that that is not their job. I submit that they should be mainly concerned with financing industry so that industry can get onto its feet. The I.D.C. is in recent years obviously being used as the instrument for putting into effect the Government’s policy of border industries. I submit that the I.D.C. should only be concerned with economic development. In one particular case they have been used to clear up a mess. I know that in the case of Hammarsdale it was not the choice of the I.D.C. to have industrial development in that area. Industry had come to that area. It was badly planned and the facilities for industry there were not as they should have been and eventually in order to clear up the difficulties in that area the Government called in the I.D.C. After several years they were able to clear up the area. Now one of the last things being introduced into that area is Bantu housing whereas housing should have been one of the first things to be established when the factories were erected there. I will not go into that matter because it can be raised again later under the Bantu Administration Vote.

I do feel that it is time that the Minister should indicate whether he is satisfied with the present policy being followed by the I.D.C. or whether he does not think that he should review the situation because the policy followed by the I.D.C. in recent years indicates beyond any doubt at all that they are going beyond the original objects of the I.D.C. There is also a tendency to empire building which should be discouraged.

I come now to the next sub-head, namely the question of overseas concerns investing in this country. There have reoently been suggestions in the Press that overseas concerns which invest in this country should make a portion of the equities available to South Africans. Suggestions have been made along those lines and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether that is the Government’s policy or whether it is intended to be the Government’s policy If there is any suggestion of forcing oversea countries to give equity to South African companies, I think that should be discouraged. I want to make it quite clear that I think oversea companies should give an equity to South Africans but it should not be by compulsion. [Time expired.]

Notwithstanding everything which the hon. member for Pinetown said here this afternoon, things about which I disagree with him, it was still very gratifying to hear the hon. member for Pinetown also saying at this stage, “Where would our industrial development in this country have been without the assistance of the I.D.C.”. The fact of the matter is that since the days of the first Hertzog Government we have always encountered opposition from this Opposition and its predecessors to the establishment of our own industries in South Africa …

Tripe!

For that reason we are very gratified to hear the hon. member for Pinetown speaking with appreciation of what the I.D.C. has done to establish and promote our own industries in South Africa.

The hon. member complained that overseas companies which want to establish industries in South Africa at the present time are actually being forced or that pressure is being brought to bear upon them to give a part of their equities as well as representation on their board of directors to the I.D.C. Sir, I have no fault to find with the I.D.C. obtaining a share of such industries. On two occasions we have witnessed that when such industries get into their stride, the I.D.C. is prepared to hand over its share to South African investors. We first witnessed this in the case of Industrial Selections, and we have just witnessed it again in the case of National Selections, and I can find nothing wrong with South Africans obtaining a share in this way in overseas companies which establish industries here. After all is said and done, it seems to me as though the obtaining of a share in those industries by the local people, is a very sound economic principle.

Then the hon. member also complained about the assistance given by the I.D.C. to border industries. I can also find nothing wrong with that, because were it not for these border industries, we would easily have had a quarter of a million more Bantu in and around our cities in the past seven years. This is in exaot agreement with our policy that the influx of Bantu into our cities should be arrested as far as possible. I therefore find nothing wrong with the fact that everything is put into operation, including assistance from the I.D.C., for promoting those border industries as far as possible in order to arrest the influx of Bantu into our cities.

I now want to leave the hon. member for Pinetown at that, and I want to express my very great appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his two Departments which are under discussion at the moment, for the excellent progress which we have made with our exports. Over the past few years all kinds of measures have been applied by the authorities for assisting and promoting our exports, and these measures are now beginning to bear fruit. The latest import and export figures have just become available, and from these figures it appears that our imports during the first four months of this year amounted to R626.2 million and that our exports amounted to R527.6 million, which leaves an unfavourable trade balance of R98.8 million only as against R264.5 million for the. same four months last year, a tremendous improvement of R165.9 million on the position last year. This means that our imports last year were covered by exports to the extent of 61.1 per cent only and this year to the extent of more than 84 per cent. In view of the fact that our unfavourable trade balance is R98.6 million at the present time and that our gold production for the same period exceeded R250 million, it is clear that our balance of payments position is very favourable. We want to express our sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister and his two Departments on this account and for all the measures for promoting export which were taken, in order to obtain this very favourable position.

Mr. Chairman, I want to proceed and say a few words about the amount of R4 million which is being voted for the Department of Commerce as compensation to exporters in respect of the British devaluation in November 1967. I want to say in all modesty that I think that that R4 million will be too little, but I have every confidence that we may safely leave the matter in the hands of the hon. the Minister and the Government because they understand the position very well. I want to point out that I do have the figures for this year’s exports, but because they have been given to me in confidence, I do not want to make use of them here across the floor of the House. For the purposes of my argument I shall therefore use last year’s export figures. In the case of our deciduous fruit crop, a net amount of R30 million was earned in the United Kingdom last year. From that must be deducted R9 million in respect of freight and other charges between South Africa and Britain. This leaves a net amount of R21 million. If we take the 14.3 per cent devaluation into account, we find that the industry suffers a loss of R3 million through devaluation. For canned fruits, wine, brandy, etc., we can add another R3 million which brings the figure to at least R6 million, and this only relates to the export industries of the Western Cape which have, of course, been most severely hit by devaluation. This position will naturally improve in due course in view of the fact that the cost of living price index in Great Britain has already increased by 3.9 per cent since 18th November, the first six months after devaluation. This has the effect that prices increase so rapidly that we may expect that these price increases in Great Britain will eliminate devaluation losses after a few years have elapsed. But at present the exporters are very hard hit, and that is why I am courteously bringing these matters to the attention of the Minister. It is a fact that when we call upon our farmers outside not to be obsessed by Government aid alone, but rather to put everything possible into operation in order to improve efficiency, the accusation is hurled at us from the side of the Opposition that we are unsympathetic towards our exporters. This is not so, Sir. We want to appeal to the Opposition rather to assist us when we call upon our exporters to take efficiency to the highest level because a much greater threat than devaluation awaits us,, and. that is the possible entry of Great Britain into Euromart. That is a much greater threat to us, and in that case the Opposition will not >be able to reproach us that the Government is to blame for South Africa not devaluing and for exporters suffering a loss as a result. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Paarl who has just sat down seems to have been living in dreamland. I want to point out to him that the Industrial Development Act was first introduced in 1940, and to suggest that we have criticized the Industrial Development Act is, of course, sheer nonsense. What we have criticized is the fact that they have gone beyond their object, namely economic development. We reserve our right to criticize when we feel that the I.D.C. is going beyond its object of promoting economic development.

Sir, when I was interrupted by the time limit, I was dealing with the question of oversea concerns investing in South Africa. I hope that the hon. the Minister does not intend to compel firms which establish industries in this country to give some of the equity to South Africans. I hope he will encourage them to do so and I hope that he will encourage companies to invest in this country. We do not want to see oversea companies coming to this country, floating a company here with a token investment of R1,000, getting a large bank overdraft on the basis of a guarantee and then getting assistance from the Industrial Development Corporation so that they are virtually in a position of having very little real investment capital in this country. Thereafter when profits are made they repatriate those profits overseas, and if profits are not made they liquidate their liabilities. It may have the effect of disrupting the conomy when they leave suddenly after finding that their venture is not successful. That kind of development is not healthy for the country. Sir, I mention this because one gets the impression sometimes that the Government’s object in recent years has been to go in the direction of self-sufficiency. We would like to know whether that is the Government’s object, because we do not want to see industries developed in this country which cannot eventually stand on their own feet against the outside world. Companies which have to be subsidized or unduly protected for an indefinite period because their products cannot compete in the world markets, can in the long run become an embarrassment to this country.

Sir, I am surprised to read in the report of the I.D.C. that they recently started a venture in tea production in this country. On page 23 of the report they say that they started in the northern Transvaal but suffered a setback because of the severity of three years’ drought. Then they started another scheme in Zululand where they have had similar difficulties because of droughts. Sir, anybody who knows anything about tea will know that there have been many failures before in this country in the tea market. The world’s leading tea people have never regarded South Africa as a teaproducing country because one of the main essentials for a teaproducing country is cheap peasant female labour, and in the areas in which the I.D.C. has established this industry, the required factors are not present, apart from the climatic conditions.

Then one sees later on in the report that they have ventured into the chemical industry, through Sentrachem. They have acquired the entire issued capital of Carboohem. Klipfontein Organic Products, National Chemical Products and Synthetic Rubber Company. Our surprise is based on the fact that the Minister’s predecessor was very eloquent about the necessity of disposing of Klipfontein Organic Produots and handing it back to private industry. Klipfontein Organic Products was started by the United Party Government during the war years, and afterwards the Government persuaded us that it was necessary to sell it to private enterprise and now we find that it is an industrial Development Corporation venture. When does this beoome private enterprise and when does it become a Government venture? Then we find the I.D.C. interested in a new oil company, in developing oil with Iran and Total. If that is for strategic reasons then I can understand it. Is it for economic reasons that the I.D.C. is coming into this or are there not enough petrol companies? I hope the Minister will give us the reason for that venture.

Which venture?

The latest venture of the I.D.C. where they are going into business with Iran and with Total.

But they are not in it.

But Sasol is in it. That is where we lose the string. The I.D.C. holds all the shares in Sasol, but of course it is not the I.D.C. we cannot get the end of the string under this remote control where we have no control by Parliament. That is what concerns us. When things go wrong, we do not know anything about it. Then things can be covered up. Talking about things going wrong, some years ago I put it to the Minister’s predecessor whether he was considering a reexamination of the capital structure of Sasol. In the early years of Sasol a lot of capital was lost, some R25 million, I think it was. I asked whether the time had not arrived for the capital structure of Sasol to be reexamined with a view to writing off that capital which was lost and which had been experimental.

I come now to the other matter to which I referred in my earlier speech, and that is the, Minister’s policy in regard to retail price maintenance. We have had a Board of Trade report and the recommendations were, in regard to retail price maintenance, that it was opposed to it because—

This report refers to retail price maintenance, but what is the Minister’s attitude to other price arrangements with regard to certain industries? I do not want to mention the industries, but I think it is well known that in certain industries they have a price arrangement, and the price arrangement is either known to the Minister’s Department and is tacitly approved or it is encouraged by the Minister’s Department. I should like to know what the Minister’s attitude is in regard to not only retail price maintenance, but price agreements which keep a price within a ring and all those in the ring benefit and all those outside the ring are discouraged or squeezed and are eventually eliminated from business. I think those are matters which concern the public, particularly at a time when people are complaining about increased costs, and I suggest that if the Minister is opposed to retail price maintenance we would like to know by what logic he supports other price maintenances in other fields, and to what extent he regards this as being in the public interest.

Ten minutes is a very short time and I do not think the hon. member for Pinetown will expect me to follow up his arguments.

I want to deliver a serious plea to-day for the further economic development of the border areas of the Transkei and the Ciskei, in other words, as it is called in English, the Border, i.e. the area of King William’s Town. Queenstown and East London.

Now we are going to have rain.

I shall still come to that hon. member. He must just exercise a little patience. The Transkei is the first Bantu homeland which we placed on the road to self-government and it will be followed to an increasing extent along that road by the Ciskei. I think that it is very important for the success of our policy that political development go hand in hand with economic development. I think that the political development will be so much more successful if there is comparable economic development, in other words, if there is work for these people, if there is an income for them, and if there is satisfaction.

Come and join us.

We want to keep as many people as possible in the Transkei and the Ciskei. That is our policy. We must in any case try to accommodate the natural increase in the population within the homeland and also within the white neighbouring areas. Now I want to say that the towns of the border are to-day experiencing a very great, and I can almost say a tremendous, pressure of numbers. I come from there and I know what I am talking about. There are many black people. We are trying to keep them there as much as possible, but they are increasing rapidly and, not that it is the Government’s fault, but opportunities for employment are not keeping pace with the labour needs in those parts. My clear, direct and very serious request to the hon. the Minister to-day, is that the Government should help us in this area and that additional industrial incentive measures should be introduced for this area. The present measures were sufficient in other areas where the other additional circumstances were favourable, such as at Pretoria and in Natal, to launch border area development there. It has also helped in our area and we are grateful for the development which there already is, but I should like to tell the Minister that a special effort is necessary to establish and develop really strong industrial complexes in the Border. [Interjection.] The hon. member for King William’s Town is really very impatient; I am coming to him. This incentive must especially, in my opinion, be aimed at giving assistance as regards the transportation of industrial goods to the major consumer centres. Experience has shown that the present 10 per cent rebate is not quite sufficient for that area, which is so far removed from our large consumer centres. This is actually my entire request and I just want to repeat that I am to-day pleading for the border, for Queenstown, King William’s Town and East London, for that whole area. The need for that exists and the time, in my opinion, is now very ripe. I think that this can only be achieved in one way and that is that for a shorter or a longer period strong additional incentive measures must be applied in order to attract industrialists there. I am asking for this because other persons who ought to do so, are not doing so. That is why I am now delivering this plea. What do they do? The hon. member for East London challenged me and the hon. member for King William’s Town laughed at me, but what do they do? They make fun of it. They decry those efforts. They run down what has been achieved and make fun of it. They discourage the industrialist from going there and they make the white worker on the Witwatersrand apprehensive. [Interjections.] They delight in the so-called failure.

Is it a failure?

I shall come to that as well. The hon. member for Yeoville stood up in this House this year and this is what he said, and I find it a great joke. He said (Hansard. 1968, Col. 82)—

And then the hon. member for Transkei spoke and he said (Col. 94)—

He said: “Just name a new industry which was started in East London,” and then the hon. member for Yeoville said: “Why are you so inarticulate now?” Here it is on page 95 of Hansard No. I of this year. Those hon. members for Transkei and Yeoville rode around for a week and they did not find one industry, but they had so little confidence in the hon. members for East London (North), East London (City) and King William’s Town that they did not go and ask them. He rides around for a week and cannot find one industry and he challenges us across the floor of the House to name one. Here is a letter from the Town Clerk of East London in which he says that in 1964 four new industries were established, and he mentions their names, in 1965 two—time will not permit me to mention all of them— in 1966 six, and in 1967 five. Then he says: “The value of building plans passed for extensions to existing industries” is as follows, and then he gives the figures for 1962, 1963 and 1964, when it was more than R1 million: in 1965 it was almost R2 million; in 1966 it was R1.25 million, and in 1967 it was R616,000. He said that they sold land to 25 existing industries for development, but as far as new industries are concerned, the industries which those hon. members could not find in a week, in connection with which they had so little faith in their two colleagues there that they did not even go and ask them, because they probably did not know about it, there were 17 industries …

Was that in East London itself?

Look, the Transkei and the Ciskei complexes are continuous and this industrial area of which I am speaking is situated nearby. Here the hon. member mentioned Queenstown, but Queenstown is not a border industry area of the Transkei. [Interjections.] If the hon. member says that, he knows nothing. Queenstown is a border industry area on Glen Grey, which forms part of the Ciskei. The Transkei and the Ciskei are in one area and the border industry development in that area is one concept. I am pleading for that area because the hon. members who sit here and should do so, are not doing so; because they try to run down the concept and make South Africa apprehensive about it, not only the industrialists, but also the white workers; and because they try to ridicule it and delight in what they call failures, while there has already been considerable progress and while the Daily Despatch wrote a month or two ago about “East London’s Golden Mile”. Since this policy was introduced, something is at least happening in East London, King William’s Town and Queenstown to a certain extent, but I repeat that it is not enough. Therefore I am pleading to-day for a major and strong step forward for the establishment of an industrial complex in that area, in the interests of that area, in the interests of the inhabitants of the Transkei and the Ciskei and in the interests of the policy which we want to implement in respect of the non-Whites in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I welcome the conversion of the hon. member for Queenstown, or shall I say reconversion. It is with great joy that we hear him pleading the case of the United Party, the case which we have put over and over again, namely that of finding jobs for people who are displaced as a result of Government policy. The hon. member referred here to a speech by the hon. member for Yeoville. He ought to have known that the hon. member for Yeoville was dealing with the Transkei and that he was speaking of a tour of the Transkei when he asked the question: Where are the border industries on the borders of the Transkei? Are the people going to live in the Transkei and work in East London every day—this never-never idea of living in your own country while every morning you cross the border to go and work in the white man’s land and then again at night you go and sleep with your family. Are they going to work in East London and sleep at home every night? Is that his idea of border industries for the Transkei? What he said is of course right. There are many other people who agree with him. I want to quote from a Chambers of Commerce journal of March, 1968—

How often have we been saying that? How often have we been warning of the danger of moving people out of places where there is work and creating a workless proletariate with nothing to do. At last we have a convert. We have a member who supports us in our pleas. I remember some five, six or seven years ago when I spoke in East London. I warned that this dream of the Nationalist Party of solving the problems of development by their border area scheme would not work. I warned that this was pie in the sky. And who attacked me? That hon. member and his colleagues, plus the Chamber of Industry, the Border Development Corporation, the East London City Council, the Daily Despatch, and everyone else.

And Robbie de Lange.

I was hammered and particularly by Robbie de Lange. I was hammered, hammered from every quarter because I dared to suggest that the border industry scheme would not solve the problems of economic development in that area. And now I get the hon. member for Queenstown supporting that which I got hammered for saying five or six years ago. It is now simply proven that what we have said all along is a fact. Listen to what another spokesman for industry says in the “Commercial Opinion” of September, 1967. I read the following short extracts—

These were the things complained of. I go on—

I have other quotations here. It is not working and it is not solving the problems. And I am glad that that hon. member realizes it and comes out now ana admits it.

Mr. Chairman, in the moment or two that I have left I want to make two pleas to the hon. the Minister. The one is for a simplification of the customs tariff. When we raised problems with the hon. the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Minister correctly pointed out that the tariff schedules are drawn up by the Board of Trade. They recommend protection and the Departments of Finance and Customs simply take over those definitions and incorporates them into the Customs Act. But this Customs Act has become an impenetrable jungle, as I have said under a previous vote. And I plead with the hon. the Minister to take steps to ask the Board of Trade to reconsider the whole position and to try and simplify the whole issue. I know the problems of the Brussels Agreement. I know the problems of protecting specific industries. But I also know that it should be possible to overcome these problems. I therefore plead with the hon. the Minister to tackle this problem of a simplified customs tariff. In the second place I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to intercede with this Government. An industrialist to-day is absolutely throttled by a multiplicity of controls. If he wants to start a factory he has to go to the Department of Planning, he has to go to Bantu Affairs, to Labour, to Community Development for a building permit, to Commerce and Industry for water and other things, and to the Minister of Finance if there is any exchange control. He has to go to department after department and official after official. And to-day industrialists are becoming intimidated by this multiplicity of control. I want to congratulate the few industrial leaders who have had the courage to come out and criticize the things that are harming industry in South Africa. But equally I want to criticize those that are so darn scared of opening their mouths that they have allowed themselves to be treated like doormats and to be trampled on by the regulations, rules and the myriad army of officials who to-day control the life of industry. I think that those who have come out deserve our congratulations. I believe that industrialists themselves should speak up for their rights and try and oppose this slow strangling of free enterprise in South Africa by the growing monster of bureaucracy which is to-day taking over the whole of our economic and industrial life. There is no industry in South Africa to-day which is not dependent for its very existence upon the whim of officialdom, whether it be job reservation, labour regulations, or whether it be one thing or another. From morning to night whole staffs of clerical people have got to become experts in the millions of regulations which cover them. And if the hon. the Minister really wants to see industry go forward, if he really wants to see progress, then he should take a stand with his own Government. He should take a stand with his own Government and fight, not for more restrictions, more regulations, but for the removal of restrictions and the freeing of the spirit of true private enterprise. Finally, the hon. member for Paarl said that this side of the House has always opposed industrial development. I have here a circular issued on the 2nd February, 1968, by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. It lists 14 Acts administered by his department in regard to industry. Of those 14 Acts 12 are the work of the United Party. The Monopolistic Conditions Act is a new one. There are a number of consolidated ones, re-enacted from previous Acts. In fact the only new one is the Monopolies Act. The others were all United Party legislation. In other words, the whole structure on which industry to-day exists, namely 13 of the 14 laws under which industry functions and operates to-day, were the work of the United Party Government.

Including Iscor and Sasol.

I am sorry. I said 13 originally. That is the one I have missed. Iscor, yes.

Was Sasol started under the United Party?

Sasol was started under the United Party’s Fuel from Oil Act. The hon. member does not know his political history. When I was still at school in Pretoria the first oil from coal experiments were taking place right next door to the school which I attended. That was done under a United Party Act. There are 12. He has corrected me. I omitted Iscor. But there was an Iron and Steel Act of 1919 before that. It was General Smuts’ Iron and Steel Act. It is all our work. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring a certain matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Because my time is so limited, I cannot follow the example set by the previous hon. member. However, I shall try not to blow up a minor matter to such an extent that the Minister can cause it to burst by pricking it with a pin as was the case with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I want to speak in pursuance of an article which appeared in Tegniek and which dealt with Iscor and the export of pig-iron and in which it was alleged that approximately 500 million tons of pig-iron will be exported during the next 30 years from the Sishen-Postmasburg complex, where it is alleged an estimated 4,300 million tons of reserve deposits exist, as well as in pursuance of a report which appeared in Die Burger and in which it was stated that Iscor wanted to convey ore to the coast by means of a pipeline. In view of these ore deposits and the possibility of exporting pig-iron, we naturally have to look for methods or means to convey such pig-iron to the coast or to a port. One way of conveying this ore, is of course to rail it. Another alternative which is now being investigated, is conveyance by means of a pipeline. The hon. the Minister himself said that this aspect as regards the conveyance of pig-iron by means of a pipeline in which water would be used, was still being investigated at that stage. There are three places where the ore could possibly be conveyed to by means of a pipeline, namely Richard’s Bay on the east coast, Saldanha Bay and also Buchu Berg Bay. But if we listened to the speech made by the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs in which he said that South Africa would have exceeded the total potential of its available water sources towards the year 2000, one asked oneself whether there was an adequate supply of water in South Africa to convey the ore in this manner. Another aspect as regards a pipeline, is the fact that it is an expensive undertaking as well as the fact that no secondary development can take place along this pipeline. For this reason I should like to make out a case for the conveyance of the pig-iron by rail. This will not only be a method of conveying the pig-iron, but it can promote the development of the country at the same time. This is probably the best alternative. When thinking in terms of the conveyance of pig-iron by rail, one thinks of ports on both the western and eastern side of our country. When considering the Sishen-Post-masburg complex one finds that the latter is connected with a port such as Port Elizabeth, which is already overcrowded to-day. It is felt that a port must be found somewhere along the west coast and I am aware of the fact that a deep-sea port has to be found. Saldanha Bay was also mentioned as a possibility. If the pipeline cannot be used as an alternative method of conveyance, one thinks in terms of conveyance by rail. I want to submit to the hon. the Minister this friendly request to-day, and that is that Luderitz Bay should also be considered when this matter is being investigated. I should like to advance my reasons for this request. When consideration was given to ports along the west coast, the name of Buchu Berg was mentioned. But the hon. the Minister of Transport gave a clear reply to the effect that it would be too expensive at that stage to establish a port at Buchu Berg. He mentioned the amount of R170 million in respect of the railway line and R30 million in respect of the port. This amounts to approximately R200 million, which is very expensive. But when one thinks in terms of an alternative port along the west coast, I think Luderitz Bay is a very suitable place. In the first place, I just want to mention that Luderitz has very deep water. At Sheer Water Bay, for example, one finds deep water within a small distance from the coast. The second aspect I want to stress, is the fact that when Postmasburg is to be linked with Upington, a railway line 120 miles long will have to be built. This is much shorter than a linking-up with Buchu Berg. From Upington a railway line goes directly through South West Africa to Luderitz. Over and above the fact that such a railway line will be able to convey the pig-iron, it may also bring about enormous secondary development for those parts in the south of South West Africa and the North Western Cape. The other argument which was advanced, namely that such a railway line would not be economic because it would have no return traffic, can be ruled out because development is going to take place there. Because a larger area can be served, there will be return traffic. Another advantage attached to this project as far as South West Africa is concerned, is that the route from South West Africa to Johannesburg will be shortened by plus-minus 150 miles. For this reason I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of stressing the fact that Luderitz should also be taken into consideration when this matter is investigated. There are sound reasons for doing so. In summary, we already have a railway line there. The aspect of costs will therefore be much less. Such a linking will serve a larger area. From a strategic point of view, with a slightly larger port and more development Luderitz will mean a great deal more to the west coast because it is centrally situated on the coast. For this reason I should like merely to mention this to the hon. the Minister and to make representations to him in all friendliness that Luderitz should also be considered as a possible alternative, as a port to which this ore may be transported, together with all the advantages attached to it.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to comment on the appeal of the hon. member for Karas for certain local interests, which he quite rightly brings before this House, but I do want to say the following. We, like the hon. member, are becoming concerned about the question of our iron exports. We believe that we are losing ground to other countries, particularly perhaps to Australia, on the long-term supply of iron ore to the Far East. We believe that to a large extent this is due to the fact that our rail rates are high, and that adequate facilities for moving the iron to port of export are not satisfactory. Port facilities leave much to be desired if we are going to really develop, over the next 10 to 20 years, large exports of iron ore. I hope the hon. the Minister will use his influence with the Minister of Transport, particularly to see if this matter cannot be planned on a longterm basis. We shall deal with this more fully when we come to the Mining Vote, when we will take up the matter with the bon. the Minister of Mines.

But I want to turn to a completely different issue, namely the question of the Kennedy Round. On the 15th March this year the hon. the Minister issued a statement on the Kennedy Round negotiations, in which we were told that the British Government had informed the South African Government, and I quote—

That statement, as I say, was issued by the hon. the Minister on the 15th March. We know that during the Kennedy Round discussions which took place last year, the participating countries agreed to tariff reductions by two alternative methods. The first was a reduction by five equal annual instalments, beginning on the 1st January, 1968; or alternatively, two-fifths of the reduction on the 1st July, 1968, followed by three annual reductions, beginning on 1st January, 1970. It seems quite clear from the statement issued by the hon. the Minister, to which I have already referred, that Great Britain chose the second formula. In other words, she would have introduced tariff reductions commencing on July, 1968, with the final reduction in January, 1972. Now we are told that in an endeavour to get the United States not to reintroduce import and other trade restrictions, Britain and other leading nations have offered to reduce their tariff by 40 per cent as from the 1st July, 1968, which of course was Great Britain’s original intention and the remainder, 60 per cent of the reductions, by 1st January, 1969—that is the 1st of the coming year— thus anticipating the final reductions of tariff, based on the Kennedy Round negotiations, by nearly two years. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is nearly two months since the hon. the Minister issued his statement. Since then we have heard nothing further, at least not to my knowledge. I have seen no further reports or statements. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon whether there have been any further developments in this matter. Has the United States accepted the offer from Britain and the other leading nations to expedite tariff reductions in exchange for the United States agreeing not to go ahead with her re-imposition of restrictive trade measures?

I think the House would also like to know who are the other leading countries, to whom the hon. the Minister referred. He mentioned Great Britain “and other leading countries”, but we are quite in the dark as to whom the “other leading countries” are. I presume the hon. the Minister and his advisers have taken cognizance of the GATT rules and regulations and that they are satisfied that What the United States proposes to do is consistent with article 12 of GATT’s rules. Of course, we all know that the GATT regulations seem to be very strange within themselves. It seems that practically anybody can do anything they like under GATT’s rules, and then another nation has the right merely to inquire why they have done it. There does not seem to be any stronger remedy, particularly in reference to this type of restrictions, but perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us that he is satisfied that the spirit of GATT is being adhered to. Now we know that the United States have a balance of payments problem, and GATT makes provision for this. But we would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied. as I have said, that the spirit of the agreement is being adhered to.

Another matter I would like to inquire from the hon. the Minister is how we stand in relation to Great Britain in regard to bound preferences which we have with the British Governmènt. How are we affected if this new situation arises? The hon. the Minister, when he spoke on the Commerce and Industry Vote last year, said the following in Hansard (volume 21, column 5951)—

That is a good statement, and one which we subscribe to fully. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether we are to receive compensation from the British Government as. he mentioned last year, and furthermore. if these tariff reductions are going to be anticipated by two years, as mentioned in the hon. the Minister’s statement, whether he is going to ask the British Government for further compensation. Because, as I understand, the Kennedy Round was an arrangement made by all the nations who were present, and it seems to me that this is a radical change by one of these parties to the negotiations.

I think the House would also like to know, irrespective of whether the conditions mentioned in the hon. the Minister’s statement will come about or not, whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied that we in South Africa have taken sufficient steps to meet the conditions which we will have to face as a result of the Kennedy Round reductions. We would like to know this whether the reductions are going to be anticipated by two years, or whether they are going to take their normal course. They are obviously going to affect us. I know that the hon. the Minister and his Department has been in touch with industry in this regard. But there are two aspects to this matter as the hon. Minister rightly said. The one concerns what we will lose by the loss of our preferences with Great Britain, but secondly and perhaps as important are the benefits we may gain by a general reduction in tariffs. I should like the hon. the Minister particularly to tell us what steps we are taking to see that South African goods are going to get into those countries where we will enjoy new benefits. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown will probably excuse me if I do not follow him. The Minister is in a far better position to reply to the questions the hon. member put to him. It really is a pity that every time we have a debate on economic affairs the debate is not used to promote economic affairs throughout the Republic. The Opposition only wants to try to concentrate the economy of the country in certain parts of the Republic, particularly in those parts where such concentration is already aggravated by traffic congestion which causes much disruption and where we are already finding it very difficult to-day to establish proper routes of communication, where our electricity supply already cannot provide in all the needs and where our water supply so creates many problems. When the National Party comes forward with a policy which is applied not only in the Republic, but also in all the major Western countries, namely to decentralize industries, the United Party always tries to belittle this great task, which is definitely not an easy task, and to look down upon it and to cast suspicion on it. We had the point of view of the hon. member for Durban (Point) a moment ago. The hon. member said that no progress was being made as far as border industries were concerned. In this connection I would like to read an extract from an article entitled “Demand for Border Area Sites”—

It is stated further—

When we go further, we find that this year that fixed capital investment amounts to R220 million in 12 of those areas. Is this not progress? Is this not sufficient proof to the hon. members that the Government takes a serious view in respect of this problem? When the hon. member for Queenstown points out to the Government where a bottle-neck exists in that area, he is sneered at instead of our coming forward to help the Government in this matter.

Not all of us are satisfied with the progress which is being made. But if we want to bring this to the notice of the Government, it must not be construed for one moment that we are running away from our policy, because it is our task to bring those bottle-necks to the notice of the Government. I would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the excellent report of the I.D.C. I also want to congratulate them on the excellent report of the permanent committee for the location of industries and the development of our border areas. In this report the officials do not hide their troubles. They state that something more should be done about this matter. Where else should this matter of obtaining this greater assistance be discussed than here in this very Parliament? Now I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. It is stated in the report that since 1960, 706 applications were received for assistance in connection with the location and the development of industries in the border areas. The report states that 706 applications were received, 326 of which were either withdrawn or rejected; 342 applications were approved while 38 applications are still under consideration.

I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us why these 342 applications were withdrawn. Were they withdrawn because these people did not meet the requirements they had to comply with for them to go to a border area, or were they located in another area which did not qualify as a border area? I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me the reason for this. I also notice from the report that there are certain places in the border areas which are receiving the maximum assistance from the department to-day. The places mentioned were for example East London, King William’s Town, Queenstown, etc. But has the time not come that, in the light of the knowledge and information the permanent committee has today, the assistance which is being offered to these areas is probably not enough and that we shall probably have to look for other means to make sure that we can attract the industries to those areas? I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that we should not concentrate too much on one particular place, even if it is a border area with industries, but that we should carry out a thorough investigation of all our industries throughout the Republic. We must also create growing points and not only at one place, but in all of the 62 areas which were proclaimed border areas. If those means are not sufficient and if better inducements have to be given, we would like to ask the Minister to introduce such inducements because the future of South Africa depends on the development of border areas, i.e. whether South Africa will be able to develop in an orderly fashion as an industrial giant. We cannot allow one area to develop at the expense of another. Neither can we allow one area to receive greater benefits than another.

We want to plead with the hon. the Minister that if he thinks it necessary for greater inducement to be given to, for example, Queenstown or Indwe such inducement should, in fact, be given. But if we consider the example we have in Natal, we do not think that Natal needs any encouragement because, and I want to be quite emphatic about this, in my humble opinion Natal has everything. Natal has the labour and the material and it is well situated. [Interjections.] Natal also has a Sap Provincial Administration. I want to be serious about this matter. We should not treat this debate as a political football, but should rather put our minds together to ensure that our country will be developed properly in the interests of both Whites and non-Whites. We can develop only if we have a satisfied labour force, and if we take the factories to the labour force, as we are doing in terms of our policy of the development of border areas, we shall, in fact, establish a satisfied labour force. This is important. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Brakpan has done exactly the reverse of what was done by the hon. member for Queenstown. The latter started off with a most interesting speech and in the course of it said many things with which we can agree. He at least has heeded the warning given in this House by my leader when he warned the Government that they should be beware that eoonomic development in the Bantu areas does not outstrip political development. I am very pleased that at least the hon. member for Queenstown now subscribes to this view. But thereafter the hon. member started to play politics. The hon. member for Brakpan started off with that and yet later made a plea for us to make this a responsible debate in the interest of South Africa. He started off by saying that we on this side of the House had opposed all principles of decentralization. Let me say here and now that that is not true. On the contrary— the United Party has always stood for decentralization provided, of course, it was economic. We stand for decentralization where it is economically politic. But unfortunately the Nationalist Party has come with decentralization where it is politically economic. The hon. member referred to the reports of the Netherlands Bank in which reference is made to the permanent committee. I shall deal with that report a little later. The hon. member, however, said that this report showed that for an investment of R65 million employment had been created for 19,000 Bantu. These were the 1964 figures. He went on to refer to a capital investment of R296 million. That, I think, must be the 1966 figure at which time we had an employment figure, as far as Bantu were concerned, of 44,000. He also mentioned that it was time now to do a comprehensive survey to decide where any new development should take place. Well, I submit this is what should have been done at the beginning, in 1960, before starting all this haphazard development, because this development has in fact been haphazard, unplanned and unco-ordinated.

The hon. member for Brakpan asked why so many applications were withdrawn or discarded. That is a question I too should like to put to the hon. the Minister. But to the hon. member for Brakpan I want to suggest reasons for at least some of those withdrawals, and should like to ask the hon. the Minister to say what his plans are in this regard. Here I want particularly to refer to Hammarsdale. Industrial development in Hammarsdale started in 1959 and has gone on apace since then until two years ago. Plus-minus 5,000 Bantu are in employment there at the moment. But, as I have said, for the past two or three years there has been no development there—no more industries and no further employment opportunities. When I investigated this I found that the I.D.C. set out to create 5,000 employment opportunities at Hammarsdale.

This was based on a survey carried out in 1957-’58, which showed that there were approximately 5,000 employable people in that area. They have now attained that target, but what has happened in the meantime as a result of this Government’s policy? We find that the Bantu population, according to the figures of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, have gone up from 12,500 to over 45,000. Does the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs know this? Is his department aware of this? I believe that they have no intention of allowing any further industrial development in that area. This has been said to me and the rumour is very strong. I want to know from the hon. the Minister to-day what his policy is in regard to Hammarsdale. Is that border industrial area going to be expanded any further? We have the position to-day that there are over 20.000 employable Bantu of whom 15,000 are looking for jobs. They are people who have been attracted to that area by this Government’s policy and for whom the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is making so much noise, is providing housing. He is not making provision for only 45.000, but for 60.000 Bantu. This is what I mean when I say that it is unplanned and unco-ordinated. Here are the Three Blind Mice going ahead and bringing more people into the area, while this hon. Minister, if rumour is correct, has stopped any further industrial development. There are no plans for any further industrial development. I would like to have an answer to that question from the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member for Brakpan also referred to the report of the Permanent Committee. I am horribly confused by authoritative reports which have been given by this Government. The report of the Permanent Committee which was issued last year on its activities from 1960 to the end of 1966 gave as employed in the border areas a total of 57,100 people of whom 44,600 were Bantu. I, as many other people, accepted this as being the authoritative figure. The South African Digest of 12th April, 1968, reads as follows—

That brings the total to 104,000 Bantu who should be employed in the border industries to-day according to that report. In the report I received to-day from the department of the hon. the Minister it says on page 3—

This is the same statement as is made in the South African Digest, but which is completely in conflict with the facts as given to us by the report of this same committee last year. Last year they said that at the end of 1966 there were only 44,600 in employment. This report now says that in 1960. six years before, there were already 55,000. Who are they misleading? Why are they misleading? Are these statements deliberately designed to mislead the people outside? These are the answers we want. Everybody is quiet now.

They say 7,000 per year in the same Digest.

Yes, and in this report the figure is given as 5,000 a year. Is this a deliberate attempt to mislead or is it to cover up for the failure of the policy?

What is the date of the Digest!

The date of the Digest is 12th April, 1968. These are the questions which require answering. I want to go further and say that this policy is failing and has failed. In the same report on page 2, it is said that the potential of additional Bantu males coming available in the Bantu areas for the labour market during the period 1960 to 1970 is estimated at an average of 35.000 per annum. That should be the target of this hon. Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister. The target should be 35,000 jobs per annum, that should have been created since 1960. At the moment we have a backlog of over 150,000 jobs in the border areas. We have heard hon. members say how pleased they are at the development which is taking place. Admittedly, some development has taken place. Can they sit complacently by, however, and say that they are pleased and congratulate the hon. the Minister for the development which has taken place?

Do you want them all in industry?

No, not necessarily. What other employment opportunities are there in the border areas? I know that the hon. the Minister will come with the same story as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and say that these jobs generate others. He arrived at a figure of something over one million at one stage when he really was eloquent and got carried away with his own verbosity on this subject. He claimed that there were over one million employment opportunities created by these border industries. I deny this categorically. I have seen them and I know that there are very few other employment opportunities in the border areas.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) asked certain questions in connection with figures and I do not want to reply to those questions. What he did say and what was new to me, was that the United Party, who opposed border area development so vehemently throughout the years they have been sitting here as Opposition, was also going to act as champions for the policy of border area development. There was a debate which lasted for days last year when the Physical Planning Act was under discussion. The whole object of that Act was in point of fact to empower the Government to restrict the further extension of particularly non-white labour in white cities, and to stimulate border area development along those lines. Therefore it amazes me that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) as one of the new young minds of the United Party informed us here to-day that now the United Party too was in favour of the idea of border area development. I think that he is on the right track, however, and he must only see to it that when the Planning Vote comes under discussion, and specially the effect which that Act had during the past year and which it will have in years to come, he will strengthen the hon. the Minister’s hand and that he will plead for the rapid development of border areas.

I now want to come back to a discussion which took place here in connection with the Industrial Development Corporation. The hon. member for Pinetown suggested that the Industrial Development Corporation was entering fields in which it did not belong. It often occurs to one that hon. members of the Opposition are afraid of the Industrial Development Corporation becoming too great a factor in the industrial sphere in our country. What I am concerned about, however, is a certain perceptible trend to-day as regards the establishment of new, smaller companies. With the establishment of the unit trust schemes and with the conversion of small shareholdings of the general public into units in those open trusts as well as with the existing schemes through which the ordinary salary earner places the money he would normally have saved in the hands of the open trust, a large source of risk capital has been lost to new undertakings. With the experience I myself have gained in numerous companies, I have often found that the young company which sets out with not too much capital is the very company which virtually finds itself before a closed door to-day. The large undertakings, the large insurance companies, adopt the attitude to-day that they would rather control R10 million through one trained official if it is channelled into one or two undertakings, than to control the activities of possibly 100 small undertakings to some extent for which more officials are required. One can understand that merely from a security point of view as well as from a business point of view this is sound business on their part. This is also the position as regards the unit trust as it invests in quoted companies only. This means that the large insurance companies which are amongst the largest investors are now chanelling virtually all the capital which used to be also available as risk capital for new undertakings into the existing, or the large companies only. One often hears from investing officials who have to investigate new undertakings, and who have to look for new fields of investment, that they do not know where to invest their money. We therefore find that the prices of stock are forced up to such an extent to-day that the gilt-edged stocks only yield a return of approximately 2 or 3 per cent. One asks oneself what this is going to lead to in future. I think it is in this respect that the Industrial Development Corporation with the establishment of its small industry division in 1962 entered a very good field for the industrial development of our country. I see that according to its latest statements, namely those dated 30th June, 1967, that its total investments as regards smaller industries amount to R829.000 spread over approximately 52 undertakings. This is as against a total investment of far more than R500 million. If one looks at all its investments falling into the R 10,000 category, the R20.000 category, and the R50.000 category, one finds that as regards, its total investments, it has invested approximately 42 per cent, or a total amount of approximately R7 million, in those three categories. This represents approximately I to 1½ per cent of its total investments. I think the direction the I.D.C. has taken is a very good one. The question which I ask myself is whether this is being developed with a sufficient measure of purposefulness, not as regards the number of applications dealt with, but as regards the method of dealing with applications and the approach to applications which are made to the I.D.C. I realize that they, like any other investor, have numerous problems and that it may be new undertakings do not undertake sufficient research in the first place. Secondly, adequate steps are perhaps not taken as regards the question of succession in the management of small undertakings. If one should ask a large banking concern to-day whether it would have assisted an Anton Rupert in 1950 when he started his Rembrandt factory, the answer is that they would not have done so and they would not even have given him any thought. For the same reason many companies find themselves in the extraordinary position to-day that they simply cannot invest in what they would like to invest unless they do so at prices ten, twenty or thirty times higher than that at which they could have done so originally. The small industrialist who wants to start an undertaking to-day cannot always go to existing economic family groups and investors, because he often spoils his own market by doing so. If he, as newcomer, wants to enter any particular field and if he associates himself with one particular group for his financing, he often finds that by doing so he has to do without a very large part of the market. In that process he also loses, when it comes to private financing, his own identity and initiative to a large extent. In the role played by the I.D.C. I see again the importance of this small industries division. This meets what is in point of fact the greatest need, because there we create the opportunity for the entrepreneur to remain independent in the sense that he is not absorbed into other groups and as a result his own initiative is not suppressed. I want to make an appeal to-day. in view of the small amount of capital which has been invested up to this stage, that this large undertaking should display some daring and that the formalities which have to be complied with when undertakings make applications, should be reduced to the absolute minimum. I believe that if this division of the I.D.C. could be developed systematically and with a certain degree of daring, it would be possible to lay better foundations for the future industrial development of South Africa and that we might find after a decade or so that a sufficient number of new undertakings had been established in the meantime so that investors who have to invest their money to-day in gilt-edged stocks at 2 per cent only, would have a greater field of investment at their disposal.

I want to refer also to one other field the I.D.C. has entered with the establishment of the Atlas Aircraft Corporation. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, in view of the fact that this specific industry might have been established because of the force of circumstances, what future he sees for the Atlas Corporation and whether a South African light passenger aircraft of our own should not possibly be considered at this early stage? [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Vasco said that it was news to him that we on this side of the House stand for the decentralization of industry.

Rip van Winkel.

I want to explain to that hon. member the difference in this respect between the Government’s policy and our policy on this side of the House. The main emphasis in the Government’s policy to-day is that, when it comes to the decentralization of industry, industry should be drawn towards the borders of the reserves. We on this side of the House have always stood for the decentralization of industry, but we say that industry can be decentralized and that economic incentives should be given to enable industrialists to set up industries in areas which are lagging behind economically, even if they are not very near the borders of reserves. Sir, I want to give that hon. member an example. The hon. member for Queenstown has talked about the border area from East London to Queenstown, an area which to-day, under the Government’s plans, qualifies for border industry benefits. Under the Government’s scheme an area like Grahamstown, for example, although it has a very large pool of unemployed Bantu who are not newcomers in that area—in many instances they have been there for generations—simply because it is some 30 miles away from the nearest reserve or Bantu homeland across the Fish River, does not qualify for the Government’s border area benefits. Sir, I say that this is crazy economics and that we have to view the country as a whole and not merely pay attention only to those areas which adjoin the homelands.

Sir, I want to come back to a matter which was raised here by the hon. member for Paarl, namely the amount of R4 million which is being voted here for assistance to exporters hit by devaluation. The hon. member said, amongst other things, that exporters had to become more efficient. I agree with that. Of course, it is necessary for exporters, whether they are primary producers or manufacturers, to strive for efficiency. But that hon. member should remember that if something of the magnitude of a 14.3 per cent devaluation hits any industry, then the people engaged in that industry simply cannot push up their efficiency by the same margin overnight or even within a short period. They have to be given time and that is one reason why they have to be given assistance to enable them to cope, by means of greater efficiency over a period of years, with a situation like that which has suddenly arisen. Sir. ever since the British devaluation of sterling in November, we have had statements by various hon. Ministers, firstly, by the Minister of Finance and also by the Minister of Economic Affairs and by the Minister of Agriculture, that exporters are going to be compensated for the losses that they had suffered as a result of devaluation.

When the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced his Budget, he said that this amount of R4 million was to implement the undertaking which he had given last November. But, Sir, we have had very little indication from any of these hon. Ministers as to what sort of formula the Government is going to apply when they compensate these people. We have merely been told that we have to wait until the end of the season, until all the accounts are in, and that they will then have a firm basis on which to calculate the compensation to be paid. We have not even had an indication as to whether the formula that is going to be applied, is going to be applied equally to all the different classes of people who have been hit by devaluation. The nearest we got to it was a statement by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture during the Budget debate when, in referring to what the Minister of Finance had said, he said (col. 3515)—

Sir, the end of the season in many cases is either at hand or is very rapidly approaching, and I think that the time has come for the hon. the Minister to give us rather more detail as to what he has in mind in this regard. Is this R4 million merely a provisional amount or is more going to be voted in due course and, if so, when will it be voted? You see, Sir, if there is to be a 100 per cent compensation on the basis on which the Minister of Agriculture said that compensation would be paid, then it is at least open to doubt that this amount of R4 million is nearly enough. The hon. member for Paarl agreed on this point; in fact he said categorically that it was not enough. Sir, as long ago as December the President of the S.A. Agricultural Union, Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers, estimated that probably the devaluation losses for agriculture alone would be something of the order of RIO million. The hon. member for Paarl mentioned the loss which the deciduous fruit industry expects to suffer. He mentioned a figure of R3 million. That is a figure, of course, which has been confirmed on various occasions by the General Manager of the Deciduous Fruit Board and also by members of that Board. Sir, there are other minor sections of the fruit industry which are in the same position. For example, the pineapple industry, which does not make out a big section of the fruit industry, is going to suffer some quite considerable losses. I take my figures from volume I of the Foreign Trade Statistics of 1965, which may be out of date, but will nonetheless give us some idea of the scope of the problem. If we make allowance for insurance and freight, we find that in that year fresh pineapples brought in something iike R 147,000. The actual loss will probably be of the order of R21,000 due to devaluation. Pineapples in air-tight containers on the other hand, i.e. canned pineapples, after making an allowance for freight and insurance, brought in something of the order of R2,100,000, and there the loss is going to be some R300,000. In the pineapple industry, as far as the canned product is concerned, the growers have hitherto not been hit to the full extent because canners have not dropped prices to the producer, except in the case of one cannery which had various other difficulties, and there they dropped prices by R2 per ton. But the fresh fruit exporting industry in regard to pineapples has been exceedingly hard hit, because not only have they had to cope with the effect of devaluation immediately but also with the freight increases which were imposed last year, and with various harbour increases. I had a telephone call only to-day from some of these people, and their position is really becoming desperate. If we take various other commodities, we find much larger amounts involved. If we take pears, peaches, guavas, apricots and grapes in cans, the amount of the actual loss is probably some R2.1 million. If you add all these amounts to the R3 million of the Deciduous Fruit Board, we come to a figure of some R5.4 million. [Time expired.]

A considerable number of matters were raised in the course of this debate, but in the time at my disposal I want to confine myself particularly to certain aspects raised by the hon. member for Pinetown. He raised four aspects. I should like to confine myself in the first place to the aspect in regard to which we have the most common ground. The hon. member asked me what our attitude was in connection with foreign investments in South Africa and whether the possibility existed of any force being brought to bear by us in future on firms with investments in this country to give a share interest to South Africans. This has never been the policy, nor is it the intention to compel foreign investors to make shares available to South African interests. The element of compulsion has never been mooted or insinuated. What is correct—and this was also said by the hon. member—is that we welcome the fact that foreign undertakings make shares available to South African interests and that they do not use domestic loans only for financing their undertakings. The public at large is strongly urging that these foreign undertakings, some of which have been established here for many years, undertakings which are large ones and which are capital-intensive and make large profits should make shares available to South African interests. Over the past few years some of them have been making shares available to South Africans, and this trend is heartily welcomed. Strong pleas in this regard were delivered at the recent congress of the Handelsinstituut. Therefore this is a trend which we welcome. No compulsion or pressure is being exercised, but we are in agreement that this is the right trend.

The hon. member referred to I.D.C. matters and to price maintenance in particular. He asked what we were going to do in connection with price maintenance. I recently Tabled the report of the Board of Trade and Industries, and after due consideration we have decided on certain steps. I should like to indicate which of those recommendations we accept. I have set this down in writing as the public at large has considerable interest in this matter. In its report No. 1220 of 8th December, 1967, which I Tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 20th February of this year, the Board of Trade and Industries recommended that the enforcement of prescribed resale prices be prohibited, but that suppliers should be given the opportunity of applying for exemption from such a prohibition. After the report of the Board had been Tabled, organized trade and industries were given the opportunity of submitting their views in regard to the recommendations of the Board prior to any decision being taken in regard to the implementation of the recommendations. Since that time I have given careful consideration to the report of the Board as well as to the representations submitted by organized trade and industries, and I should now like to announce that I have decided to accept the recommendations of the Board. The Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, 1955, in terms of which the Board instituted its investigation, provides that a prohibition such as that recommended by the Board, shall only be promulgated with the consent of both Houses of Parliament. In addition the Act provides that exemptions from such a prohibition should be included in the notice containing the prohibition. Therefore it will be impracticable to promulgate the prohibition first and then to give consideration to possible exemptions as parliamentary approval will have to be obtained every time for any amendments to the notice containing the prohibition. Consequently I have decided to announce at an early opportunity by notice in the Gazette that I intend asking for parliamentary approval for the promulgation of a prohibition on the enforcement of prescribed resale prices, and that suppliers who are of the opinion that in their particular cases the enforcement of prescribed resale prices is justified in the public interest, should, within a fixed period, submit motivated applications for exemption from the prohibition to the Department of Commerce. The Department will then refer such applications for exemption to the Board of Trade and Industries for investigation and for making the necessary recommendations to me. Exemptions recommended by the Board and accepted by me, will thereupon be included in the notice which I intend submitting to Parliament for approval as exceptional cases in respect of which the enforcement of resale prices will not be prohibited. It is hoped that it will be possible to submit this notice to both Houses of Parliament before the end of the 1969 session.

The hon. member for Pinetown also asked whether we had any knowledge of certain practices such as the formation of rings, etc. It is our policy, whenever we receive complaints of this nature from the public, to refer such complaints for investigation to the Board of Trade and Industries. Should there therefore be other aspects, the matter will be referred to that Board. I must say that the Department has received complaints about certain industrialists refusing to supply certain articles to all sections of the retail trade or supplying certain articles very exclusively. This is a complaint which we received recently, and it is an aspect which we shall definitely investigate.

I reported two of these to you eight months ago.

If the hon. member will tell me what complaints he made, I shall tell him whether they have been referred to the Board.

They referred to electric refrigerators and radios.

As far as these articles are concerned, there are no price determinations. Price maintenance does not apply as regards these articles. That is why the hon. member would have noticed in recent times, from November or December last year, that there has been very strong competition indeed as regards these very articles, i.e. refrigerators, stoves, etc. As far as these articles are concerned, there has in fact been a price war, and if there is a price war, why should the Board of Trade and Industries investigate the question of price maintenance?

The hon. member for Pinetown referred to certain practices of the I.D.C. and in particular to the direction in which this Corporation was going. He also read out the task of the I.D.C. as stated in the 1940 Act. He will concede that the operational scope as contained in that Act is very wide. I want to say that conditions in South Africa are completely different to-day to what they were in 1940 when that Act was passed. At that time South Africa was virtually in its infancy as regards its industrial development, and since that time South Africa has developed in an unprecedented way. But the terms of reference are wide, for the very purpose of stimulating industrial development. Within those terms of reference the I.D.C. has played a very important and often a decisive role in bringing about the establishment of new industries here in South Africa over the years. This is an aspect in regard to which the hon. member and I do not differ. The difference of opinion relates to financing and to certain directions in which the I.D.C. has invested. His objection related mainly to the I.D.C. investing in the growth funds. The I.D.C. has invested in one growth fund only, and that is the National Growth Fund. We should get the record straight as regards this matter. In the first place the I.D.C. had an interest in the Accepting Bank. The Accepting Bank for Industry was established earlier on and it was established within the framework of one of the tasks of the I.D.C. as defined in article 3 of its Articles of Association, namely the financing of industries. It was felt that the available capital should be mustered and that it would be possible to provide better finance facilities if the capital of other undertakings were to be combined in one undertaking such as the Accepting Bank. For that reason the Accepting Bank was established, and the I.D.C. had an interest in that Accepting Bank in that other capital was mustered as a result of financing by the Accepting Bank, so that it was possible to grant increased assistance. Therefore the I.D.C. has had an interest in the Accepting Bank from the outset. Then at a later stage the Accepting Bank combined with other interests to establish a growth fund.

Only one other growth fund, namely Sage, existed at the time when this growth fund was established. Therefore the I.D.C. was involved in the second growth fund, i.e. the National Growth Fund. That was at a stage when this was still a new movement, when there was still uncertainty as regards its growth possibilities and potential. Because the Accepting Bank as a whole was involved in this matter, and as the I.D.C. had an interest in the Accepting Bank, the I.D.C. consequently obtained an interest in this growth fund along with other bodies and persons, but the direct interest of the I.D.C. represented a small percentage only. That was at the beginning. If the I.D.C. as an organization with an interest in the Accepting Bank, would have withdrawn itself from this movement, it could quite easily have created the impression that the I.D.C. had no confidence in this new movement which was in progress. On the other hand this was something which might have had growth possibilities. The predominant factor was, however, the fact that the I.D.C. had an interest in this Accepting Bank, and in that way it became involved in this growth fund. Since that time other growth funds have been established. They have attracted more capital and have become large undertakings. The objection is that the I.D.C. has interests in such an undertaking. Now hon. members will notice from the latest annual report of the I.D.C. that the I.D.C. has sold its interest in Fund Advisers to Industrial Selections. Industrial Selections has been made available to the public so that the I.D.C. today no longer holds these interests which it held before. On the contrary. Industrial Selections holds those interests. Industrial Selections is a separate company to which a considerable number of the interests of the I.D.C. has been transferred, and industrial Selections has made 40 per cent of those interests available to the public, with the result that the public at present has an interest in the share which the I.D.C. used to have. Seeing that this is a separate company which manages its own affairs, it is for this company to take the further decision whether, in the interests of its shareholders, it still wants to retain these interests in growth funds or whether it wants to dispose of them and buy other interests. At this stage this is a matter for the board of directors of Industrial Selections and they too have an obligation towards other shareholders. Hon. members know that when these shares were made available to the public, they were greatly over-subscribed.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is Industrial Selections controlled by the I.D.C.?

I have indicated that 40 per cent of the interests are held by the public. Therefore 60 per cent of the interests are still held by the I.D.C. As regards the board of directors. Dr. Van Eek and one other person serve on the board of directors on behalf of the Accepting Bank. This is the connection which exists in respect of the board of directors. But the fact of the matter is that it is still a very small share. In point of fact the amount invested by the I.D.C. in shares of this growth fund came to R59,000 only. This was the amount invested by the I.D.C. in this growth fund and these are the interests which it sold. And this is what this dispute is about. The share of the I.D.C. in this undertaking represents a very small portion of its total investments.

In addition the hon. member wanted to know why the I.D.C. had to go in certain directions and whether it was the policy of the Government that we should become self-sufficient. As regards the manufacture of strategic supplies, we are obviously trying to become self-sufficient. It is not always possible, however, to achieve this completely, because no matter how large the percentage of South African materials used may be, there always is a certain percentage of materials which have to be imported from abroad. To be completely self-sufficient is therefore virtually impossible for any country in the world, unless it is a country which has a very primitive economy. It is true that we have been giving attention to import-replacing industries over the past few years, especially with a view to saving foreign exchange. But with the improvement in the position as regards our balance of payments, this consideration has been pushed into the background to a certain extent, and when it comes to the question of protecting new industries, this consideration no longer carries as much weight as it used to carry.

The hon. member also referred to the growing of tea, and asked why this should be undertaken by us. He was of the opinion that we would never be successful as regards the growing of tea in South Africa as labour played such an important role in the growing of tea. The fact of the matter is of course that as far as our supplies of tea are concerned, we used to be completely dependent on imports from abroad. In addition tea represents a large import item. When the question of various boycotts and sanctions against our country was mooted, the question arose whether we should not give consideration to this particular matter. The I.D.C. has played an important role in starting this new important industry. Tea is being grown in an area with a very high rainfall and in which many Bantu labourers are available. It is calculated that four labourers are required to cultivate every three acres of land. At the present time more than 1,800 acres have been put under tea. When these plantations have reached full production, there will be employment for 2,400 labourers, most of whom will, of course, be Bantu. We are therefore at the same time creating additional employment opportunities apart from the fact that the more tea we produce ourselves, the less we will have to import. This therefore is another example of the I.D.C. having done pioneer work as regards the development of a new industry.

The hon. member also asked why the I.D.C. was so active in the textile industry. It is true that the I.D.C. has a very large interest in the textile industry. As a matter of fact, this has been the position for years. Over the years this industry has developed many facets and for that reason the I.D.C. is still involved in this industry to a large extent. The I.D.C. has also invested large amounts in border areas. Its investment in the textile industry in the border areas amounts to nearly R30 million and is spread over various undertakings. In eight of those undertakings the I.D.C. has a share interest, and in virtually all of them a minority interest, whereas others were only financed by the I.D.C. But when it comes to the question of providing employment, the textile industry probably is one of the industries which is the biggest source of employment for non-Whites. But in addition to that the textile industry processes quantities of South African raw materials. Because of that the industry supplies in its own requirements to a large extent.

As a matter of fact, this industry is one of the industries which have showed a very high rate of growth over the past few years, and it still has great possibilities for the future. The I.D.C. has already relinquished its interests in some of the sectors in which it has invested, and in some cases it has decreased those interests. It has, for example, made its shares available to the public through Industrial Selections. But there is also National Selections. These two undertakings have made 40 per cent of their shares available to the public. In other cases the I.D.C. has offered its shares to the public directly, for example, in undertakings such as the Accepting Bank, and Safmarine. As a matter of fact, last year the public had a second opportunity of buying shares in Safmarine on the market. In addition there are many other undertakings, such as Phalaborwa Mining, Sentrachem and Central Accepting Bank, which have already been developed successfully, and in which the I.D.C. has decreased its shares interest, and this process is likely to continue. When we have regard to the fact that the I.D.C. has already recovered R180 million of its investments or of its reinvestments over the years, we see in that some indication of the important role which the I.D.C. has played in the financing of industries.

The hon. member said that he was not in favour of the I.D.C. taking a share in industries in the form of equities. He said he preferred them to invest money in, for example redeemable preference shares or loans. This, however, is not always possible. It often happens that the I.D.C. has to take up shares, particularly in the case of young undertakings. In such cases it has to accept co-responsibility for the risks which there are. How can it then be expected of the I.D.C. to run that risk at the beginning and to relinquish its shareholding as soon as the particular undertaking starts becoming successful? The I.D.C. feels that it is entitled to retain its shares until it can sell them at a profit or until such time as they are remunerative so as to increase its revenue. My information is that the I.D.C. has recovered more money in the form of repayments and dividends over the last six months than the amount which it has given out on loan. This is an indication that the I.D.C. has lately been less active as regards new investments; that it has been more selective. In that way the I.D.C. has remained true to the Government’s policy that new enterprises should not be undertaken where it is not absolutely essential to do so. In this way we want to check an inflationary rate of growth. Therefore the I.D.C., as one. of the State’s undertakings, has also played its part in decreasing economic activity and decelerating the tempo of development.

Therefore I maintain that the I.D.C. has played a very important founders’ role in all these undertakings which I have mentioned, and in so doing has given new direction to industrial development in South Africa.

I think the hon. the Minister treated the hon. member for Pinetown in a very courteous manner, because the hon. member had made a few statements, which were not quite true. The hon. member began his speech by saying that he wanted to discuss two matters, namely the policy of the Government towards private enterprise and, secondly, price maintenance. He continued and suggested that “The I.D.C. is empire building” and “It demands a share in equities”. Allow me to deal with this statement for a moment. What are the facts? These facts are contained in the report of the I.D.C., a report which was also available to the hon. member. Incidentally, this report is a fine piece of work. It is evident from this report that the I.D.C. has assisted 861 undertakings over the years. In the first few paragraphs of the report it is stated that the I.D.C. has financial interests in only 239 undertakings, i.e. about one-quarter of the undertakings which were assisted by ithe I.D.C. financially. But now the hon. member comes along and says: “The I.D.C. demands a share in equities”. Surely, this is not so. The hon. member furthermore alleged that “We cannot get to the end of the string”. He was referring here to the fact that Sasol was also partaking in the refining of oil. The hon. member tried to create the impression that the I.D.C. was a monster that was taking over private enterprise in South Africa, in other words, that South Africa was becoming socialistic in that the State was gaining control of the economy of South Africa through the I.D.C. and its instruments. However, what is the truth of the matter? The truth is the following. When the gross domestic product amounted to R7,226.1 million in 1965, private enterprise contributed R5,554.8 million, i.e. 76.9 per cent of the total amount. As against this, public corporations contributed only R253.7 million, i.e 3.5 per cent. However, in spite of this hon. members on the other side are trying to create the impression that the Government is socializing the South African eoonomy through the I.D.C. and its agencies. Surely, this is not so. The State, including the South African Railways, contributed R1,417.7 million, i.e. 19.6 per cent of the total amount, to the gross domestic product in 1965. Let us oompare this position to the one which prevailed in 1948, i.e. the last year in which the hon. the Opposition was in power. Let us compare the position now with the position which was prevailing at that time to see whether the situation changed materially. What do we find now? We now find that of a total domestic gross product of R1,965.6 million private enterprises contributed R 1,547.9 million, that is 78.7 per cent of the total amount, as against 76.9 per cent in 1965, which is a drop of only 1.8 per cent. What contribution was made by private public corporations? Which of the public corporations existed in 1948? Sasol and Phoscor, for example, did not exist at that time. What is more, the public corporations which did exist at that time, were only at an early stage of development, because the Act to establish the I.D.C. was only passed in 1940. But in spite of this public corporations contributed R28.6 million, in other words, 1.5 per cent to the gross domestic product as against R389.1 million, i.e. 19.8 per cent, contributed by the Government, including the South African Railways. We find, therefore, that the contribution private enterprises made to the gross domestic product dropped from 1948 to 1965, by 1.8 per cent. As against this, the contribution made by public corporations increased by 2 per cent during that period while the contribution made by the Government, including the South African Railways, dropped by .2 per cent. But in spite of this state of affairs the Opposition tries every year to create the impression—and the hon. member for Pinetown tried again to create this impression to-day—that the Government is socializing the South African economy through the LD.C. and its agencies. But the figures I quoted confirm the fact that South Africa has an economy which is preeminently free, in other words an economy which is free from any control and that this is so in spite of the fact that it is becoming increasingly important for the State to enter into the economy of the country for the sake of order. Nevertheless, the position as regards the contribution made by private enterprises to the gross domestic product, remained virtually unchanged as we inherited it from the time when the United Party was in power. If they nevertheless want to make an issue of the fact that there was this drop of 1.8 per cent, then all I can say is “small things amuse small minds”.

Then the Opposition also suggested that “In this country we are breaking and bending economic laws.” It is true that they did not make this allegation to-day, but they actually adopted that attitude. But let us analyse this allegation briefly. In 1924 the manufacturing industry contributed R38.7 million, or 7.6 per cent of the total amount to the gross domestic product; in 1933, that is, after nine years of National Party rule and a period which coincided with severe drought and the depression, the contribution made by the manufacturing industry to the gross domestic product already increased to R53.5 million, or 10.1 per cent of the total amount; in 1939 it was R 106.2 million, or 12.1 per cent. Then followed those years in which we had the war and the State had to stimulate spending in cases where provisions could not be obtained easily and where shipping space was limited. The Government, therefore, was forced to make the country more self-sufficient by means of State spending. What do we find now? We find that the contribution made by the manufacturing industry to the gross domestic product increased to R317.9 million, or 16.1 per cent of the total amount, during the nine years subsequent to 1939. What was the position 10 years later? We find that there was a enormous increase to R818.4 million, or 19 per cent of the total gross domestic product. [Time expired.]