Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill gives effect to the resolutions of the Select Committee on Pensions.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the second reading of the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has come through the Committee Stage with one small amendment from this side of the House. During the course of the second-reading debate on the Bill I protested against the late introduction of this Bill. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will look at the Order Paper he will find that it was less than a week ago that we received this Bill for the first time. The hon. the Deputy Minister was good enough to let us have an explanatory memorandum of some 77 pages last Friday. During the course of our addresses during the second-reading debate we pointed out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that there was considerable objection from this side of the House, because the Bill seemed to introduce new powers for the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department which we thought were far-reaching. We pointed out that as far as we could see certain powers were given under this Bill which were very drastic and, in effect, gave the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department dictatorial powers. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not seem to take this very seriously and when he replied to the debate, he quoted with approval what was said by the local Chamber of Commerce in a newspaper indicating their approval of the Bill. The position has altered materially since then, because we have had further objections even as late as yesterday. In a Bill of this kind a Minister is inclined to assume that because the schedules have gone through the Committee of Ways and Means, approval of the Bill is automatic. I suggest that in future, when the hon. the Deputy Minister proposes to introduce maojr changes in the Bill, that he should make such changes public for general information. What happens todayis that a Bill frequently comes in very late after the Committee of Ways and Means, and added to the schedules that were approved by the Committee of Ways and Means, are many major amendments in the Bill. Ordinarily the amendments are such that we can approve of them. But in this case new principles have been established. When new principles are established, it is very difficult indeed to have time to study them, let alone contact other interested parties. We indicated to the Deputy Minister during the Committee Stage that it would have been advisable for him to have consulted the Board of Trade and organized commerce and industry, but it did not seem to impress him. But he admitted during the course of the Committee Stage that he had not consulted organized commerce and industry, or the Board of Trade. He went ahead with his Bill, and now it seems to be running into trouble.

Here is an extract from a telex message received by the Cape Town Parliamentary Liaison Officer of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, from the Director of the Association in Johannesburg on this Customs and Excise Amendment Bill. Even at this stage, they say the following:

Hasty examination of the above Bill shows several clauses to be extremely farreaching. The following examples are quoted for your assistance: Proposed new clause 41 (4) (c) permits Secretary to take drastic action merely on suspicion of offence.

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to make oneself heard.

Order!

It continues—

That point was made very adequately yesterday by the hon. member for Durban (Point). The Minister did not seem to pay much attention to it. But one can see that at this stage the Association of Chambers of Commerce takes a very serious view of this Bill. They say—

We warned about this during the secondreading debate and the Committee Stage, and now, at this late stage, when the Association of Chambers of Commerce itself admits that it has only done a hasty examination, they still make this obection. They say—

This point, too, was made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) yesterday, but the Minister ignored it. Here the hon. member for Durban (Point) is very strongly supported by the Association of Chambers of Commerce. I read further—

We fully support that view, and we suggested during the course of the second-reading debate that these would be the views of organized commerce and industry, had they had an opportunity to examine the Bill. And here what we assumed to be the position, has been fully confirmed by the Association of Chamber of Commerce in their telex message to us yesterday. It says—

Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the hon. member for Pinetown. When the hon. tie Deputy Minister introduced this measure he explained it casually within a space of a few minutes as being simply the implementation of the decisions of the House and the closing of a few loopholes. If we on this side of the House had not exercised our right and carried out our duty as an Opposition this measure would have slipped through like a thief in the night. The first South Africa would have known about it would have been its publication in the Gazette as a statute. We are being asked now to place the final seal on a measure which by implication the Deputy Minister admits is not capable of implementation. We are being asked, for instance, to pass a provision imposing responsibility on foreign nationals, over whom we have no control. The Deputy Minister admits he cannot implement it, but he is asking us to pass a measure which he himself knows cannot be carried out.

You are talking utter nonsense.

The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot impose the instructions of our Parliament on nationals of a foreign country. He is using them as a shield in order to impose the same conditions on South African nationals who are agents for those people. The hon. the Deputy Minister has the right to lay down the conditions under which goods may enter South Africa but he cannot say to a Japanese, or a German, or a Dutch or a British, or an American manufacturer that the law in South Africa says he must do this or that. All he can do is to tell them that their goods will not be allowed into South Africa unless accompanied by these documents. But this is not what this Bill is doing. This particular clause does not lay down that no goods can enter without the necessary documents; that appears under other clauses. This clause lays down that they shall furnish this, that and the other information, and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows it cannot be implemented. He has included this provision simply to have a peg to impose additional liabilities on agents. What this Bill is in fact doing is that it is shifting the onus of responsibility from the importer to the agent. In the past it was the importer who was responsible for anything that went wrong with the entry of goods through his clearing agent.

Now, however, that onus is being shifted to the agent and if there is wrong documentation in future it is not the exporter, nor the importer, but the poor agent in the middle who will have to account for it, because this Billmakes him responsible for the documentation on the basis of which duty is to be estimated. The importer pays the duty buit the criminal responsibility for an offence, if there is any, is being placed on the agent. The importer gets away scot free, unless it can be proved that he himself has deliberately been involved in any fiddle. But where it is a question of a simple error or omission from documentation it is the agent who is going to be made to suffer.

But this Bill goes still further in that it requires all agents in future to lodge security. In this connection I have been authorized by the chairman of the agents’ association, B.M.R.A., to say that they regard this measure with a sense of shock and that it could have tremendous implications for their organization. It is a measure which can seriously affect their members. But apart from the agencies organized in an organization, there must be hundreds, thousands perhaps, of agency businesses in South Africa, the vast majority of which are, as I said in committee, undercapitalized. The hon. the Deputy Minister during the Committee Stage said it was his intention to call for security up to R2,000. If this is carried out it will have the effect of crippling and closing down hundreds and hundreds of businesses who at the moment are providing a commercial service to South Africa.

But this Bill goes even further. In addition it contains other provisions which cannot be carried out in practice. As an example of this I have already dealt with the average price clause. This clause cannot possibly be implemented because you cannot expect a manufacturer to establish an average or a normal price for differing items. I raised this point before without getting a reply from the Deputy Minister. He states that the exporter shall certify a normal price but the agent is his representative and therefore, in terms of this Bill, if that normal price is found to be inaccurate it is the agent who will be blamed. What is it that determines the normal price?

Let us take as an example garments which are being sold in New York during the season for 10 dollars a piece but at the end of the season the remnants may be sold for as little as three dollars apiece, or even at one dollar apiece. What now is the normal price? Is it the 10 dollars at which these items were sold during the season or the three dollars at whioh they were being sold normally in the United States at the time of their export? This Bill does not state that the normal price shall be the normal price at the time of sale. It says that it shall be the normal price at which suoh or similar items are sold by exporters in the country of export. But no time is being laid down. There may be 500 people making a particular item. How then does an exporter establish the average price, or the normal price? He can of course establish what his price is and he may know the prices of some of his competitors but he cannot say what is the normal price. This is the third reason for my statement that we are too hasty in passing legislation with far-reaching effect.

But there is yet another reason, i.e. that this measure is going to add tremendously to the burden of documentation and that it is going to be applied indiscriminately to every importer, whether he be an importer of textiles, or of simple and straightforward items where there are no problems involved. By creating this additional documentation and by making it mandatory for every importer to provide every one of the multiple details that are being asked for, the Deputy Minister is creating more opportunities for the commission of errors and omissions; he is making it more and more impossible for the ordinary person to handle imports. As it is, the position is difficult enough today. I have already dealt with the extent of the schedules of the Customs Act, Act No. 91 of 1964. This whole statute in my hand is the one Act and it runs into over 1,000 pages. Already it is difficult enough for the experts, the clearing agents and the importers, to have enough staff trained to handle this; now it is being complicated further by additional provisions being brought in which a new set of people have to learn. It is the agent who now has to become the expert, because he is now responsible for the documentation. He will have to check every confirmation of order, every invoice and, consequently, will have to know the Act because, after all, he is the person who will be held liable for errors made by the exporter when completing the documents. In fact we are complicating it to such an extent that we are placing commerce and industry in South Africa into the hands of the Department of Customs and Excise to do with as they wish, because there will be so many errors that people will in fact have to import at the pleasure of a Department which will have to overlook errors every day of the week. The Deputy Minister himself admitted as much. [Interactions.] The hon. member for Brakpan is making a lot of noise. I raised this objection during the Committee Stage and the Deputy Minister himself then said that in practice this would not be applied—for instance that in practice one would not have to send written instructions to clear air freight. However, he is prescribing this in the law, a law which in the words of the Deputy Minister himself will have to be disobeyed in practice. We will have to find loopholes.

We want to go home.

If that hon. member wants to go home, he is welcome to. I am here to see that this House legislates in the interests of South Africa. As long as there are matters which we believe should be questioned and criticized, then it is our duty to do so.

Finally, I want to say that the hon, the Minister in passing this legislation has gonecontrary to the spirit of his undertaking when we discussed this whole problem under his Vote and when he said that there would be the closest co-operation with commerce in the application of the Customs Act. If he is sincere in wanting to co-operate, surely the basic cooperation should have started at the point of discussion and consultation on the law he is now amending. That is the starting point. If you want to co-operate in the application of a measure, surely you should start that cooperation at the point where you are introducing new and far-reaching amendments. Had this Bill followed its normal course and had all its stages been taken, nobody in South Africa would have known anything about it until it was put on the statute book. I lodge the strongest protest at the way in which it was introduced and handled.

I want to add to what has been said by the hon. members for Pinetown and Durban (Point) in regard to the manner in which organized commerce has been completely ignored by the hon. the Deputy Minister in the presentation of this Bill to Parliament. I want to say also that it is significant that, when one knows that these telegraphic comments which were received yesterday were made available by this side of the House also to the group responsible for handling the matter on that side of tihe House, there has not been a single member on that side of the House who has been prepared to stand up today and say that organized commerce has not been properly taken into account in regard to this legislation. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration interjected a moment ago to say that it is late in the day to come with such criticism, but whose responsibility is that, when we received these papers on our tables during the dying moments of the Session? It is not as if these were merely administrative matters which are being introduced. The agents’ responsibility _ is being extended to fantastic lengths in this Bill, and the hon. the Deputy Minister, with his professional background, will appreciate that he is introducing in this Bill a degree of vicarious responsibility which has never been heard of before in legislation in South Africa, and that he is making a person responsible for the acts of another, when the guilty one, or the responsible person, is not to be judged by the degree of recklessness or the degree of guilt, but merely because there has been an infringement of some sort. What does the clause say? It says that the agent in the Republic will be responsible for the obligations imposed by the Customs Act on the exporter, the importer, the shipper and the handlers of the goods. Fair enough, one can perhaps accept that a justifiable responsibility be placed on the agent, but the Bill goes further. The agent is responsible for the penalties, for the criminal sanctions that might be imposed under this Act, and one knows that in certain circumstances the criminal penalty for one act can be a fine of R2,000 or more, for one single act of omission or transgression under this law. And, Sir, it goes further. The agent is also liable for any forfeitures which can be imposed on the exporter to this country. I do not know how the Minister can ask us to accept this measure at this late stage without having had consultation with the Chambers of Commerce, and, I believe, the Sakekamer. Having ignored them completely, he then imposes responsibilities of this nature. The Deputy Minister, in dealing with this matter in the Committee Stage, said it was quite simple; he would merely ask the agents to provide R2,000 security. Sir, I ask you what insurance company will issue a surety bond to an agent to cover the responsibilities imposed in terms of this Bill? I believe it will result in every agent, large and small, having to find whatever security the Deputy Minister may demand by means of a cash deposit with the State, and that they will not be able to find security in any other way except possibly through paying the most prohibitive premium to an insurance company.

The Minister’s attitude of course is consistent with that adopted when we dealt with the Physical Planning Bill. The Government will pass its legislation in this House and then it will consult with commerce and industry afterwards as to how commerce and industry will now fit in with circumstances in regard to which they were not consulted before enactment. I want to add my protest for the cavalier fashion in which organized commerce has been treated in the preparation of this legislation and its introduction at this late stage. One wonders whether this Government is really concerned about having the co-operation and the support of organized commerce, which are so necessary for the proper running of this country.

The hon. members complained that there was not much time to deal with this legislation, and I grant them that. We have already explained the circumstances and the problems. The hon. member for Pinetown expressed an idea here which I think we can perhaps consider as far as our parliamentary procedure in the future is concerned. He suggested that if this legislation, which contains resolutions which were agreed to in Committee of Ways and Means, and which from the nature of the case can only come before the House subsequently, contains other provisions which deal with matters other than those which came before the Committee of Ways and Means, those provisions should in some way or other be published or made available to members before the time. It is an idea which can be considered. We did not do so in this case, and I admit that there was not much time to study this legislation, and from the nature of the case I also admit that it is complicated. But the matter has already been discussed and hon. members opposite understand the reasons whythis legislation could not be brought before the House earlier.

When the hon. member for Pinetown spoke of dictatorial powers, I do think he was exaggerating. We are not accustomed to such exaggeration from him. The hon. member also said that we should have consulted the Board of Trade and Industries. Sir, the Board of Trade and Industries has nothing to do with these matters at all. I cannot understand at all on what grounds the hon. member can suggest—and they have also done it before— that we should have consulted this Board. They can perhaps make out a case that we ought to have had prior consultations with commerce and industry, but there is no reason at all why we should have consulted the Board of Trade and Industries.

In dealing now with a few points which were raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point), I shall at the same time deal with other subsidiary matters which were raised by the hon. member for Pinetown. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that these provisions which we are making, could not be implemented, and that I had admitted as much, but this is the greatest nonsense imaginable. It is just what we can expect from the hon. member for Durban (Point) that he would distort a statement which one makes, into something totally different. What I did say during the Committee Stage was that we would apply this measure in such a way that it would give rise to the minimum of problems, the minimum of hardship. We are aware that innocent people will now have more difficulties and problems in connection with the completion of forms than was previously the case, but unfortunately that is simply the position. When I listen to the hon. member for Durban (Point) I involuntarily come to the conclusion that I must doubt his bona fides when it comes to keeping dishonest persons in check, because the hon. member does not want to cooperate with us in our efforts to keep those people in check who continue practising deceitp, especially in the textile industry.

I said that you should take the powers in special cases and not in general.

What I said in the Committee Stage was that there were certain statutory provisions which had to be complied with; that that was the basis on which we should act, but that in cases such as those which I mentioned, especially in the case of air freight, where there is some urgency, or in the case of sea freight, where it was necessary that the goods should be released, we could stipulate conditions and say to the importer: “Look, the documents have not been filled in properly; the necessary information has not been supplied, but if you give us this or that undertaking, we will release the goods”. Sir, yesterday I had an interview with a representative of commerce and industry and I stated at that interview—and I repeat it in this House now—that wherever commerce and industry are going to experience problems in the implementation of this measure, they should feel altogetner free to approach the Department so that we can make administrative arrangements to expedite and facilitate the activities of commerce and industry, and we shall do so. I even made the offer that if they could not obtain satisfaction through the Department of Customs and Excise, and if they considered themselves to have a case, they were free to come to me or even to the Minister of Finance so that we could see if we could not iron out the problems. Sir, hon. members know that we must close these loopholes that we must eliminate these dishonest practices which have occurred to the detriment of the State. That is all that we are trying to do; we are not trying to place unnecessary burdens on people. The hon. member for Durban (Point) placed particular emphasis on the responsibilities which we were now imposing upon agents, and also on the fact that we could request agents to provide guarantees. Sir, the principle of liability of agents is not alien to our law. The liability of an agent in the Republic for the actions of his principal abroad is a principle which has already been accepted in the Customs and Excise Act, and in this connection the case of shipping agents can be mentioned as a very good example. I also mention this specially for the information of the hon. member for Green Point. Section 7 of the principal Act provides for the clearance of ships and aircraft and for certain formalities which must be complied with in connection with that by the master or pilot of such a ship or aircraft. Seotion 97 of the principal Act provides that the master of such a ship or the pilot of such an aircraft may at his own risk appoint an agent to perform any such act, and any such act performed by such agent shall be deemed to be the act of the master or pilot.

But that was action in this country, not aotion overseas.

He is responsible for the actions of someone abroad, someone that we cannot get at.

He is responsible only for what happens in our waters.

That may be so, but he must accept the responsibility here for someone who is not a citizen of the country and whom we cannot get at. Section 99 of the principal Act places it beyond any doubt that a shipping agent is liable for the fulfilment of all obligations, including the payment of duties and charges imposed on such master or pilot in terms of the Act, and also for any penalties or forfeitures which may be incurred in respect of the matter.

That is for services here in the Republic, not abroad.

That is so, but the agent still remains liable for the actions of someone outside. The same principle is now being introduced here. Sir, what is the hon. member for Durban (Point) objecting to? These agents had a free hand before; they could do just what they liked; there was no proper control of them. This is to a large etxent the root of the evil, the root of the trouble which we have had. I am not saying that they are all dishonest—far from it—but there are some of them who are dishonest, and we must do something in connection with those who are dishonest. I therefore expect the co-operation of hon. members on that side when we make attempts to curb these people. The hon. member spoke about the guarantee which must be given, and he said that I had said that we envisaged a guarantee of approximately R2,000 because we also asked for guarantees of R2,000 in the case of clearance agents. The hon. member is probably aware of the fact that clearance agents have to provide guarantees. In that case we fixed the guarantee at R2,000. I am not wedded tothe amount of R2,000; I am not bound to it. I merely told the hon. member what we had in mind, because he thought that the guarantee was in relation to the scope of the agent’s business, and that is not what we have in mind. What we have in mind is a guarantee which can be less than R2,000; we can discuss the matter. The principle is now being introduced here and it has become essential. I do not know whether the hon. member wants to suggest that agents doing this large volume of business are not in a position to provide a guarantee of R2,000. It is not an insurance guarantee; a bank guarantee will be good enough, and if the agent cannot provide a guarantee, then he must deposit the money in cash. As far as the amount of the guarantee is concerned, that is a matter which we can discuss. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) can provide evidence to prove that an amount of approximately R2,000 is unrealistic, or that it is out of proportion to the extent of the responsibility involved here, we can discuss the matter.

The hon. member also had a great deal to say again about the question of the domestic price, which we discussed during the Committee Stage. I should like to read the proviso in clause 6 to the House, and then the House can judge for itself—

Previously we said “sold by the exporter”, but now we have inserted “goods would be sold by exporters of such or similar goods”; in other words, not by a particular exporter, but by exporters in general of such equivalent goods. Sir, what is wrong with this? The hon. member for Durban (Point) admitted that price manipulation was the greatest of our troubles, and that is precisely what we are trying to combat. Do you know what they do? They make the price of the article high. Where the customs duty is based on the price, it is agreed that the price will be made higher by the exporter, and as a result of the higher price there is then a larger rebate. The higher price is paid here in South Africa, and then a large rebate is paid on it, and in some way or another, through other channels, the amount which was overpaid is then sent back to the importer. Surely this is blatant dishonesty, and this is what we want to combat. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said to me that that sort of thing caused the greatest trouble. We are now trying to combat it here. We are trying to lay down a basis here on which the domestic price will be determined. I want to conclude by saying that we are making an attempt to combat the irregularities and that on the part of the Department of Customs and Excise we shall do everything in our power to cause the importers as little inconvenience as possible.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—104: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan,R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter,S.P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenhiemer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith,.J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—34: Basson, J. A. L.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E.L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell,M.L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 61 bis of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956, provides, inter alia, that the Minister of Finance may make regulations providing for the establishment, constitution, functions and powers of a State Tender Board, charged with the procurement of supplies and services for and on behalf of the State and the disposal of State stores. The present State Tender Board was established accordingly and its functions are prescribed by way of regulation.

From time to time, however, doubt arises as to the legality of some of the regulations as a result of the fact that the composition of the Tender Board and the comprehensive powers conferred upon it are determined by regulation and not by statute. Consequently there is some risk that the validity of certain regulations may be disputed. It is therefore deemed necessary that the State Tender Board be established and constituted, and that its powers be clearly defined, by statute. In the first place the Bill therefore makes provision for this. At present a special committee of the State Tender Board is functioning under the name “State Tender Board, Special Services”. This Committee deals with matters of a secret and confidential nature relating to supplies and services to the Service Departments. However, circumstances and experience showed that there was a need for a smaller body with the necessary powers to perform these functions as a separate and independent procurement board. In the second place this Bill therefore provides for the establishment, constitution and powers of a State Procurement Board to obtain supplies and services for and on behalf of the Services. Provision is also being made for the necessary restrictions on the disclosure of information. It may perhaps be asked whether the proposed State Procurement Board would not be superfluous as a result of the establishment of the Tender Committee with the Armaments Board. Hon. members are aware of the fact that all technical supplies for the Defence Force will in future be purchased by a special committee of the Armaments Board. However, a considerable number of defence services of a confidential nature remain which will not be dealt with by the latter Tender Committee, but will still be referred to the State Procurement Board, together with confidential requirements of the other two Service Departments. There will now also be closer contact between the bodies concerned and the Ministers in order to prevent overlapping. What is proposed in this Bill is therefore not to establish a new or larger organization, but to place the existing organizations on a better and firm basis.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, this is purely an administrative Bill and its contents have been discussed earlier on with the hon. the Minister of Defence. As the hon. the Deputy Minister said, the Procurements Board is, essentially concerned with the requirements of the (Department of Defence and of necessity these requirements must be kept secret. We, therefore, support the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At present persons whose earnings exceed R3,120 per year are excluded from the compass of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and as soon as an employee earns more than this amount, he is no longer a contributor to the Fund and he cannot build up further credits for the purpose of unemployment benefits.

A maximum wage limit is prescribed in the Act, because only workers below that limit are regarded as persons for whom provision must be made for assistance by means of the Unemployment Fund. Owing to wage increases it is, however, necessary to revise the maximum wage limit from time to time. In fact, representations have recently been received from various trade union federations which urged that the maximum wage limit be increased so that persons who previously fell within the scope of the Act but who, owing to wage increases, ceased to be contributors, could again continue as such.

The representations which were received were referred to the Unemployment Insurance Board. This Board, which consists of representatives of employers and employees, appointed a sub-committee to investigate the matter. The committee held three meetings, and although the representations before it were mainly from the Federation of Mining Trade Unions, it nevertheless decided that the matter should be dealt with on a broader basis, and it also gave attention to wage increases in industries such as the engineering, motor and building industries.

On 26th April, 1968, the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner granted an interview to a deputation from the Federation of Mining Trade Unions. The deputation expressed concern that so many of its members had ceased to be contributors in terms of the Act, and requested that the Act should still be amended this session. Unfortunately the sub-committee could not obtain figures from other industries about the number of contributors who had been excluded from the scope of the Act owing to wage increases, but it was confronted with the fact that, owing to wage increases, many contributors were no longer contributing to the Fund.

After deliberation, the sub-committee unanimously recommended at its third meeting that the maximum wage limit be increased to R3,536, that the amount by which the maximum was increased be added to the present group 12, and that no change be made to the scales of contributions or benefits. These recommendations of the sub-committee were considered at a special meeting of the Unemployment Insurance (Board held on 5th June, 1968. The Board accepted them and made a unanimous recommendation to this effect.

Representations have since been received from the Federation of Mining Trade Unions to increase the maximum wage limit to at least R3,640 per year. The deputation which had an interview with the Commissioner could, however, supply no figures of the number of workers who had been excluded from the Fund as a result of the new wage agreement in the mining industry. It appears, however, that the Federation’s suggestions are based on the total earnings of an employee. In terms of the Act certain payments such as incentive bonuses are, however, excluded from the definition of “earnings”, unless such bonuses are guaranteed.

From particulars supplied by the Chamber of Mines it appears that before the new wage agreement there were 31,400 contributors and 10,000 non-contributors and that after the agreement there were 26,650 contributors and 14,750 non-contributors. If, however, the wage limit is increased to R3,536, which is the amount which the Unemployment Insurance Board recommended and which is embodied in this measure, there will be 33,000 contributors and 8,400 non-contributors.

From wage scales which the Federation of Mining Trade Unions submitted to the Commissioner, it appears that virtually all aboveground and underground mineworkers will be covered by the Act if the maximum is increased to R3,536. As on a previous occasion when the wage limit was increased, hon. members will probably want to know whether provision should not be made now for an additional wage group with higher benefits than those payable to the highest wage group at present. For the information of hon. members I can mention that the sub-committee which considered the matter had under consideration, as a basis for discussion, a proposal for the establishment of two additional groups, but that it was not in favour of that.

It was pointed out ¡that the employee organizations had not asked for additional groups or increased benefits, but only that contributors who were at present exluded should once more become contributors. The deputation of mining trade unions also indicated in reply to questions by the Commissioner that they were not asking for additional groups or higher benefits, but only that the maximum be increased. The question of additional groups was not discussed at the special meeting of the Board, but the sub-committee’s recommendations were unanimously accepted, and I therefore do not find it possible to propose a new grouping at this stage. However, it is desirable that persons who have ceased to contribute to the fund owing to wage increases, be allowed as soon as possible to become contributors again and to build up credits. I think hon. members will agree that it is therefore in theinterests of the workers that the amendments be passed by this House as soon as possible. I may just mention that it is estimated that the proposed amendment will cost the State R100,000 per year.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Bill that is now before us. We realize that it is important and in fact imperative that in order to afford continual cover to certain contributors, the ceiling be raised from time to time. If we look at the amendments that have been passed by this House we see that in 1965 the ceiling was increased from R2,500 to R2,860; in 1966 we had the consolidating Bill but in 1967 the ceiling was raised again, from R2,860 to R3,120. The Bill before us is now increasing the ceiling from R3,120 to> R3,536. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, one of the purposes of increasing the ceiling is to ensure that contributors who have been contributing to the fund, remain as contributors. However, there are certain aspects of the raising of the ceiling which will affect the fund. If we look at the position we find from the latest report of the Commissioner of Unemployment Insurance that the fund now has over 74,000 employers contributing to the fund and If million employees. Consequently the effects of any amendments of the principal Act are in fact of great interest to the persons concerned. We see that the financial position of the fund is such that it is now increasing at a very rapid rate indeed. At the end of December, 1963, the fund stood at R114 million and at the end of December, 1967, increased to R130 million, an increase of R16 million as far as the accumulated fund is concerned. The amendment that is before us will increase the number of contributors in group 12. The hon. the Minister has indicated that consideration is being given to the question of creating new groups. We know that group 12 consists of the highest percentage of contributors. I believe that approximately 36 per cent fall within group 12. It would appear that a very large disproportionate figure is now arising as a result of the amendments to the schedule and the groups. The amendment to the schedule contained in the Bill before us means that in group 12 we will have a group of contributors from R 1.794 to the ceiling figure of R3,536. This is a range of some R1,742 per annum, whereas all the other groups only have a range of R156. The difference is only R156 in terms of each other group. This means that the benefits that are payable to the various groups also’ brings about a disproportion in the amount of benefits received. In terms of section 36 of the (principal Act the benefits under group 12 are R14 per week. We now find that the earnings of these contributors are going to be increased considerably, namely from R60 per week to R68 per week. I feel that the hon. the Minister should ask the Unemployment Insurance Board once again to consider this whole question of the rates of benefits, particularly in comparison with the raising of the ceiling of those in group 12. It appears that there are certain items of great importance affecting this fund which require further investigation. It is hoped that the hon. the Minister will endeavour to see that this fund does receive the necessary review from time to time, not only in regard to the raising of the ceiling, but also in so far as benefits are concerned. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could inform the House whether, in the determination of the new ceiling, bonuses or overtime were taken into consideration, especially in regard to those mineworkers who are receiving bonuses under the new scheme.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Umbilo I have to say that we request the Board from time to time to consider the whole matter. The matters which are annually raised in the discussions here, are also transmitted to the Board for consideration. You may therefore rest assured that they will do so once again during the recess. I may just add that the revenue of the fund is not yet sufficient to cover all the expenditure. The result is that considerable use must be made of the interest to cover the expenditure. In reply to the hon. member for Rosettenville in connection with bonuses, I may just mention that there is a provision in regard to a fixed amount which is definitely taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment objecting to this reading because of the fact that the Government’s policy is so unrelated to reality. I have been amazed to hear some of the defences put up by hon. members on the Government side on the question of Government policy. One that amazed me most was that raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. Unfortunately the hon. member is not here now, but we cannot ignore him because he is a front bencher and a member of the Native Affairs Commission. The hon. member gave as an excuse for the shortage of manpower the South African Party’s attitude to immigration. He said that when Colonel Creswell wanted to import 100.000 Englishmen into the mines, the South African Party objected because it would give the workers too much power. It is the first time I have heardthis excuse being given, and I must say the poor Englishmen must have found themselves in the middle because the S.A.P. did not want them as it would give the workers too much power and the Nationalist Party did not want them as it would mean “onderploeging” of the Afrikaner. So, either way they must lose. But I must say this is the first time I have heard this excuse given by a senior member of the Government for the shortage of manpower. I should like to ask him, why then did they not reverse the United Party’s policy with regard to English workers when they got into power instead of abolishing the U.P. plan for immigrants entirely?

I should like to deal with the unreality of the Government’s policy as it is being applied to the Transkei. The Transkei is the only experiment we have had at the moment of putting into effect the Government’s policy of independent Bantustans. When the Bantu Affairs Vote was discussed here, I dealt with the question of the Bantu in that area. Now I should like to deal with the position of the Whites and the Coloureds there. My complaint here, I want to say again, is that when the Government embarked on this experiment it gave no consideration to what was to happen to these groups living in that area. We realize that there was a certain amount of hurry with this experiment because Dr. Verwoerd had changed his policy with regard to the Bantustans in view of the attitude of the metropolitan powers to their colonies. Our attack on him then was based on the premise that he was embarking on this new policy without due consideration to all its implications. Recently all the municipalities and village management boards in the Transkei received a letter from Pretoria in which they were asked to make recommendations in regard to further zoning of the villages and the towns there— zoning for black occupation. But these villagers are somewhat puzzled as to what they should do. At the moment they are stuck—they cannot sell the properties because nobody will buy them. But once an area is zoned for black occupation then, of course, a Bantu can buy. As a matter of fact, when it has been zoned for black occupation you get the occasional Bantu who buys, but the Government does not buy unless the case is one of urgency—in other words, the occupant must either be very old or be dying. As far as the villages are concerned, they say that they do not mind being zoned black provided the Government gives an assurance that it will buy the property of every person who wants to sell. I have addressed the House on this several times already and, consequently, I do not want to go into it again on this occasion. The position, however, is simply that once a place has been zoned for black occupation a Bantu can buy and can move into the residential areas. Thereby you are enforcing integration on the people living in those areas. Some Whites want to stay on in the area because they are doing well in their businesses. Others again want to get out. The problem they now have is this: Must they agree to being zoned black or not? Some say they do not want to be zoned black because they do not want Bantu to come in and buy residences next to theirs. But, on the other hand, their neighbours may want to get out and unless they therefore agree to the area being zoned black, there is no earthly hope of their ever being able to sell their properties in order to get out. They are therefore in a predicament about what they should do. I tell them quite frankly that even if they do agree to being zoned black that is no guarantee that their neighbours will be able to sell because the Adjustment Committee will have to decide whether they are urgent cases or not. Consequently, there is not much help for these people in zoning these areas black unless at the same time the Government gives an undertaking that it will buy from whoever wants to sell out. From the White Paper issued by the Government we know that all the areas zoned black will be treated in the same way as trading stations.

The Minister will remember that last year when be was at Umtata he met a deputation of certain business interests and was asked what the position would be of a widow who lived in a white area not zoned for black occupation Who could not sell her property because of the policy being followed in the Transkei. She wanted to leave. They were then told that although the area was not zoned for black occupation the Adjustment Committee could give consideration to it and that a case could be made out. Well, we have made out such a case for one widow but the reply she got was that she was not in a zoned area, an area zoned for black occupation—therefore the Government cannot buy. I want the Minister to make a statement today on these issues, to let the people of the Transkei know exactly what the Government’s policy is. There are ail sort of rumours going about today in the Transkei. There is, for instance, the position of professional men. At one stage Dr. Verwoerd said professional men could not get compensation because they had their qualifications and could go and practise elsewhere. Since then the Government has had representations from the Medical Association and from legal practitioners there asking it to reconsider the matter and to pay these people compensation in the same way as other because there is no reason why an attorney or doctor who gets old should not be compensated, in the same way as a trader, when he wants to go and cannot sell his practice to another White. As a matter of fact, it is being said that certain doctors had been paid compensation, doctors who have moved out of the Transkei. So, I should like the Minister to tell us what the position is with these professional people in respect of compensation.

The other matter I want to raise is competition from the B.D.C. We have already expressed ou-r fears in this connection before. When we amended the Act of that corporation we understood from the Minister that the corporation could buy in white areas but would not really come into competition with the white and Bantu entrepreneurs of the area. But the Xhoisa Development Corporation has already bought two garages in a white area and is negotiating I understand for a third. The other garages want to know what their position is going to be because a government undertaking, like the Xhosa Development Corporation, can buy on more favourable terms than private businesses. So, the other garages fear that they will be put out o-f business by unfair competition. They have to pay interest on the capital invested in their businesses but they do not know what is happening with the corporation. They do not see any of their reports and consequently do not know whether they are making any profit on their capital expenditure or not.

Take, for example, the meat industry in the Transkeip in Umtata. I raised this matter before because I heard that according to a report by the Auditor-General in the Transkeian Government this particular undertaking was showing losses. Unfortunately I did not see that report. In any event, that business was started originally to supply a market for the scrub stuff in the Transkei. That was the original intention. To-day, however, it does no longer buy scrub stuff—-it buys in competition with the butchers and is now competing with them. It is now competing with retail butchers for big contracts. It has, for instance, just got the hospital contract, and they are competing for other contracts as well. But, surely, this was not the obect when this meat factory was established? I appeal to the Minister, as I did the other day, to use his influence with the Xhosa Development Corporation to see that this factory now takes scrub stuff. I have just come back from the Transkei and I was told by an authority in the Agricultural Department there that at least 300,000 head of cattle are expected to die there this winter because the conditions are so shocking. Some of the hon. members opposite who have travelled through the Transkei also know this. There is not enough water, let alone grazing. This organization should be buying up scrub stuff now to protect the economy of the Bantu farmers there.

Another section of the white population of the Transkei are the public servants. The Minister the other day gave as a prerequisite for independence certain conditions, and all the conditions he laid down as a prerequisite can only be carried out with the assistance of Whites. Those white officials are doing good work there, and to quote Mr. Guzana, the leader of the Democrats, who said: “Woe betide the day and woe betide us when the policy of separate development sends away the white officials.” I say that, too. Woe betide us. But the service being given in the Transkei is not only being given by seconded officials.

Service which is just as important, is being given by other public servants who have not been seconded, like the railway officials, the policemen, the post office officials, the provincial officials working on the roads and other Departments. It is unfair that these people should not be paid an allowance. I raised the question with the Minister of Finance in regard to members of the Audit Department. That is a shocking case, where the members of the Audit Department were actually being paid the allowance, but then at the instigation of the Minister of Railways their allowances were taken away from them because it w.as found that they were no-t seconded officials. It is all very well for the Minister and the Cabinet to sit down and decide who will be paid the allowances and who will not be paid on the basis that only seconded officials will be paid. I received a letter from the Minister of Finance saying that only those who perform their duties under the control or supervision of Bantu persons or Bantu authorities can be paid this allowance, but these other officials have to live under the same conditions, and they are in fact in a worse position.

The Minister must remember that as the white people leave the Transkei, especially in the country villages, life becomes less attractive and congenial for the white people in that area. Eventually in the villages you will only have the policeman and the postmaster, and possibly a dipping official or some other agricultural official staying there, and that agricultural official will be paid an allowance. If there is a white official still left in the magistrate’s office he will be paid the allowance too, but the postal official and the policeman will not get it, and that is quite unfair. If you want those people there, you will have to attract them to that area by giving them allowances so that they can afford to go afield for their amenities. The position will develop to the point where the Government will have to start considering maintaining the tennis courts and the golf courses which are already in existence in the Transkei, because as the white people leave there, there will be nobody to maintain the sporting facilities. If the people who are forced to remain there are to be expected to administer those areas they must be given proper facilities. Therefore I appeal to the Minister again to reconsider that matter.

Then there are the Coloureds living there. Last year I raised the question of the Coloureds in this House. I asked the Minister of Coloured Affairs whether the Coloureds would be taken out of the country, and I pointed out that the artisans were all Coloureds. The Minister said that they would not be so foolish as to remove all the Coloureds; the movement of the Coloureds out of the Transkei would be gradual, but he said that to do that would require housing and at the moment they have difficulty in coping with the natural increase of the Coloureds in the Western Province, let alone bringing in Coloureds.from outside.

The Minister of Coloured Affairs said that he had to-ld the Minister of Community Development that the Department of Labour wanted to start a recruiting campaign in the Transkei to bring the Coloureds down, but of course, he said, we cannot do that until we have housing for them. The Minister of Bantu Administration replied to me on the same occasion and he said that the Coloureds there are treated as Whites in terms of the White Paper. But that is not so. They are only treated as Whites where they have property and wish to sell it in a zoned area, and in that case the Government can buy them out just as it buys out a white person. But the Coloureds are not in the same position as Whites otherwise, because no area is set aside for their occupation.

Areas are now being zoned for black occupation and for white occupation, but there are no areas set aside for Coloured occupation. In Umtata the Coloureds live mostly in an area called Norwood, and they live in houses rented, as the Minister himself knows, from white people. But as the white people are now selling to Bantu, these Coloureds have to get out and there is nowhere for them to go. The position in Umtata is too shocking. These people are crowded into rooms. Whole families with grown-up children and small children have to live in one room. A deputation of child welfare workers came to see me in Umtata last week to plead the case of these Coloured people. There are invalids and there are old people, drawing their old-age pension. Where can they go? What must happen to them?

Do you want group areas there?

I am not asking for group areas. All I am asking is that the Government do something for the Coloureds. You cannot just ignore the Coloureds. What about all the highfaluting talk we had here about the wonderful future for the Coloureds and the Government being such a friend of the Coloureds who have never before had such opportunities as they have now? Why does the Government not do something for these Coloureds now? The Minister of Coloured Affairs tried to wipe his hands of the Coloureds because he said it was a matter for the Minister of Bantu Administration. I say that is a shocking thing for him to say. He should look after the Coloured people also; it should be his interest as well, but he handed the matter over to the Minister of (Bantu Administration and Development. Now the Minister of Bantu Administration said in May last year that he would go into the matter and he would see whether he could not make temporary housing facilities available in Umtata. Now I want to ask him what he has done about these Coloureds in Umtata? Has he done anything about making temporary houseing facilities available to them? Has that Deputy Minister who had so much to say about group areas just now, done something about providing temporary housing for, ¡the Coloureds there? The Minister went on to say that he wanted to make a survey of the whole Coloured position in the Transkei. I want to know whether he has done that. Let him tell us. Other departments, like the Post Office Department, have had to provide caravans for its workers to live in in Umtata, because there is no housing. But what happens to the Coloureds? I want the Minister to tell us.

Then I want to refer to another matter. This does not only apply to the Transkei and the Ciskei. I spoke about the drought just now. During the discussion of the Vote I asked the Minister whether he could not give consideration to giving some assistance to the Bantu who are starving because of the drought. They do not have any crops and they cannot buy fodder. This applies to the Ciskei as much as to the Transkei. I pointed out to him that farmers can get assistance from different Government departments in regard to the railage of fodder for their stock, and they can even get loans to buy fodder. But for the human being there is no such assistance available. People tell me that the present drought in the Transkei and the Ciskei is the worst in living memory. These Natives will have to be given some form of assistance, even if it is just by allowing them to buy their mealies at the export price. I suggest that the Government should see to it that the railage, at any rate, is subsidized to ¡the traders. The traders have to see to it that these people are fed but they have to pay the full price for the mealies and they have to give credit because the Natives have not got the money. The traders have to carry these people, and I ask the Government to do something to lower the cost of mealies to the Africans in this serious period of drought. Sir, the economy of the Bantu is going to be hard hit this year. I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to what was done on one occasion by the late Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, when he came to the assistance of Lesotho by making a donation of mealies to them. I say that charity should start at home, and I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Government has given any thought to the question of doing anything to help the Bantu in those areas during this period of drought?

The hon. member for Transkei raised quite a few points to which I should like to reply, and if there is any time left, I should like to say a few words pursuant to what other hon. members said in this debate earlier on.

The first point mentioned by the hon. member for Transkei was the question of the towns in the Transkei which had been zoned and which might now be rezoned. In this regard I want to call attention to something the hon. member said towards the end of his speechwhen he spoke about the Coloureds. I know what the hon. member means, but I want to ask him ¡to state these things with greater accuracy. Strictly speaking it is not correct to say, as many other people also think and say, that certain parts of the towns in the Transkei are being zoned or reserved for the Bantu— the hon. member used the words “set aside”—and that other parts are being reserved for the Whites. It is not correct to put it that way. The hon. member agrees with me that it is not correct to put it that way, but that is the way many people talk, and the impression the hon. member himself created by those words also tends in this direction. There is not one single town in the Transkei which is in actual fact a white town; these are towns which have a rather heterogenous population, and the correct position is that those towns in the Transkei can either be rezoned as a whole or piece by piece. A piece, or a part of a town, is then designated as a part or area where the Bantu can enter freely—that is all it means—to purchase property and to inhabit or occupy it for any purpose whatever, for hon. members will know that if it is not done in that way outside the zoned area, then the approval of the State President under the Urban Areas Act would have to be granted in every specific case where a Bantu person wishes to purchase property in the white town. It was to prevent this that this zoning system was introduced, but the zoning system should not be interpreted to mean that a part is being set aside for the Bantu and another part for the Whites. That is not the case; all it means, is that ¡the part which was mainly inhabited by Whites—but also by Coloureds and Bantu as a result of mixed inhabitation—is being reclassified for the purpose of making a portion thereof a part which may eventually be inhabited by Bantu only and into which they may move freely. I want to lay particular emphasis on this point clearly—and I hope that I have now done so —since there is a great deal of misunderstanding in this regard.

In regard to the rezoning of towns, I want to say the following: In his whole argumentation this morning the hon. member often contradicted himself fundamentally as regards the two lines of thought he revealed, and in due course I shall perhaps deal with this more fully. At the outset he said that in regard to the rezoning of towns, of which there is talk in the Transkei at present, the people insisted that the rezoning should be effected, if this was necessary, or that if the zoning had to remain as it was, all the people living in those areas which had been zoned as Bantu areas, should be bought out.

Those who want to move.

The hon. member is qualifying that now by saying, “Those who want to move”. But throughout the hon. member’s argumentation this was the one line of thought: Zone, buy out and get it over and done with; for the other argument advanced by the hon. member was as follows: “Don’t allow the Bantu to enter by way of commerce; don’t allow the X.D.C. to enter by way of commerce or by way of this or that, because that would bring competition for the Whites”.

I did not speak about the Bantu; I spoke about the Development Corporation.

There is no need for the hon. member and me to argue about this matter across the floor of the House; he can speak about this again on another occasion, but I just want to say that we must realize “that you cannot have it both ways”. We must either see to it that the towns in the Transkei gradually become black ones, or else that they remain towns with mixed populations for ever, as they are at the moment. We dare not allow the latter to happen under our policy, but the latter is in fact what the United Party wants, i.e. that the towns in the Transkei should always have a mixed population, as all of them have at the moment to a varying degree. Umtata is a town with a mixed population; that hon. member who lives there, knows that better than I do.

Yes, one part of it.

No, not merely one part. Even in the town proper there are people who are not Whites and who have houses in various parts of the town; the hon. member knows that. He knows that in principle I am correct in saying that. Sir, we have laid it down as our policy—and it corresponds with all our other work in the implementation of our policy— that it is possible for those areas of the towns which are being zoned for the Bantu to penetrate, to become Black gradually. For various reasons it is impossible to do so ail at once, within a month or within a week, and all those people do not want to leave there at once, nor is there any need for them to do so. That is why it is being done gradually.

And those who want to do so?

A priority has been laid down for that purpose. We have now been engaged in that matter for just over ¡two years. We have laid down these priorities; these merely started to take effect at the stage when I took over this portfolio. At that stage we laid down priorities in regard to people who found themselves in various classes of distress. They need not only be people who are very old or almost dead, as the hon. member said: those two classes are not the only ones. There are many people who are younger than“very old” and healthier than “almost dead”who are in fact being bought out in the Trans kei.

A few Nats, yes.

I do not want to mention names here, but I can furnish the hon. member with the names, if he wishes to use political terminology, of hard very old U.P. supporters and very young …

Very old.

No, “very old” not in terms of years, but in terms of their U.P. convictions, and I can also furnish him with the names of young people who are U.P. supporters. Sir, when properties are purchased, we cannot have regard to whether those owners are N.P. or U.P. supporters. Sir, do you know why that hon. member’s suspicions are aroused? I hope he does not think that that is the method whereby he would proceed if he had to carry out that work, i.e. by wanting to buy out U.P. supporters only. Those are Whites, and everybody—whether he is a U.P. or NJP. supporter—must be bought out on this basis. This is the only basis that obtains. I have tried to make this point very dear, and this is also the underlying concept in what the hon. member had to say about the commercial aspects which he discussed in the course of his speech. The United Party wants the Whites who are living there—whether they have commercial interests there or for whatever purpose they may be there—to be protected so that they may live there for ever. We say: No, they cannot live there for ever. Long before this constitutional position came about in the Transkei, the late Dr. Verwoerd himself said, when he was still Minister of Native Affairs, that it would not be possible for Umtata to remain a White-spot town for ever, that it would have to become a Blackspot town. The bon. member knows that as long ago as in the fifties we discussed that topic in this House.

He said many other things which you are no longer doing today

Who told you that nonsense?

Sir, I just want to say this to the hon. member for Transkei. The experience we have gained over the past two and a half years in connection with buying out the interests of Whites—mostly commercial interests—and in connection with which we have spent approximately iR5 million, has shown that those people do not want to leave the Transkei now that they have seen that, as a result of the new constitutional phase the Transkei has entered, there is money in circulation and therefore more business and life in the Transkei than was the case before. In 1963, when I was there, I had lengthy discussions with professional people, traders and others. They spoke about the Transkei which was finding itself on the edge of a financial precipice. I told all those people, “You who are now asking us how we as a Government are going to make it possible for you to leave this area within the shortest possible time, will see that you will be the people who are going to cling to this Transkei, because you will receive benefits here once the system comes into operation”. And I was dead right. The large majority of those people who were initially in such a hurry to leave the Transkei, do not want to leave it now.

Sir, the hon. member referred to the rezoning. We introduced the zoning, and, as the hon. member knows, that was the first time something of that nature was introduced in the Transkei or in any part of South Africa. That was done two years ago, in the winter of 1966. this zoning was introduced after an investigation had been instituted by a commission, and I said at that stage that we did not want to review the zoning basis every few months. I said, “We have now introduced a new system there; allow that system to prove itself in practice; allow it to develop a little: let us gain experience of this matter, and after two years I shall be prepared to review the position of the zoning of those towns that have not been zoned already”. As the hon. member knows, there are more than 20 towns in the Transkei. Some of the smaller ones have been zoned as completely black towns, and then there are others that have been zoned as partly black town.

Two years as from now?

No, I say two years ago when we introduced the system, I said that I would not change the zoning before two years have passed. Those two years have now passed. I have notified the municipalities that that two-year period has now expired. I shall ask the municipalities and other interested parties in the Transkei area to submit to me their ideas in regard to the zoning of their particular towns, if they have not been zoned completely Black already. I think that there are 11 or 13 towns in the Transkei which have not been zoned completely Black as yet. The Department has entered into negotiations with the municioalities concerned. I think it is still possble for them to submit their representations; I think the closing date is in July. I do not want to anticipate matters by telling the hon. member now that I shall do this or that. I do not think that it would be fair to do so, for in that case, why would I ask these people for their views? But I want to tell the hon. member that this trend of thought must be accepted, i.e. that the areas for the Bantu in the towns should gradually be enlarged. Just as there was in the beginning, two years ago, sufficient reason for some of the smaller towns to be zoned completely Black, so it may now be possible for some of the remaining smaller towns, which were not zoned completelyBlack at that stage, to be zoned completely Black now; and in some of the larger towns, which were zoned partly Black, larger parts will now perhaps be zoned Black, although such towns will perhaps not be zoned completely Black as yet. I am referring to towns such as Umtata, which one would not zone completely Black at once. This is the trend of thought the hon. member must accept. As soon as I have obtained all the particulars from the municipalities and as soon as I have studied them and feel ready to say something in that regard, I shall, if Parliament has not met by that time, make a public statement in regard to the matter. That is why I do not wish to go into greater detail in regard to the rezoning of hhe Transkeian towns at the moment.

If you would merely tell them that you would compensate them if they wanted to move, they would accept it.

We have laid down the basis for compensation. I told the hon. member that two years ago I laid down a definition of necessity in the case of people who had to move. Together with the rezoning I shall review all those factors, and there is a possibility that I shall also review the definition of the necessity to move. I can tell the hon. member that I have approved cases and that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who deals with this matter nowadays, has also approved cases where people can be compensated even though they are not extremely old or ill. These matters are considered on their merits. I want to make this appeal to the hon. member— and I hope this will not be a case of fanning the flame—not to make a political football out of this matter of buying out the Whites in the Transkei. Over the past two years the Government has proved its bona fides through and through, in two respects. It has proved that the Whites will be compensated and, secondly, that the Whites will be compensated in an equitable manner. The hon. member has enough other things, even the reputed discord in the National Party, out of which he can make political capital, but he must not make political capital out of this matter, for he is making it difficult for those (people and he is making it difficult for everybody.

What am I to do if these people come to me with their complaints?

If those people bring their complaints to the hon. member because he is the M.P. for that area, he must raise the matter with us, as he did in my time when I handled those matters. The hon. member knows that when I was Deputy Minister he spent a great deal of time with me in order to bring these matters to my notice. The hon-. member must not use these matters for purposes of political gain. That is all I want to tell him. If he follows the correct procedure it will be easier for us to argue about those matters.

Then the hon. member referred to the position of professional people. He referred specifically to the attorneys and the doctors practising there. I cannot recall having received representations from the attorneys. I do not know whether these have been made very recently, but the representations made by the doctors I do remember very well, for they were lengthy representations. We gave an adequate reply to the individual doctors as well as the society which wrote to us. They do receive compensation, but I want to state here very emphatically that the decision at which I arrived, was not simply taken in a haphazard and impetuous manner. In my way—and that is the only correct way-—I also consulted beforehand with the recognized professional body in South Africa which looks after doctors’ interests, i.e. in regard to the decision I took. I am convinced, just as they are definitely convinced, that I adopted a more lenient attitude than that body itself would have adopted. A basis has, therefore, been laid down for the doctors as well. It amounts to this: The White Paper also applies to them as far as the purchase of their properties is concerned, and since a doctor’s practice is something quite different—i.e. in respect of goodwill—from a shopkeeper’s business, a concession is also being made to doctors in respect of goodwill, but on a basis rather different from the one that applies to traders.

Sir, the hon. member referred to the position of the officials working for the AuditorGeneral.

All officials.

Yes. all officials and specifically the officials of the Auditor-General. There are three types of officials; one can place them into three different categories. We have the officials of our Government who have been seconded to the Bantu Government and who are under the authority of the Transkeian Government and work for them. They are the ones who receive that extra allowance. The underlying principle on which they receive i-t, is that they are under the authority of the Transkeian Government itself and work for the Transkeian Government. That is why they receive that allowance. Then we have the second group of officials, and they are the people who, for instance, work for the Railways and the Post Office. These are officials who are not under the authority of the Transkeian Government, but under that of the Government of the Republic. They are working for this Government, and they have been working for this Government in that area over all these years. Their position has been left unchanged, i.e. as it was before, because the constitutional changes did not change their position as officials. They do not fall under the Transkeian Government, but under the Government of the Republic.

Then there is a third group, and in their case there is a small difference. They are officials working for the Controller andAuditor General. In a certain sense those officials are associated with the Transkeian Government, but they do not fall into the same category as the white officials who, for instance, have been seconded to the Transkeian Department of Agriculture. We have gone into this matter very thoroughly. We took legal counsel in this regard. The matter was submitted to the Cabinet and was discussed there at length, and we felt that it was not correct to pay to the officials of the Controller and Auditor-General the allowance which is in fact being paid to the first goup of officials which I have just dealt with here. We decided that it would actually be wrong to do so. The decision is based on the interpretation of the statutory position in respect of these three groups of officials. That is the reply.

Then the hon. member also asked me a question about the Coloureds living in the Transkei. I said last year that we would go into the position of the Coloureds. I just want to say this: Some time ago my colleague the Minister of Coloured Affairs and I gave a hearing to a deputation from the Coloured Council in regard to this matter. That was quite some time ago. We made these matters very clear to them, and I think I am correct in saying that the members of the Coloured ouncil who formed part of that deputation, know exactly what the position is, and they have reason to believe that w-e will treat them, i.e. the Coloured community there, in just as honest and sincere a manner as we do the white community. The position is as follows: We do not by any means have a proper idea of the number of Coloureds involved in this matter. We do not know what professions they practise, or whether they are property owners or lessees. We do not know in what parts of those towns they are living and. for instance, what their occupational possibilities are for employment elsewhere, etc., etc. We do not have at our disposal such a survey of the Coloureds, and after our two Departments and another Department which is concerned in this matter had consulted with one another— amongst others the Department which has toprovide for housing—-a start was made with such a survey. I have not received the report of the survey as yet, but I have reason to think that the report will be submitted soon. We shall receive it soon. As soon as it has been received, this matter will be investigated very thoroughly, and in consultation with my colleagues who are involved in this matter, I shall go into the position of the Coloureds, and then we shall also have to judge whether we should make ad hoc temporary, separate residential provision for the Coloureds living in Transkei towns, if those Coloureds—and I state this very clearly—cannot be assisted to leave the Transkei so that they may be placed outside the Transkei, in South Africa’s other areas, and may accept other employment there. This is one of the terms of reference of the enouiry, i.e. to go into these matters and to make recommendations. Once we have that picture in front of us, we shall be able to remedy the position as a whole. We cannot take decisions about these matters in a rash manner. It is no use acting on hearsay and saying that we shall build 500 houses for Coloureds to live in at a certain place, whilst the Coloureds themselves may perhaps want to go to Port Elizabeth or Cape Town, or wherever, in order to work there. That is the position in regard to the Coloureds. I want the hon. member and the Coloureds to accept this from me, i.e. that it is not our slightest intention to close our eyes to the presence of the Coloureds in the Transkei area. Their position will be dealt with in as responsible a manner as applies in the case of the Whites.

Can the hon. the Minister give me the assurance that in regard to housing he will go into the matter at once as a matter of urgency just to provide temporary housing for the Coloureds, especially in Umtata?

I said that we would consider the idea of ad hoc provision for Coloureds, but I do not want to say that Ishall do so before I receive the survey and the report of the inquiry, for by proceeding in a rash manner one might perhaps do the wrong thing.

The hon. member also asked me a question about the drought and problems connected with it. I think that when the hon. member raised this matter in the course of the discussion of my Vote earlier in this Session, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development replied to that. I shall repeat What the position is. In the first instance—the hon. member must understand me clearly: I do not say in the only instance, but in the first instance—this matter is a responsibility of the Transkeian Government. On its Estimates for this year the Transkeian Government made available an amount for such distress relief measures for its citizens in the Transkei who have been experiencing problems owing to agricultural conditions such as droughts. I do not have the Transkei’s Estimates with me, but I had it here during the discussion of my Vote, and I saw the amount in it. I looked it up and found that it was on the Estimates. That is the first point the hon. member made. Agricultural and drought conditions and all those things fall under that Government, and they have appropriated money for distress relief measures. In the meantime we have also gone one step further and made arrangements whereby stock in those parts, in terms of special arrangements entered into with buyers of stock, can be bought up in those specific areas, because it has been found that in many cases it may perhaps be more desirable to buy up poor stock in the stricken areas rather than hoping that something good will turn up and trying to feed them, only to find that such stock subsequently die in large numbers. This is in fact a relief measure that was taken for them by our department.

Where?

These arrangements, whereby it is possible for stock in the drier areas to be bought up by outside people, have already been made in the southern part of the Transkei.

Thirdly, I want to tell the hon. member that if this measure is inadequate, if circumstances require it, we shall, of course, also grant assistance on our part. Of course, we shall help them. Those measures which the Transkeian Government has to take, are there in the first case, and we shall supplement that assistance if necessary.

What about the Cis kei?

The Ciskei is our direct responsibility, and that is why the money appears on our Estimates. Just as we have done in previous years in the Ciskei, as well as in other parts of the country where drought conditions prevail, we shall take the necessary drought relief measures there. We do so in various ways. We do so by means of providing employment, and in cases where people can no longer work, rations are supplied to them. The hon. member ought to know that. Exactly what has applied before, will also apply in the Ciskei in the future.

I do not have much time left, but I want to say a few words about what other hon. members raised in this debate earlier on. My friend, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, started this Session in February with a noconfidence motion, and may I say now that to an ever-increasing extent I find that the public outside no longer realizes and sees the value and point of such a motion at all. They say that those motions have no meaning, since it is useless to introduce no-confidence motions when one does not offer an alternative. This is precisely what we felt as far as this criticism is concerned. But let us leave it at that. In his no-confidence motion the hon. the Leader used the word “illusion” as an image. The speech he made, I can call an illusory one. The whole speech was based on the illusion from which the Government was allegedly suffering. The hon. member has developed an illusion complex since then. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members opposite —and having listened to this debate for approximately 10 hours, this is my impression— are now suffering from illusions themselves. It seems to me as though these illusions have already changed into hallucinations. Those hon. members are now suffering from an illusion, and they are relying on that illusion to such an extent that I think they are not even going to streamline their party organization; they suffer from the illusion that this Party is so divided that we may collapse at any moment, perhaps even before the next Session. I say it seems to me as though it is an hallucination from which hon. members opposite are suffering.

Are you sounding a warning now that an election will be held soon?

No, Sir, by-elections may be held should unforeseen things happen, but a general election will take place at the normal time, and I am actually dying for it to come, for I have a bet with my friend the Minister of Mines as to what members opposite will not return. I can hardly wait to win that bet. [Interjections.] We shall talk again.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, I want to remind the hon. member for King William’s Town of the verse in the Bible which reads as follows, “Lord, set a watch before my mouth and guard the doors of my lips.” He should not speak about these things. If there has ever been an hon. member who is not out of the woods yet as far as these matters are concerned, then it is that hon. member. I say, “Beware of King William’s Town! ”

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned pillars, mistakes, illusions and all sorts of things, some of them were four, some were three, and later on I could no longer keep up as to counting them and writing them down. I wrote down the mistakes he said we were making, and he said the mistakes we were making, were based on false premises. He said that our starting points were false ones. I want to scrutinize some of those points he mentioned.

The hon. the Leader said that one of the false premises on which we were working, was that all the Bantu had to return to their homelands.

No, I did not put it that way; I said the majority of them.

Oh, the majority. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry the hon. the Minister’s time expired at that le moment critique so to speak, because I was very interested what his reply was going to be. After all, this is the 64,000 dollar question, namely whether the Government does or does not intend to try and return most of the Africans to the reserves. Of course, personally I have no belief in this at all. I do not believe there is any intention or ever was any intention to return the Africans to the reserves. That is why I do not agree, for instance, with the hon. member for Pinelands who said the Government had failed in its efforts to return the Africans to the reserves. The Government has no intention of depriving South Africa of its labour requirements; what it intends to do is to migratize the whole of the labour force of South Africa. That is its intention. Therefore the numbers in the urban areas willnot decrease ever. They will increase, as they have to increase, if our urban development and industrialization is to proceed, and the Government is well aware of this. But for some extraordinary reason the Government thinks it will have achieved its, shall I say philosophical, objective if it has Africans here who have no right to be here in law but who are here physically. That is how I understand their policy. I would have been very interested to know if the Minister was going to tell us that, and that he has no intention of moving the majority of Africans.

I have been listening with the greatest of interest to this debate and what interests me, of course, is that in this, the last debate of the session, this budgetary debate so-called, as usual Parliament is spending all its time on the colour issue. [Interjections.] Yes. This is inevitable.

It is the fault of that side.

No, do not blame the Opposition. [Interjections.] Of course, this is thé issue of South Africa; it is the basic issue of South Africa. It is a lot of nonsense for the Government to assure us, as it did in 1936 and again in 1960 and again this year, that if only the representatives of the nonwhite people were removed from this House we would no longer have to discuss colour policy as a party political issue. Of course that is nonsense. We are going to go on for ever spending most of our time on the colour policy of South Africa because it is the major issue.

Another thing I noticed with interest is that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is always at hand whenever the Government is feeling a bit dejected. Then he is around. If I had to give him a title, I would call him the cheerleader of the Nationalist Party. When everybody is looking a bit down in the mouth, he stands up, and in no time at all, he has raised everybody’s spirits again, he has reassured everybody and everthing is fine. In fact, if he were a tribal African woman I can just see him in that role, he would be the sort of leader of the ululators before the warriors go in to throw their assegais around. He stirs them up and keeps them going. This is his role, and he is very good at cheering up his own side, I have got to admit. On the other hand, I have noticed that the Official Opposition has been cheering itself up with this old “verligte” and “verkrampte” business that we have been hearing about for some months. I started out this Session during the no-confidence debate in debunking it, because I do not really believe it. As I said then, and I have no reason to change my mind, there are no “verligtes”. There are only “verkramptes”, but some are more “verkramp” than others. There are even some super-“verkramptes”. The interesting thing is that some of the super-“verkramptes” have rapidly been climbing back onto the bandwagon. Some of them were very quiet and the others have been absolutely voiceless, we have not had one peep out of them during the whole of the session. They shall be nameless, although they are not a thousand miles away! We have not heard one squeak out of these super-“verkramptes” this Session and I will tell the House why. Just peeping over the horizon is nomination day. We are now over the top of the five year Parliamentary period, three years have gone and there are only two years and a bit to go before we are deep in the throes of nominations again.

What about your nomination?

I will have no difficulty with nominations, do not worry about that. The next election is, after all, more than half way upon us and we are going to hear less and less of the super-“verkramptes”. We need not worry about them very much. But how anybody can talk about the rest of the Government as “verligtes” is absolutely beyond me. I know what gives rise to my reactions and I want to examine this in some detail.

We have now had two full sessions of, what I call, the Vorsterian era. This era commenced on 13tih September, 1966. I will leave aside that first short and unhappy session, because one did not know what was going to happen and how the new era was going to develop. We have now had two full sessions under the new Prime Minister, however, and let us have a look at this era of enlightenment and let us try to see just where it has made any ahanges in the internal policy in South Africa.

It is just the same.

Yes, it is just the same, the mixture as before. I cannot agree more with the hon. Chief Whip. It is the mixture as before with a little extra gall added. I am not interested in the outward-looking policy, although I welcome it and am all in favour of delegates and diplomats from African states. It will be fine if we can make some adjustments which will help us in our relations with the outside world, but let not one of us kid ourselves for one solitary second that that has made the slightest difference to the way in which policy has been carried out inside South Africa or that it has made the slightest difference to the race relations of South Africa, except to make it worse. I am not a believer in the enlightened era, because it has not dawned and it will not dawn under a Nationalist Government, irrespective of whom the Prime Minister is.

Let us have a look at some of the legislation that has been passed in the last two years. I would be very interested if somebody on either side of the House could tell me wherethe glimmer of enlightenment is in these laws. I want to mention tne laws by name and will leave it to other people to tell me where the enlightenment is. In 1967 we had further amendments to the Anti-Communist Act, which made it possible to strike lawyers and advocates off the roll. We had ‘the National Education Act, which placed the whole control of education in the hands of the hon. the Minister and which gave him the powers to impose a system of deadly uniformity on education in South Africa. We had the Population Registration Amendment Bill and what did that do? That made it more difficult for those people who could cross the colour line to do so, Because, for the first time, an absolute test of descent was introduced. It also introduced a whole lot of criteria to make it more difficult for those people who could perhaps avoid the descent test. The Planning Act was introduced last year, which put the whole of the expansion of industries in the existing metropolitan areas into the hot little hands of the hon. the Minister of Planning. He is the man who is now responsible and decides whether an industry may expand or not. He, together with his friends, i.e. the cheerleader, of the Nationalist Party, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and also the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who also exercise the powers in this regard. What experience these gentlemen have ever had of industrial development I honestly do not know. All I can say from the views that they have expressed in this House, is that they obviously do not have the faintest glimmer of understanding of the dynamics of industrial development and what is required if South Africa is to maintain its flow of growth. They only think in terms of migrant workers. They have no knowledge of technological changes, which means more skilled workers and not less. They make no real effort to retrain white workers who are going to be displaced by the technological changes. Where are the big programmes for deployment of labour and for the retraining of labour? I do not hear of any of these, but only of regulations to make use of migrant African labour, but I will come back to that later.

Do not pretend that you know something about the warmth of my hands.

Oh no, not a bit. I can see they are hot. Some feminine instinct tells me that they are. Then we had the Terrorism Act last year which, going beyond 90 days solitary detention and where not even the nearest relatives are informed, tightened up everything and placed tremendous powers in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Police to hold people indefinitely in solitary confinement. The Sobukwe clause came in again, of course. That is just a brief assessment of some of the legislation of 1967, the first full session of the enlightened era under the present Prime Minister. This session has not been any different as far as legislation is concerned. We had a further amendment to the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act We have, of course, had the three measures which completely removed the last vestige of representation of the Coloured people from Parliament from the end of the 1971 Parliamentary session. If that is enlightenment, I want someone to explain where it is enlightened. In return the Coloured people received a council, which existed anyway, with slightly enlarged powers, but no powers that really affect the lives of the people concerned. They have no powers to pass legislation touching on group areas, job reservation, separate amenities, or any of the other things that really affect their everyday lives. If this is enlightenment, I must be wearing very dark glasses.. We have also had the law which prohibits multi-racial political parties. Is this an enlightened attitude in this day and age, namely to cut further the contact between races by legislation? I would like hon. members on either side of the House to tell me how this, by any stretch of the imagination, can be described as “verligte” legislation. We have also had the imposition of the pattern of the Bantustans on South West Africa. This, as far as I am concerned, once again takes us away from the main stream of thinking in the world, namely separation in South Africa as against the removal of all the actual racial barriers in other countries of the world. We have also had the Sobukwe clause reenacted.

Let me come to the administrative side, which I believe depicts the most depressing, unutterably depressing picture of the tightening up in every possible respect of the implementation of the policy of apartheid. There is no lessening up, but a tightening up of that policy. The Group Areas Act is being implemented up to the hilt. Ask Coloured people and Indian people whether they think matters are becoming easier for them and whether there has been a lessening of the tension and the insecurities they have suffered since this Government under its new Prime Minister started functioning. I will not even mention the same old nonsense with regard to passport refusals, visa refusals, all those, what I would call, examples of “enlightenment” that we have in South Africa.

As far as the Africans are concerned, the pass laws and influx control have all been tightened up. The administration has been tightened up in every possible respect. There has been the five per cent reduction of African labour in the Cape, the prohibition on employment of African migrants in certain categories of labour and the great hardships affecting African women in the urban areas, who since the new administrative regulations have been applied are finding it increasingly difficult to prove their right to be in the urban areas and to stay in houses in which they have lived for years with their children, iftheir husbands die, desert them or divorce them. Enlightenment? Hon. members have no idea of what is going on only ten miles outside of Cape Town. They would not know. The hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration and Education said yesterday again that only people unlawfully in the area were endorsed out. But I never denied that w.ien I spoke previously. He said “bring me examples’’. I can bring him only the law and the way in which it has been administered.

You want the unlawful to remain there.

But what is “unlawful”? This is where we differ. “Unlawful” today … [Interjections.] Will hon. members just let me finish what I am saying? “Unlawful” today has become such that nobody can prove that he is lawful anywhere. This is the point. Has the hon. the Deputy Minister, either of them, or the Minister, heard of the Houghton-Hlshlane judgment of Judge Corbett in a case that was decided in 1964 or 1965, which affects the whole position of Africans who believe they had the right to be here under section 10. Not one of those gentlemen have heard of this case.

That only applies to women.

It does not only apply to Bantu women. It affects every African who used to be able to prove that he or she was here lawfully under section 10. Now it has been made virtually impossible, because the administrative machinery to prove that those people were here for 15 years before 1952, when section 10 of the Urban Areas Act was passed by this Government, did not exist. There was no administrative machinery for registration of contracts or for the compulsory registration of women, or even the reference books introduced by the abolition of Passes Act. So it has become since that judgment virtually impossible to prove lawful residence. Will hon. members now tell me that these people are unlawfully in the area, when the Government passes a law but does not set up the administrative machinery at the same time to enable people to prove their rights under the very law that the Government has passed? Now we are having another example of this situation. On 1st April new regulations were gazetted which migratize every African worker not presently in employment, every one of them who cannot prove their rights under the most difficult circumstances under section 10 or who is not already in employment. The minute such a person loses a job he has to go back to the reserves and register, except when he is in the Transkei, because this has not yet been applied in the Transkei. Now let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister that the machinery for that has not been set up properly.

The labour bureaux, which had to be set up in the regional autnorities, have not been set up. I asked the hon. the Minister a question only the other day, and he said that the information was not readily available. It can only be obtained by extensive inquiries from district officers. He does not know how many depots for accommodation have been set up. In fact, he says none. He says he does not really konw what is going on at all. But that does not stop him from promulgating regulations. They were promulgated and they came into force on 1st April. I would tell the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Ministers that there is going to be a chaotic situation in the labour market as the result of this. There are no labour bureaux. All is left in the hands of the local chiefs and headmen. They have not the faintest idea how to administer this law. They do not know how to fill in a form. There is no accommodation for them.

It is absolute nonsense!

It is not absolute nonsense. Let me tell the hon. member for Heil bron: Already it has been suspended in Um lazi, because such a chaotic situation has arisen. What sort of enlightened Government is this that does not set up machinery for the regulations that have been promulgated? How are migratory workers to register, how are they to get work? These are unemployed people. They have no resources to fall back on while they are waiting for jobs. Their whole family depends on them. How are industrialists to cope with the situation when they are not getting the labour that they require? I say that toe situation is absolutely chaotic. It is disgraceful that hon. Ministers without any consideration whatever of the practical implications of the regulations that they have promulgated and the laws that have been passed, insist that these measures be put into action. This is the “enlightened” Government under Mr. Vorster.

I could go on like this ad nauseum to show that, as far as I am concerned, it is anything but enlightened. The removal at Limehill and now in Pretoria from Eersterus to a place with the charming name of Stinkwater, some 35 miles outside Pretoria, has taken place. Eersterus was a squalid slum, admittedly a squatter camp, but where have they been put? Better conditions? Oh, no! They are put on to the veld of Stinkwater with tents in this icy Highveld winter, with absolutely no preparation made to receive those people. It is the same, a repetition of the disgraceful episode at Limehill. The Government never learns.

Your allegations are disgraceful.

I am disgraceful, because I expose these conditions! The people who go to help are, “agitators”. The churches that do their best to offset the conditions they find these people in, are “neo-communists”. We get sick and tired of all this.

We have heard all these ridiculous stories already.

They are not ridiculous stories. The hon. the Minister can go and have a look for himself. It is disgraceful. I take the removal of the 30-year leases from people who put all their aspirations into owning their little houses under 30-year lease, in Johannesburg and elsewhere. They are just destroyed like that. The hon. the Minister could not care less. I take the decisions not to have any more high schools up to mat’ic in the urban areas so that the Africans who long for higher education for their children have to send their children out to the country schools at great expense, costing at least R100 to R120 per year, which they can ill afford. Or go without higher education. It was easier for an African child living in Durban or Johannesburg to get high school education up to matr’c a generation ago than it is today. When those children go out of the towns, unless their parents have taken every possible precaution to notify the superintendent of the township to keep their names on the housing permit, to show that they have been paying the school fees, they are not allowed to come back when they have finished school, because their registration books are issued in the country districts and they are not allowed to come back to the towns. The officials do not warn the parents concerned about these difficulties.

As a final little example of “verligtheid”, or whatever one might call it, of this Government, I want to quote the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister about no shop apartheid. Instead of just saying that it is ridiculous in this day and age to contemplate shop apartheid he said that his audience should imagine what would happen if a law of this nature was enforced in South Africa. He said: “Any White who was not able to go to a shop would not then be able to send his nonwhite servant. One can imagine what chaos would ensue.” I do not need to say anything more. That is an “enlightened sentiment”. But it is not that this goes counter to every bit of thinking of the 20th century.

Do you not send your non-white servant to the shops?

Naturally! But I would not have shop apartheid under any conditions. Does the hon. the Minister not understand that?

When the House adjourned I had completed the major part of my speech and I hope that I have disposed of the verligte-verkrampte myth fairly conclusively. There is only one other point I wish to make in the few minutes at my disposal.

I want to deal with the interesting exchange which took place yesterday between the hon. the Mini ter of Transport and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the rate for the job. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition talked about a minimum wage for Whites. I simply want to point out in that regard that his is, of course, the dilemma of the United Party. One cannot say in one breath that one is against job reservation and at the same time say that one is in favour of upholding the industrial colour bar. The two things are mutually contradictory, and one must make up one’s mind. One can have an open economy with free competition and the rate for the job, but that has nothing to do with a minimum wage for Whites, because the minute one talks about a minimum wage for Whites one has given away the whole argument in favour of the rate for the job. [Interjection.] No, not if the Leader of the Opposition makes a point of saying there must be a minimum rate for Whites, because tbat means that certain jobs, by virtue of having a certain high wage rate, are reserved for white people. That is all it can mean: the rate for the job is a flat rate per occupation. So one cannot talk about having a minimum rate for Whites. One should have a minimum rate for every job, which I believe should be high enough to cover the poverty datum line for even the most unskilled and menial jobs. [Interjections.] I was talking to the gentleman behind me for a minute. I would point out that production would in fact increase because when you are dealing with a class of people who are underpaid and cannot feed themselves properly, then the chances are that when you give them enough money with which to feed, themselves properly, their production will increase. That has been found everywhere. [Interjections.]

The Deputy Minister said there should be a minimum wage for everybody.

Of course there should be.

Order! The hon. member for Transkei must play the game; he cannot get too close to the hon. member. [Laughter.]

With respect. Sir, he will have to play the game much more skilfully. The point I was trying to make as far as the hon. the Minister of Transport is concerned is that he interjected at one stage and said: “What do I do about the hundreds of thousands of white workers who do not havean education above St. 6?” I think I understood him correctly to say that. Everybody sympathizes with the predicament of the Government in this regard, and every Government has this predicament of how to look after people who by their own shortcomings, for which they cannot be blamed, are unable to acquire higher skills. Naturally such people must be given some form of sheltered employment. or their housing must be subsidized, but they have to be cared for by the State.

Then pay fem the minimum wage.

No. it is not only a minimum wage: it is more than that. They have to be looked after and placed in certain types of employment, but not at the expense of the whole economy. That is the point. Tt should not be done at the expense of not training the non-Whites because you want to keep those jobs reserved for Whites who cannot do any better for themselves. The point is—and I am talking now to the hon. the Minister and not to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition— that it should not be done at the expense of the whole economy. Sir. I do not believe anyone in South Africa has to make sacrifices. The apostle, as he calls himself, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, said that we should rather have a poor South Africa hut a white South Africa, Hnteriectinns/I That is absolutely; uncalled for. because there is enough for everybody. That is why. This country is a rich country and not like some of the. African states. We have vast resources waiting, to he developed, and the one thing which is. holding back our really tremendous growth is the fact that we do not use our manpower resources properly. We do not need to make any sacrifices: not that the Deputy Minister has any intention of making any sacrifices: I am ouite sure of that, and not that it is ever really intended that the white neoole should make the sacrifices. The sacrifices have to be made by non-Whites. by keening them in unproductive employment or by keeping them under-emoloved. What we should be devoting all our energies to. is to developing our resources by training our labour and to allowing the full productive use of our non-white labour to assit white fabnur who have been caught—not only the unskilled and the semi-skilled but the skilled wMte labour—in a dilemma, because they have been caught between the pressure of automation on the one side, for which they are not framed, and the fragmentation pressures on the other side. What we have to do is to retrain our white labour and give them redeployment allowances and. so on, so that we can take advantage of the third industrial revolution, which is the phase that South Africa should now be entering upon.

We have just seen two parties in action on the Opposition side.

and the leader of the other Party. I want to state very explicitly here that, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was given an opportunity in this debate and various members on his side participated in it. It was the hon. member for Newton Park in particular who made the assertion that this side of the House had changed its policy. But the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party stated that the National Party had not changed its policy.

And that is even worse.

She says that it is even worse, our not having changed our policy. I want to prove today that the policy of the two parties has not changed at all. The United Party has not changed its policy, but it has changed its tactics: and I shall also prove that the policy of the United Party and that of the Progressive Party is still the same policy. in so far as it arises out of the liberal approach to colour.

But what about your policy?

Yes. they say we have changed our policy, but that Question proves that the hon. member has a lop-sided concept of what a policy really is. Actually a policy consists of three component parts. These are the basis, the course being followed and the ultimate aim of the policy. And now I should like to tell hon. members that as far as our policy is concerned, as it was formulated and summarized in the manifesto of 1948. remains intact after 20 years of National rule. [Interiections.] We have made allowance for continuity, and we can prove this, because I am saying that implied in the basis of our policy lies the implementation of that policy, the course being followed. In the course of 20 years we have been implementing this policy, and we are on our way towards achieving the ultimate goals of our policy. That is the difference. The hon. member has stated that we have departed from our policy. No, there has been no departure from policy. There were in fact adjustments of policy, but surely an adjustment is not a change or a renunciation of policy. We have to adapt our policy because new circumstances have arisen in the implementation of our policy, without there having been any renunciation of policy. Those hon. gentlemen are sitting on the Opposition side: they do not have the opportunity of implementing their policy.. It is we who must come forward with practical measures to implement our policy. Whenever new circumstances and new situations arise, surely it is necessary that we adjust our policy in the light of the changing circumstances, without there being any renunciation of policy. If there is a departure from policy, then it is a maladjustment and we find ourselves with the United Party, and theirs is the wrong direction. It serves no purpose to play off the one Prime Minister against former Prime Ministers as far as the application of our policy is concerned. The hon. member for Houghton is quite right; the present Prime Minister has not departed from the fundamentals of the policy of the National Party, as laid down by Dr. Malan. or by the late Advocate Strijdom or Dr. Verwoerd. I have sat here as Chief Whip under four Prime Ministers …

And you are still sitting there.

I have been sitting here as Chief Whip for 20 years behind four Prime Ministers, and there has never been any departure from our policy. There were in fact adjustments and applications of our policy, but there was no departure. After all. we have thought out our policy. We have stated our policy on a scientific basis, on a moral basis. We take into account the continuity of the separate constituents which are. inseperably connected to one another and which comprise that policy. The late Dr. Malan. the late Advocate Strijdom and the late Dr. Verwoerd all took the continuity of our policy into account. The same applies to the present hon. Minister and I maintain that there has been no departure from policy. Adjustments have in fact been made, but what is wrong with that? We are a dynamic party: we are a thinking party. Sir. do you know what mistake the United Party has made during this Session? They sat there thinking and waiting and hoping: they sat there thinking—now they are merely sitting there—that there would be a rift in the National Party, but that is the mistake they made. Our Party does not split; our Party brings together what belongs together through innermost conviction. Our colour policy is based on the national conviction., and because we are the bearers of a traditional colour policy which is based on the national conviction. we will not disintegrate. In 1948. under the United Party, when we were faced by a crises, when we had racial tension, we did not split; on the contrary, we drew closer together, and now that there is a crisis of survival, it will be a crime on the part of any person on this, side to think that he can leave the National Party in the lurch, because we are the bearers of the right political idea which will offer a final solution to the colour auestion and lead our country to racial peace. Sir. mention is being made here of “verkramptes” and “verligtes” and “verlentes”. There the “verkrimptes” are sitting. They are suffering from an incurable disease: political shrinkin a disease; they have become smaller and smaller. We on this side will not split. As Chief Whip I am extremely gratified that we are not all alike. As far as our members are concerned we take individual differences into account; after all we are not all alike. What would happen if we all looked alike as does Vause Raw or any other member on that side? We are. a Party which is rich in individuality, which is rich in the exchange of ideas. We do have an exchange of ideas. Ours is a thinking Party. We are living in a world on the move, and when we hold a caucus meeting we have an exchange of ideas. That is what makes the Party richer, and in this way we arrive at political clarity. Then we formulate and then we forge ahead, and for 20 years we have been forging ahead so rapidly in the political field that hon. members on the opposite side look like the “verkramptes” and we look like the “verligtes”. Sir, people who think that we will disintegrate are living in a political fool’s paradise. The hon. member for Houghton, the leader of a small party, is a political realist. She knows politics. I shall prove to you in a moment that the Progressive Party and the United Party is still the same, and that the. dispute between them is merely a mock political battle. But I do not want to dwell on the dispute and the dissension which, according to them, is to be seen in this Party. There is nothing of the kind, and there has never been anything of the kind in this Party. For 20 vears. under the leadership of various Prime Ministers, and under this affectionate Chief Whip we have never lost anybody.

Order! The hon. member must not become personal.

The only person we lost was Mr. Japie Basson, that is all. We merely sent him back to his original political home.

When are you returning Blaar to us?

Mr. Speaker, since you do not want me to become personal. I think the time has come for me to put a personal question to you. if the rules of the House will allow me to do so. You have been in this House for 25 years now. and I hope that you will remain here for many more. Of course I hone that the United Party men will not remain here as long as that. Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to you: We came here together. Twenty-five years a co vou new that Party; you knew the old United Party. You still remember the various incidents across the floor of this House. But. Sir, you also knew me, and you knew this Party as well. What we had in those davs was an unprecedented political trial of strength. Then we still opposed standpoint to standpoint, Mr. Sneaker, but now I want to ask you. through the Chair: Do vou know the United Party as they are now? Does the United Party not seem completely different to vou? Is what the United Party has to say not different from what they had to say in the old days? Does the Opposition not seem quite different to you than in the old days?

May I ask you a question, Mr. Speaker? Have you ever known a Government like that?

Mr. Speaker, have you ever in all the wide world seen an Opposition which was so useless and weak? Have you not seen that semi-National apartheid inclination and expression on their faces and listened to it in their speeches? Mr. Speaker, where are the old days when a United Party man was still a United Party man, and not an imitation Nationalist?

Where are the days when a National Party man was still a National Party man?

Order! I hope that hon. members will not interrupt the hon. member, because he never interrupts other hon. members.

The hon. member has asked: Where are the days when a National Party man was still a National Party man? Sir. that is a joke, and a joker in the wrong sense is often like a skunk in the right sense. What right has the hon. member to ask that? The National Party has always been national, but where are the days in this House when integration reigned supreme, the days in 1944 when Mr. Speaker and I came here for the first time in 1943 when they issued a political manifesto in which they stated that as all people developed and became civilized, regardless of race and colour, they would be granted the franchise? Do you still remember those days? Where are the days of the late Mr. Hofmeyr when he called out in 1946 that Asiatics should also be represented by Asiatics in this Parliament? Then a United Party man was still a United Party man. Where are the days of Hottentots Holland when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition lost his seat, and when Mr. Hofmeyr appeared with him on one platform and stated that it was his conviction that Natives would be represented by Natives, Coloureds by Coloureds, and Asiatics by Asiatics in this Parliament?

He did not say that; read it out.

No, it is not necessary to read it out. It stands on record. If the hon. member does not want to believe me then there is something wrong with his faith; that is a fact. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not all. It was not only Mr. Hofmeyr and the others who adopted that attitude.

May I put a question?

No, I will have to be either an idiot or a genius to understand the hon. member’s question. I just want to state the following very explicitly. After all, the United Party is saying that we have changed our policy. Today I want to point out what the heart of their policy is. The hon. member for Yeoville is not present at the moment, but a while back he granted a television interview in Britain as the major propagandist of the United Party. In the course of that interview the following question was put to him: “Then does the United Party envisage there will one day be black M.P.s in the National Assembly in Cape Town?” His reply to that was: “Our Leader, Sir De Villiers Graaff, stated very clearly: ‘Where on our election we will give black people of this country representation in Parliament by white people,’ he accepts, and we all accept, that that is not a permanent situation, that it will change, and a future Parliament will allow black people to come into Parliament.” I just want to point out how they do not change their policy. They must not come along and argue with us now. If I really want to see an integrationist/ liberalistic expression, a United Party expression, then all I have to do is look at the hon. member for Houghton. There the lady custodian of the principles and the policy of the United Party in this House is sitting. The United Party shies away from the logical outcome of their policy.

I want to state very explicity here that what the Opposition does if we have to oppose standpoint against standpoint is very strange, and often the Chief Whip on that side comes to me and states that we must oppose standpoint against standpoint in this Parliament. What do they do then? I want to refer in particular to the hon. member for Yeoville. When he dwells on our colour policy, do you know what he does? He does not oppose his standpoint against ours. No, he immediately casts a prophetic glance into the future, and he dwells on the logical outcome of our policv. Then he sees terrible sights and dreams horrible dreams. Then that hon. member indulges in such flights of imagination and goes into ecstasies. Then he pronounces like a prophet of doom the certain and the uncertain dangers which supposedly attach to a policy of distinctive development. But when he has to dwell on the policy of his own party, when he has to state his own point of view, then he is no longer so eloquent but makes use of reference tactics. Then he is no longer a prophet, he strips himself of the gift of prophecy. Then he no longer indulges in flights of imagination to distant political horizons; he does not think of the logical outcome of his policy. All the dangers which adhere to their policy, even the danger of black hegemony and ultimate black domination in this country, disappear like the morning mist before the rising sun. Then the hon. member opposite becomes a kind of political primitive man, almost like a Kalahari Bushman with a digging stick looking for kamaroo bulbs and merely subsisting from one day to the next. They do not give two hoots for the day after tomorrow, they do not worry about the logical outcome of their policy. I maintain that they do not think about that. Nor do they think about the complicated problem of world relations. No, they are not concerned about having co-partnership in an international trade pattern, because the old Bushman does not concern himself about his culture or in keeping body and soul together. That is the difficulty. I want to state something very explicitly here. They are shying away from the logical outcome of their policy.

What about your outward-going policy?

I shall come to that in a moment. It is clear to me that before the election the Opposition wants to rid themselves of the bugbear which attaches to their policy. Now they want to disseminate a kind of middle-of-the-road party policy here, and by so doing want to pose before the voters as the co-creators of the excellent policy of distinctive development. That is what they are doing, not so? That is why the hon. member for Durban (Point) suddenly erupted here last night as the champion of distinctive development in South Africa.

Since 1948 the white voters of South Africa have passed a damning judgment on that political idea of which the United Party is the bearer, and that is co-partnership of the nonWhites in the Parliamentary control of the country. But there is one thing that they did not take into account, and do you know what that is? It is the mental attitude of the Whites in this country. There is an ineradicable mental attitude engrained into almost every white voter in this country today. It is that he will only accept a political policy or a Coloured attitude when that policy contains a 100 per cent guarantee that the white self-determinating nation will never be subjected to a black majority Government. The Liberal Party never wanted to give this guarantee, nor could they. The Progressive Party policy does not want to give it, and they cannot give it. They are right. They want to give it to those who are civilized, as they put it. The United Party very much wanted to give it before 1948, but they could not. They want to give it today, or so they maintain with their parrot cry of white leadership, but they cannot do so. I shall tell you why. They have not changed their policy. The English-language Press have never changed their basic attitude as far as the liberal attitude towards colour is concerned.

We adhere to the policy of Botha and Smuts.

If the hon. member would only keep quiet for a moment he would also get to know something in a moment. I know a great deal more than the hon. member; I even know that he does not even know that he knows nothing.

What about the speech at Loskop Dam?

You will not get away from the Loskop issue; you are a blockhead (iioutkop). If a person interrupts with remarks about Loskop, then he is a blockhead. I want to state very explicitly here that that side wanted to dissociate themselves from the hon. member for Houghton. But they have the same policy. Just listen to what the Cape limes writes in their leader article under the title “Democracy” on 20th February, 1963—

That is right.

Oh, “that is right”, can you hear, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, you know the whole United Party. Sometimes they speak about “verkramptes” and “verligtes” and inner strength which is being drained away. After all, they were a strong party. Was there not a split in their party as well? But now they want to dissociate themselves from the hon. member for Houghton. For how many years did we not watch them living under the same political roof? And all that happened, was a kind of divorce from bed and board. But there they still are. The Progressive Party, the extreme leftist group, is sitting on the right-hand side, and the extreme right is sitting on the left-hand side. Now they are sitting apart there to combat apartheid, but formerly they did so together. That is the only difference. I want to state very explicitly that the difference between the United Party and the Progressive Party is not a difference in quality, it is merely a difference in degree. They stül have the same policy, and there is no use trying to disguise it here. Since 1948 they have been disguising their policy and changing their tactics, but they should rather change ther policy; they must put a stop to this nonsensical opposition to apartheid or distinctive development. They want to get rid of the bugbear, but it continues to cling to them.

We must change as you have changed.

But after all. this is a changing world, and adjustments are inevitable. [Interjections.] Yes, one can see that they feel a little sensitive about this matter. And why? I shall tell you, Sir. There is nothing which will affect the survival of the Whites more detrimentally than the gradual undermining of their political position of power in this country.

Who is advocating white leadership now?

The United Party will not put me off my stroke. I have managed to get under their skin and now they want to try and take my mind off what I want to say, but I will not allow that to happen. I want to state very explicitly that the United Party, with its non-white representation in the Central Parliament of this country, as well as the representation of the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Asiatics in the so-called Federal Parliament of the country, is preparing a springboard for a breakthrough of the idea of “one man, one vote”. They want to set South Africa along the road to a majority government with the end result of Black domination in South Africa. [Interjections.] They can say what they please, but that is the result of their policy. They have the most deadly recipe for the destruction of the white man in this country. It has a fine label, i.e. White leadership. I want to make it very clear to those hon. members that they can argue whichever way they please. They can make provision for a white veto or brakes and checks, but as long as they want to incorporate to the non-Whites in the same Parliamentary mechanism they are creating a source of friction in this Parliament. When race conflicts and tension arises in this country, that unity constitution will have no viability. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have to give way to the pressure which will be exercised upon him. That is w-ha-t will happen. Those hon. members can come forward with unity constitutions, checks and eight Bantu representatives, and even six Coloured representatives, but it will make no difference. If one incorporates them into the same Parliamentary mechanism and tension and increased demands should arise, then that constitution will ultimately be like walls of paper. They will not be able to protect the nation. The policy of those hon. members will lead them to the abyss. It was a fortunate day in 1948 when we came into power, although it was a black day for the Opposition of course. When we came into power in 1948 and we had 79 representatives and they had 65. The Labour Party had six and there were three Bantu representatives, the Ballinger and the Sam Kahn type of representatives. Therefore, there were 74 representatives as against our 79, that is to say, we had a slender majority of five. But if there had at that time been 16 representatives of the non-Whites here, then the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Asiatics would have had the political balance of power in their hands. That is the method which they now want to use. [Interjections.] Hon. members will not shout me down on this point. The statements I am now making are well-founded. The United Party has never changed its policy; it is simply changing its tactics. It is just as liberal and progressive as it always was. The only difference is that the hon. member for Houghton is honest and upright. She has a brave expression, but her policy is a reckless one. It is the same policy as that of the United Party, but the United Party’s policy is disguised. They have never changed their views on colour.

What do you want from Helen?

Is that the sort of question an hon. member should put to such a man as I, whose marriage is such a happy one, a man who has never been divorced? How can you ask me that, a man who regards marriage as a Divine institution?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Chief Whip is fairly well-read, but one would not think so after hearing his speech. He knows that in the past whenever a government was in difficulty tney called in the court jester. The hon. Chief Whip has now made his annual speech. The rest of the year he is concerned mainly with interjections, on which he is frequently called to order. He has told us this afternoon that for 20 years he had sat behind the Prime Minister. That is the truth. He has remained behind the Prime Minister for 20 years and he has never got any further. He will remain there for another 20 years.

If you could interject during my speech then I can interject during yours.

I did not interject once while that hon. member was speaking. In fact it would have been very difficult to get a word in edgeways during his speech. The hon. member told us that he has sat behind the Prime Minister for 20 years and that they have never changed their minds.

Not our minds, our policy.

I have always suspected that they do not have minds to change, but now I have had this confirmed. Does the present Prime Minister take the same view as the former Prime Minister in this regard?

Yes, definitely.

What about the former Prime Minister’s Loskop speech on sport? Then we had the example earlier this Session of the Minister of Defence who tpld us that when he was Minister of Coloured Affairs they said one thing and thought another. Does that indicate a change in policy? I am not surprised that the hon. member has merely remained a Chief Whip. He is not let into the secrets of the Government.

There has been no change of policy there.

That hon. member has only been concerned with one thing this afternoon, namely trying to progress frombeing a clown to being a jester. We already have one jester in their team.

Order! I think that the hon. member should withdraw the words “clown”and “court jester”.

Mr. Speaker if you rule that those words are out of order, I will certainly withdraw them. In any case ihe is a funny man in their team. He has been trying to amuse the House for the best part of half an hour. He however has said nothing constructive whatsoever. The hon. member spoke about the 20 years he has sat behind the Prime Minister. I want to ask him whether South Africa’s name in the outside world is as good today as it was 20 years ago? South Africa’s name in the outside world is today at an all-time low compared with 20 years ago. Who brought South Africa’s name down in this way? The deeds and the speeches of this Government have brought this about. I remember seeing the effect about 20 years ago of a visit of the then Prime Minister of South Africa to Great Britain. I can remember the crowds gathering to see him. If the Prime Minister of South Africa were to go to London today he would have to have an armed bodyguard to look after him.

He would not go. He is too scared.

Order! I think that that is an undignified allegation the hon. member has just made. The hon. member must withdraw it at once.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Let us look at the Department of the Interior as it is under the present Minister of the Interior. Can one say that the Public Service in South Africa is today satisfied? Can we say that public servants have better conditions today than they had 20 years ago, having regard to the erosion in the value of money? Is the whole Public Service not understaffed? Are they not experiencing great difficulty in getting staff for the Civil Service?

I come now to education. The Minister of National Education was here a little while ago, but he is not here now. If we want to find out what people think of the hon. Minister of Education, we must go to all the teachers in South Africa. I wonder if the hon. the Minister of Education could make available to the House the telegrams, the representations and the memoranda ihe has received from all parts of the country with regard to the treatment of teachers in this country. It is all very well for the hon. member for Brits to address the House and to take up the time of the House with a lot of amusing talk but let us look at the deeds of this Government. They are the things which count. Because of the deeds of this Government education is in a parlous position today. It is in this position today because of the way in which the Government has treated the teaching staff.

I now come to Bantu affairs. The Minister and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration addressed the House during the course of this debate. They spoke about their policy and what they intended to do. But let us look at their actions. Let us look at what they do. [Interjections.] If that talkative member will keep quiet and listen for a few minutes, I shall invite him to come to my constituency and show me what this Government has been doing. Twenty years ago 1 made representations to the then Minister of Bantu Affairs, to come to my constituency and to examine a suitable piece of land for a Bantu township. The Minister, the late Dr. Jansen, came and he said that the land in question was suitable. Time went by, nothing happened and the Government appointed a new Minister of Bantu Administration, namely the late Dr. Verwoerd. He came to my constituency and examined the property concerned. He too approved of it, but nothing was done. A year or two later the late Dr. Verwoerd visited the constituency and selected a new site. New land was acquired. The Minister approved of it, and eventually the township was built. The present Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration opened that township. He approved of the township, opened it and addressed the Bantu in their township. He told them that they should be proud of their township, their new social centre, their new sportsfield. He said that he hoped that their children and their children’s children would live in that township until the third and fourth generation, because it was their permanent home. He told them that this was the Government’s policy. He told them that they should be thankful to the Government. Local Europeans from the Pinetown area and all the Bantu in that area went to the township and were photographed. The opening of the township was reported in the Digest. A special Government paper mentioned the Minister’s speech and congratulated him on the new township. But what has happened? In the meantime the Department of Planning has come into the picture. The Department of Planning has now declared this Bantu township an Indian area. The whole of the township now has to be moved. Now the Deputy Ministers are quiet, because they know that the Government blundered and made a mistake there.

Which one are you referring to?

Klaarwater.

I never opened that township.

The present Minister, who was then the Deputy Minister, opened that township.

You did not put it like that.

I said that in the first instance. [Interjections.] Now they are inviting the Bantu to go another five or six miles further afield to Dassenhoek. Sir, do you know what happened at Dassenhoek the other day? The Police raided it and they found a man making fire-arms. They arrested him. A complete factory had been opened there. Do people who are satisfied with their conditions open a factory for fire-arms? One only has to see the condition of the roads there. They are merely tracks across the country. This is a monument to the deeds of this Government. On the other side of my constituency, near New Germany, there is a place called Clermont Native Township. Between Clermont and the reserve there is Indian land. The Government has been negotiating with the Indians for years and they have now leased some of that land from the Indians. There they have erected wooden huts. Over 250 single (Bantu are living in those wooden huts, with outdoor latrines. Nothing has happened in the 20 years in which we have been trying to get the Government to do something. We have been trying to get the Government to do something in that area, but nothing has been done. The Police say that something must be done in the meantime. The other day I raised the matter with the Department of Planning, in regard to the adjoining areas, which are occupied by Indians. The Department of Planning says that it is waiting for the Department of Bantu Administration. Here we are talking about policies, but when it comes to deeds, the Government is failing and failing miserably, and they know it. Then they call themselves a Government and they talk about “kragdadigheid”. At every turn one sees that this Government says one thing in regard to their policies and they lay propaganda before the people, but when it comes to administration they fail, and they fail miserably.

In the case of Water Affairs, we find the same position. It was only the other year that we had a serious water shortage in the Vaal. All over the country we find that the Government is at last trying to deal with the water crisis, after years and years of warning. Propaganda is spread by new coloured pamphlets issued by practically every department. Instead of Bluebooks we now find that highly coloured pamphlets are published.

I now come to agriculture. We have spoken on agriculture several times during this session. In the case of Posts and Telegraphs, Community development and other departments, we find the administration lacking. Now, in this main debate, which winds up the session and deals with finance, we find that the Minister of Finance dealt with the special drawing rights and the external position but he did not deal with anything as far as the internal position is concerned. He did not deal with the question of inflation. He did not even deal with the question of excess liquidity. That is a problem which is going to face us when this House adjourns. When this House adjourns at the end of this week, we have to deal with the question of excess liquidity. The problems the country has to face, will have to be faced then. The Minister referred to special drawing rights and the difficulties in regard to paper gold. The United States are concerned with paper gold, and paper gold can be a danger to this country, as the Minister rightly says. He said at the end of his speech that there was a possibility that the special drawing rights of the economically weaker countries would flow to the stronger countries, and that the stronger countries would eventually have all the special drawing rights. That is the danger. South Africa is one of the weaker countries and in these negotiations South Africa could find itself in a difficult position. I hope that the Minister is successful in his negotiations overseas, but the dangers which can result from the development of paper gold and the possible consequences of the demonetization of gold, are prospects which none of us would like to face.

But, Sir, we are still left with the internal position. I should like to draw the bon. the Minister’s attention to an article which appeared only this week in connection with the banking position. The article in The Financial Mail reads inter alia as follows

The hon. the Minister subsequently tried to deal with the grey market but found that he could not successfully deal with it. We are still faced with the question of the liquidity outside the banking sector. That is one of the difficulties which we have to face and about which nothing has been said during the course of this debate. What we d o find is that just before these discussions were started we had handed to us the estimated revenue of the Republic of South Africa for the year ending 31st March, 1969. This shows a net increase over the previous financial year of R 120,600,000. That is increase revenue which has to come from the country. The hon. the Minister of Finance will agree with me that the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister suggested to the country that a 51 per cent growth should be aimed at—a 51 per cent growth in the gross national product. If the hon. the Minister will examine these figures he will find that the increase amounts to 8.4 per cent compared with the previous year. It is like telling a man that you are going to give him a 51 per cent increase in salary while at the same time making deductions of 8.4 per cent. Increased revenue, which in fact means increased taxation, for the current year amounts to an 8.4 per cent increase compared with the previous year. And yet the hon. the Minister tells us that he regards it as healthy that the gross national product should be increased by 51 per cent per year. He is taking more than the increase which he expects to get from the people. And here we find the Chief Whip of the Government creating a diversion and making political sallies which will carry the country no further at all. And yet the administration of the country in all departments of State is falling down. We find that the Government has bungled the boom and to a great extent we have symapthy with the hon. the Minister of Finance who has inherited a difficult position, a position which he has tried to contain and which he has done his best to contain over the period he has been in office. But he has not yet contained the situation. He is still having difficulties. He has difficulties internally and externally. He drew our attention to the external position alone. I submit that the internal difficulties are still with us. They have not been resolved. The administration of the country as a whole is still lacking. When it comes to the external position as far as the financial position is concerned, the hon. the Minister has very difficult negotiations ahead of him. When it comes to political difficulties externally—these have not been resolved. In fact the position is that they are worse than they have ever been in the history of this country.

Mr. Speaker, the debate we have conducted up to now has been a singular one, and I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also, as I did, felt like smiling when he read the headline in the Cape Argus. I think he himself was surprised that he had “lashed” the Government yesterday afternoon.

You have said that before.

You always say it.

Yes, I am always obliged to say it, because the hon. member makes the same speech year after year during this time. I am rising to reply to certain allegations made by the opposite side. In the first instance we heard the allegation from the hon. member for Pinetown again this afternoon to the effect that it is the fault of this side of the House that there is a feeling of hostility against South Africa in the-world. I now want to ask the hon. member for Pinetown: From whom is he seeking applause in the outside world? Is he seeking it from the Afro-Asians? Is he seeking it from the communists? Is he seeking it from the liberalists, who want to make all things equal, and who want to force “one man, one vote” upon us? Or from whom is he seeking that applause now? Since the hon. member for Pinetown has raised this matter now, let us cast our minds back a little. Where and when did this feeling against South Africa originate? This feeling against South Africa which exists in the outside world has not developed since 1948 when the National Party came into power. Admittedly, it did become worse after we came into power, for reasons which I shall mention here today. Surely we are all aware of that. And the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must be more aware of that than I or anybody sitting on my side. The situation has assumed those proportions as long ago as 1946-’47, when there were various resolutions at their congresses in which they deplored the faot that South Africa’s name had become such a bad one in the outside world. That was the situation in the forties already.

But amongst a minority of the nations.

I shall come in a moment to who the minority of th-o-se nations were. If the position was as hon. members want to tell me it was at that time, then the hon. member for Durban (Point) ’ must give me this one explanation, i.e. how it came about that when General Smuts wanted t-o incorporate South West Africa into the Union of South Africa in those years,“ he did nothave a single supporter for that in the outside world. Can the hon. member tell me how it came about that when General Smuts wanted to take that step, he was opposed by one woman from India, who was able to thwart that thing which should have been done for South Africa to such an extent that nothing came of it? The truth is, and hon. members know this, that they already had reason to deplore the fact that this attitude against South Africa prevailed. The truth is that something which Souh Africa could lay legitimate claim to at that time, i.e. the incorporation of South West Africa, was refused. And it was not refused because Britain or America was hostile towards South Africa. It was refused because one coloured state—virtually the only one which took the lead to any extent in the United Nations at that time—obstructed it. That country was India. South Africa’s legitimate claim was set aside because India was opposed to it. Surely the hon. members are acquainted with that history.

[Inaudible.]

Would the hon. member speak a little louder? You must not sit and mumble there.

I said it was not as simple as that.

No, it was every bit as simple as that. If the hon. member would only look up the history he would in fact see that this was the case. In 1948 a factor of hostility towards South Africa already existed in the outside world. It took place under a United Party Government. It was a United Party Government which at that time, under Minister Hofmeyr, contemplated putting the Whites and the non-Whites on an equal footing. It was a United Party Government which went so far as to grant the Indians the franchise in this Parliament for the first time. It was a United Party which foreshadowed that it would eventually eliminate colour bars in South Africa. In spite of having a United Party Government which was displaying that strong element of liberalism, one found that hostile attitude towards South Africa. And we of course inherited it when we came into power in 1948. But then an additional factor entered into the matter. That factor was the attitude and the standpoint adoped by the United Party and its Press. They did not make things easier. Can you remember that the late Minister Hofmeyr stated that this National Party should not be given a chance? And we were certainly not given a chance.

What is the United Party Press?

It is the Press which kept hon. members in power in years gone by. It is the Press which would like to bring hon. members into power again if they had any influence in South Africa. Let us cast our minds back a little to those days when an official opposition in those circumstances in which South Africa found itself, adopted the attitude that this Party should not be given a chance. But hon. members will also recall that we experienced difficult times after that. We had financial problems as a result of the lack of confidence in South Africa. There was a lack of confidence which the Press in South Africa, the Press which supported that side, and that side itself tried to break in South Africa. Do hon. members remember the Torch Commando which they brought into being? Do they recall the publicity which South Africa received as a result? Do hon. members recall the unsayoury publicity which South Africa received because of the Black Sash, without any repudiation from the ranks of that side? Do they recall, the allegations which were made as to what kind of state South Africa was—the police-state insinuations and what have you—which was a blow to confidence in South Africa? We had to survive all those things, and we have survived them. Notwithstanding the fact that that hostile attitude towards Souh Africa exists in the outside world, we are receiving daily proof of unbounded confidence in the future of South Africa. That confidence in Souh Africa exists because the outside world—those who have an interest in the matter and those who must know—know that there is a government in South Africa which will maintain law and order under all circumstances. What is the crisis which exists in the world today? The crisis which exists in the world today is that leaders and governments have allowed not only a disrespect, but also a complete antipathy towards the maintenance of law and order to take hold in countries.. We can be very thankful that that confidence in South Africa exists today, owing to the fact that people know that law and order will be maintained here in South Africa. Africa, seen in the light of those in other countries which have less of a problem than we have, are being maintained to best effect here. There is much less tension in South Africa than in any other country which has far fewer problems than we have. Has the hon. member for Pinetown, who had such a lot to say this afternoon, forgotten why the United Party lost the election in 1948? They lost it because of two things. They lost it because of the clumsy way the then Government was handling South Africa’s affairs. They also lost it because of the dangerous direction, which the nation automatically sensed, which that side of the House was following.

The usual post-war reaction.

In the years I have been sitting here I have heard many excuses. Time and again, when we reproached them with having done nothing, they said to us: “There was a war on.” And now that weare asking them why they lost, they say: “There was a war on.” I have never heard this before.

What about Churchill?

Churchill came into power again.

We shall also come into power again.

The hon. member for Yeoville says that they will come into power again. Would the hon. member do me the favour, when he sees that day approaching, to tell me about it as well? I would appreciate it so much if he would do that for me.

The various matters mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition we have not only debated for days on end in the past …

We have received no reply to them.

… but what is of far greater importance, we have fought elections on them. [Interjections.] Apart from the fact that we fought an election on the slogan “Vote for the right to vote again”, we have in fact fought elections on all the other matters. But I want to say a few words about the manpower position, which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also discussed. In regard to that, and this is the reason why I rose to speak, I want to make an announcement. I want to discuss the aspect to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition merely referred without going into it any further. I sat here waiting for one of the hon. members opposite to elaborate on that topic, but nobody did, and for very good reasons. They did not do so because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that if there is one aspect of the manpower problem in regard to which the Opposition is more vulnerable than anybody else can be, then it is in respect of the education question. I therefore want to return to that this afternoon, because I think it is necessary that the air should be cleared, and because I want to make an announcement in that regard.

If one considers the reproaches which are made in an oblique way by both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and sections of his Press, one would gain the impression that the accusation which is in fact being made now is that this Government, in the first place, adopts an indifferent attitude towards education, and nothing is further from the truth; and in the second place, that the Government has allowed a critical situation to arise in regard to education, and that the Government has done nothing in respect of that situation. I maintain that any person making such an insinuation or assertion has no knowledge of the facts and the circumstances, and that he would most certainly be far from the truth if he should make such an assertion. The matters which are being discussed in education today, namely the status, the working conditions and the salaries of teachers, are matters with which the Government in particular is intimately acquainted. People who are now raising these questions as if they are matters which are coming to the surface for the first time now, do not take into account the fact that it was none other than the Minister of Education of this Government who himself indicated these matters, and not only indicated them, but took active steps in regard to them, as I shall now proceed to indicate.

But let us first see whether there is any truth in the accusation that this Government has neglected education in South Africa, or that this Government—and this includes the Provincial Councils and the Government bodies to which it has been entrusted—has not kept pace with the developments which have taken place in South Africa. For let me say at once that if the accusation can be made against a government that it is neglecting the education of its children, and that accusation can be proved, then it can quite justifiably be said— and I want to state this very explicitly, so that there can be no misunderstanding about it—.that such a government is worthless and must make way for another. I state it unequivocally as a requirement that every government must not only be very sympathetic towards the education of the children, but that a government which does not do this, must make way for another government.

Then it is high time this Government made way for another government.

And that is precisely one of the reasons why you made way for the National Party. But let us consider what tue facts are in order to see whether this Government has neglected its duty and whether a charge against the Government in this regard can be substantiated.

In the 1948-’49 financial year the total provision for education—and I am speaking of white children only now—amounted to R47 million. That was all that could be afforded in those days.

Does that include the provinces as well?

Yes, I am giving you the total figure. It includes everything. I shall also rive it in such a way that you will understand it.

Is it given in pounds or rands?

The figures I am now quoting to you are in rands. For 1968-’69 —and the hon. the Leader of the Oppositionand others spoke derogatorily of the 20 years of our regime—‘this amount has increased to R237.9 million. It has increased from R47 million to R237 million, precisely five times as much as this country could afford in 1948-49.

But let us consider what the position was. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can make an accusation against this Government to the effect that this Government has not established the necessary school facilities for the children, then this Government must make way for another one; there is no doubt about that. But let us see whether this accusation can hold water. In 1947 the total number of schools in the then Union of South Africa was 446. Those 446 schools consisted of 29 vocational schools and 311 secondary schools, and for the entire Union of South Africa at that time there were 106 high schools. That is all there was. What is the position a mere 20 years later? I am dealing only with vocational schools, secondary schools and high schools now, and not with the primary schools at all. I shall come to them in a moment. We are now dealing with the preparation of children who have to take their place in the developed and developing South Africa. We are now investigating a Charge as to whether this Government has equipped its young men and women to such an extent that they can occupy the position they should in South Africa. I have said that one found 446 schools in the entire Union of South Africa, and of those only 106 were high schools. There were 311 secondary schools, at which the children were only afforded the opportunity of reaching standard 8. That, then, was the position in most towns and suburbs on the Witwaters rand. That was the position on the East Rand, and on the West Rand as well. Nothing was being done to promote the education of our children. That is why one found that tremendous total of 311 secondary schools, but high school facilities were not available to our children. Now, what is the position 20 years later? Twenty years later we find, not 446 schools—and once more I am only talking about high schools, etc.—but in fact 864 schools in the Republic of South Africa. In other words, what we have done during these 20 years was to double the number of schools in the Republic, notwithstanding the fact that the white population has by no means doubled itself. What is interesting in this regard is that during those 20 years the 29 vocational schools increased to 81. In other words, this Government was aware of the role which the young people had to play in regard to the professional life and the increasing industrialization of South Africa, and it made provision for that, so that the number increased from 29 to 81. But it is interesting that the number of secondary schools, where the children could go up to standard 8 only, is no longer 311; we have svstematically brought that number down to 253 during this period. But what is most important is the fact that these high schools throughout the entire Republic, which numbered only 106 20 years ago, have now increased to 430. In other words, four times as many high schools have been established in 20 years than in the entire existence of the Union of South Africa. Can one, under those circumstances, level a reproach at the National Party?

I come now to the hon. member for Pinelands, who was so impatient a moment ago that I should furnish him with the figures. We now come to the number of pupils. Let us consider what the position was in regard to the number of pupils. In 1947 one found the following position as far as professional schools were concerned. There is no need for me to tell hon. members how essential these vocational schools are in a country such as the Republic of South Africa, and what tremendous functions these children ultimately have to fulfil, and how important their training is. In 1947 there were 6,207 children attending vocational schools. Twenty years later one finds 39,022 children attending these schools. In other words, more than six times as many children are receiving vocational education after 20 years than received it when we took over in 1948. But whereas in 1947 there were only 69,655 children attending secondary and high schools, one has no fewer than 274,879 children attending secondary and high schools in the Republic 20 years later. In other words, if one takes the children attending vocational schools and those attending high schools together, one today has four times as many children attending those schools in the Republic than one had 20 years ago.

Have you got the total population increase?

Yes, the total white population increase during these 20 years has been less than half, and despite that fact we have afforded these children an opportunity of attending high school, an opportunity which they did not have under the regime of those hon. members. I can mention many examples drawn from my own constituency to the hon. member. I can inform him that in a town like Braknan, where I lived, a town with 27,000 white inhabitants, neither the Afrikaanssneaking section nor the English-speaking section had a single high school for their children. It was only when the National Party took over in the Transvaal in 1949 that my hon. friend, the hon. member for Brakpan, and I went along to ask for high schools for our children, and got them.

What do the teachers say about you?

I am not here to reply to “royal commands” from those benches.

Order! I think that the hon. member must give the hon. the Prime Minister a chance to complete his speech.

Notwithstanding the fact that the population has not doubled, the number of pupils attending high schools has increased fourfold. Where did those children come from? They were always there; all we have done now is to afford them an opportunity of attending high schools, an opportunity which they did not have at that time. But, Sir, let us go further. The reproach has been levelled against us that we did not make provision in time for the necessary number of teachers to teach these children. Sir, would the hon. member for Yeoville please do me the favour of not speaking so loudly; he is disturbing me more than he imagines. If the reproach that we did not make provision in time for the necessary number of teachers is a valid one, then it is a tragic reproach which is being made against us, and then I want to repeat that we have neglected our duty. If we did not make provision in time, then we have undoubtedly neglected our duty. There cannot even be any argument about that. But let us see wihat the position is. Let us first consider the Transvaal. I am now taking primary and high school pupils, i.e. all the pupils in the Transvaal. In 1950 there were 207,000 pupils in all the schools in the Transvaal, and for those 207,000 pupils we had 7,500 teachers. What is the present position in the Transvaal, in 1968? Those 207,000 pupils have increased to 380,000 …

A hundred percent increase.

No, not twice as many, because then the total would have been 400,000, and it is now 380,000. But what has happened to the position in regard to the teachers? Whereas 207,000 pupils had 7,500 teachers at their disposal in 1950, one has the position in 1968 that 380,000 pupils have 15,500 teachers at their disposal. In other words, the number of pupils has not doubled, but the number of ¡teachers has more than doubled in relation ¡to the number of pupils. In other words, how can one, with that figure at one’s disposal, charge the Government with having neglected its duty in that regard? But let us consider the over-all position in the Republic.

A large number have no training.

The hon. member cannot tell me that there are untrained teachers. There are few or no people teaching in schools who do not have teacher’s certificates. It may be that here and there one finds a person who has not been trained for the subject he has to teach. I readily concede that, but they are trained teachers. Let us go further. In 1948 one had 18,343 teachers for the entire Union of South Africa at that time, and in 1968 one has 38,468, in other words, 20,000 more than one had 20 years ago, or more than double the number, for the entire Republic, that one had 20 years ago.

The teachers won’t believe you.

He is rude.

Sir, I shall contain myself. I just want to tell the hon. member that he need not do his best to be rude. He can just be his own self, then he achieves the same result.

He only made an interjection.

The hon. member will concede that when he speaks I make certain clarifying interjections, but I make them so that he can hear. I do not sit in my bench and mumble. Langenhoven said that one swallow had never made a summer, but that one blowfly had often spoilt a beast. [Interjections.] Yes, when I think of an animal and I think of the hon. Whip there, then I shall think of another type of animal.

Sir, I shall continue. In 1948 one had 18,000 teachers, whereas 20 years later one had 38,000, i.e. 20,000 more. The same applies in respect of the remuneration of teachers, but before I come to that, let me say this at once: I do not for one moment want to say that there are sufficient teachers; in fact, this is not the case, and the Minister of Education has pointed this out himself. Because he was aware of this himself, and because the Government was aware of it, the Minister of Education took the steps he took, ¡to which I shall now come. I do not want to say that there are enough teachers. We can have many more. The same applies in respect of the remuneration of teachers. I do not want to express an opinion in regard to the remuneration of teachers. Who am I to decide whether a man is being sufficiently remunerated for the work he is doing. That is not for me to decide, and I do not even want to discuss it or express an opinion on it; there are competent people who will have to decide about that. But if the impression is being created that this Government has not done its duty in that regard, then it is simply not the case. Hon. members will recall that just as other officials have received increases over the years, the teachers have also received them. Hon. members are aware of the fact that an increase was granted in 1958, that an increase was granted in 1963, and that an increase was granted in 1966. In 1966 alone an increase to the amount of R9 million was granted in respect of the teaching staff only. During the current year as well, although there was no general increase for public servants, but other benefits were granted to officials, the teaching staff naturally received their share of those benefits. These comprised a reduction of pension contributions to the amount of R2,694.000, and R2 million in respect of vacation bonus. In other words, R4,600,000 has been appropriated during this year as well in respect of teachers.

But let us go further in this regard. What has the Government done over these 20 years? In the first instance the Government passed the Vocational Education Act in 1955, with all its concomitant benefits for education. In 1962 the Government established the National Advisory Education Council by way of an Act, and hon. members know what benefits for education have resulted from that. In 1967 there was the National Education Policy Act, and provision for a national education policy was placed on the Statute Book in spite of the opposition of many hon. members on the opposite side.

This does not save the situation.

The situation is not unattended to; I indicated this to the hon. member, and I want to tell him what it has to do with the situation. In 1967 the Educational Services Act was also placed on the Statute Book, as well as the Advanced Technical Education Aot—the hon. member knows what benefits have resulted from that for education in general—in order to make advanced technical education and training possible to the fullest extent to which it can be made possible. This is what the Minister of Education has done. The hon. member will also know, coming to the question of salaries now, that before 1968 it was a matter in regard to which this Parliament and this Government had no say. It was a matter which fell outside their purview. Sir, what has this Government achieved and, in particular, what has the Minister of Education achieved? The Minister of Education has given effect to the long-felt need which existed for national education in South Africa, that there should be that uniformity for which everybody had been asking over the years. This Government, and in particular this Minister, has made that possible. In other words, this Minister has for the first time given national content to education in South Africa, something which it did not have before. It was this Minister and this Government who were in fact mindful that something must be done to the status of the teacher. It was this Government which was mindful of the fact that a searching investigation should be instituted into the salary structure, the possibilities for promotion and the conditions of service of teachers. This did not come of its own accord; it was not someone else who pointed out the need for it; it was the Minister himself who pointed that out, but the Minister not only pointed it out, he has taken positive steps in this regard. Sir, you are aware of the fact that after the National Education Council began to function—and the hon. member for Newton Park, as leader of their education group in those days, knows this better than anybody else … [Interjections.] No, I am not flattering the hon. member; I am simply stating a fact.

But the Prime Minister was Deputy Minister of Education at the time.

Yes, that simply goes to show how I have progressed and how the hon. member has stood still.

Is that attributable to education?

No, the weak Opposition; that is what one must attribute it to. But, Sir, I do not want to allow myself to be distracted. Hon. members will know that, after the machinery had been created which the National Advisory Education Council made possible, the Minister of Education immediately appointed four sub-committees, because the basis of that entire Act was that the teachers and the educationists must be given the opportunity of adopting a standpoint and giving advice in regard to all educational matters. That is what this Government made possible. Previously that was not the case, and in 1962-’63 this Government made it possible for the first time. Then these four committees were appointed to give attention to and report upon the recruitment, selection and loss of teachers; to report upon the status and prestige of teachers: to report upon the training of and the issuing of certificates to teachers, and to report unon the conditions of service of teachers. This was something which had never before existed in education, a co-ordination which had never existed before, and, what is much more important than that, an opportunity for teachers to express themselves such as these people had never had before in our history. This is what this hon. Minister made possible. And these matters are beginning to come to fruition now.

The hon. the Minister has received his reports, and as they are being received, these reports are being implemented and will continue to be implemented. One of the reports which the hon. the Minister has not yet received, but which is in the process of reaching him. concerns the auestion of conditions of service, in other words, salaries and everythin® connected with that. This auestion will receive the attention of the Government at the right time. It will receive attention from the Government when the Estimates for next year are drawn up I know that there are those who want this to be done before that time, and that there are also individuals who think that it can be done at once, but it simply does not work like this, and it cannot be done at once. Nor can it be done any faster than it is being done at the moment. However, what is very certain is that it will receive the necessary attention when the hon. the Minister has received those reports and when the time has come for the Cabinet to deal with it. I want to state very explicitly that nothing which happens in the meantime can throw more light on this problem for the Government, because what can be said and what must be said in this regard has already been said, and the Government has cognizance of it.

Cannot the Government decide then? After all, they already have all the information.

I shall explain the position to the hon. member again. The hon. the Minister has not yet received the report in respect of the conditions of service and the remuneration of teachers, but it is in the process of reaching him. The hon. member has been in this House long enough to know that Parliamentary sanction is necessary for this and that provision has to be made for this in the Estimates. Surely the hon. member is well aware of that.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? Why did the Government turn down the approach of the Natal Provincial Council for professional status and various improvements about two years ago? It was a resolution.

In the first instance, I am not aware that the request was turned down, but if it was in fact turned down, it was turned down because it was a premature one, because this matter has to be dealt with throughout the entire Republic. As is usually the case with the United Party, it was again a question of simply adopting a resolution without realizing its implications. I want to go further and state very explicitly that the Govern frient does not adopt an indifferent attitude in respect of the conditions of service and remuneration of teachers. On the contrary, it was in fact the Government which initiated the necessary steps for rectifying this matter. When the time is opportune, the Government, on the advice of its hon. Minister of Education, will give the necessary attention to this matter.

But we asked for this two years ago.

It is extremely easy to ask for it. Naturally any person can ask for it, and the hon. member can ask for it again now. but surely it is not merely a question of asking. First of all a thorough investigation must be instituted into this matter, because a scientific analvsis of this matter has never yet been made. Surely the hon. member is aware of that. Surely he is also aware that instructions to this effect were issued as long ago as 1963. The people dealing with these matters were not laymen, but the educationists themselves. What the National Party did, was to hand over this entire question of education in full to the teachers and to the educationists themselves. We did so, and we are now waiting for advice. After the Government has received th’s advice, the Government will decide, and it will, as in all other matters, apply a realistic approach in respect of this matter. There are two matters in this regard which we must not confuse. In the first instance there is the question of conditions of service and re muneration, and in the second instance there is the question of the training of teachers. As hon. members know, the question of the training of teachers was the subject of a Bill which was before this House, and which was referred to a select committee. I also want to state very explicitly that this Bill was not a layman’s Bill, but that it was based on advice from the educationists who had to furnish that advice.

The National Education Council?

Yes. The hon. the Minister drew up that Bill on the advice of the National Education Council. The hon. the Minister made certain adjustments to that Bill after he had held consultations with the provincial authorities. That we all know. It is true that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding in this regard. It is very unfortunate that this should have happened, and that objections have arisen which should never have arisen. In addition the atmosphere in regard to this matter has become rather turbid. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, the Government has decided to refer the question of the training of teachers and matters incidental thereto, to a special commission of inquiry. This commission will be instructed to report before 30th November, 1968, because we want to deal with this matter as soon as possible, and because we want to come to this House next year with concrete legislation. Its terms of reference are, and they have already been approved by the State President, to report on the training of teachers and to determine whether new circumstances and requirements are being met, and whether the training of teachers is keeping pace with present-day schools of thought and practices in this regard in order to meet the qualitative and quantitative requirements in respect of teaching staff.

The commission must also see to it that the prestige of those in the teaching profession is maintained and promoted, and that the adverse effects of overlapping are eliminated. Those are in short the terms of reference which will be given to this commission. The Government has decided that this commission should be as representative as possible and has consequently recommended the following commission to the State President, who has made tihe appointments. The chairman of this commission will be Dr. J. S. Gericke, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Stellenbosch and the Moderator of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape and the Dutch Reformed Church, as constituted in the General Executive Church Council for the Republic of South Africa. I am very grateful that Dr. Gericke has been pleased to accent this appointment. The other members are Prof. C. F. G. Gunter of the University of Stellenbosch, Prof. B. F. Nel of the Faculty of Education at the University of Pretoria, Mr. Donald William Young, Chairman of the Natal Teachers’ Society, Dr. N. S. Botes, Chairman of the T.O. in the Transvaal, Prof. Owen Horwood, Principal of the University of Natal, Mr. David Johannes du Plessis, Chief Inspector, Cape Province, who is mainly in charge of training colleges, and Mr. A. J. Jacobs, retired Director of Education in the Orange Free State.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? Is the Teachers’ Training Bill, which was submitted to the House and referred to a Select Committee, being withdrawn?

The Bill will of course lapse at the end of this Session, as the hon. member knows. The hon. member knows that the Select Committee has reported that it has been unable to complete its business, and with that the Bill has been shelved. I also want to make it very clear that it will be the main task of this commission to advise the Government on the training of teachers. In respect of that matter the commission is in no way bound to any provisions of the old Bill. This commission is now being appointed to enquire impartially and independently into the training of teachers, and to hear the necessary evidence and to call for papers. In this way they will have the right to call for the papers of the Select Committee, aoquaint themselves with matters, and then give effect to their terms of reference in the way a commission usually does.

May I ask another question? Are the memoranda which were received by the Select Committee being referred to the commission?

In terms of the Commission Act, this commission has the right to call for those papers which were before the Select Committee. I take it that they will in fact do this as soon as possible in order to acquaint themselves with matters and to take up where the Select Committee left off. I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the gentlemen who have placed their services at the disposal of this commission. I believe that they have an important task to perform. I believe that these persons are well equipped. They have been drawn from the various branches of education, and have a broad general knowledge of these various branches. I expect that this commission will do much, if not all, to eliminate any misunderstanding and confusion which may be existing at present. As I have said, this commission has been instructed to submit its report to the Government on 30th November at the latest. If this should happen, and I do not expect it will be otherwise, the necessary Bill in this regard will be submitted to the House next year. I am sorry that I have had to take up so much time in regard to this matter, but it was necessary for me to give the necessary attention to it in the House.

This is a vote of no confidence in the Select Committee.

No, sir. Let me state this very explicitly: I have the highest regard for the members of the Select Committee, not only for the members who are sitting on my side, but also for the member who is seated next to the hon. member for Durban (Point). He will not make a remark like that, because he is an educationist. This has nothing to do with a motion of no confidence in the Select Committee. But surely I have now tried to explain to the hon. member that in order to eliminate this confusion, we have found it necessary, and I am not making any excuse for this, to investigate the matter in this way, so that it cannot be said that it is a Bill of this or that political party, but that it is a Bill which derives from the educationists themselves, for the second time. That is why it is necessary that it should be done in this way.

I am concluding with this statement. This Government—.the figures indicate this, and nobody can deny it—far from having neglected to do what is necessary, has more than any other body, both Parliamentary and provincial, done its duty in regard to education. This Government has, in the person of the Minister of National Education, and I say this with all due respect to all his predecessors, done more to place education on a sound basis than any of its predecessors. I include myself in this, because I was Deputy Minister in charge of educational matters for two to three years.

It sounds like a eulogy.

Yes, I can deliver a eulogy on the hon. the Minister for National Education. The hon. member for Durban (Point) agrees with me that I cannot do the same in regard to former Ministers on that side. Far from it being possible to lay a charge against the Government, this Government has not with words, not in an attempt to catch votes, but with deeds done more than its duty towards the children of South Africa. In respect of the teaching profession and the teachers, this Government has set to work in the best way to place that profession on a sound basis for the first time. The Government will continue to do its duty in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I think this House and the public owe the Prime Minister a debt of gratitude for having devoted so much time to this one aspect of the criticism of the Opposition on the Government’s policy, i.e. the question of the neglect of education in this country. I think this is a matter in which the public at large is extremely interested. It is a pity though that the Prime Minister confined his speech more or less to this matter. We expected a great deal from his entry into this debate, because in this debate the Cabinet had failed Parliament and the Government with their attempts at giving answers. I was interested in the Prime Minister’s contribution, but he dealt with two matters only. One was the question of South Africa’s image abroad. To that he devoted 10 or perhaps 15 minutes with reference to one single sentence from the speech of the hon. member for Pinetown. In other words, the Prime Minister looked for a point which suited him on which to base his introductory remarks. He looked for opportunities of avoiding the main charge of my Leader. He referred to the speech of my Leader. He knew the contents of the speech, but mainly avoided the speech and, as Langenhoven said, he looked for one hole in a sieve to place his finger on that.

Let us now examine the argument of the Prime Minister. His argument is that South Africa was already experiencing difficulties abroad in 1948. That is true. But the fact remains that in the days when General Smuts and Mr. Lawrence represented us at U.N., the required majority could not be obtained to pass any of its draft resolutions. That is a fact. The Prime Minister admitted that the situation had deteriorated since the coming into power of this Government. The situation has deteriorated. That is true. That is a fact which no one can deny. The excuse offered for that by the Prime Minister, is that it is attributable to United Party propaganda and the anti-Government Press in South Africa. But every government in power has an opposition and a Press which criticize it. When we were in power prior to 1948, when we were fighting a war, there was an Opposition Party that was opposed to our participation in that war and that criticized us severely. We never said that we were failing in our attempts because of their criticism. We never complained that our image abroad was being harmed because of the violent and vehement attacks on us and the condemnation of us by the then Opposition, the Nationalist Party.

But that was a good Opposition.

No. We realize that when a government is in power, that government and that government alone is responsible for the image of that nation abroad. The hon. the Prime Minister said today, something which struck me forcibly and which is not true, of course, although that is what he alleged, that the United Party Opposition and the anti-Government Press in South Africa had more influence in South Africa than the Government of South Africa itself, more than him and his Cabinet with all the means of propaganda which are at the disposal of the Cabinet, more than the Government information service and than our entire diplomatic service. They stand helpless and dumbfounded before this Opposition, which is so often disparaged and the Opposition Press, which is despised. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister is not serious. Does he really want the nation to believe that his Government does not have the influence which the English Press has to defend South Africa? No, the hon. the Prime

Minister is capable of doing better than that particular argument. But that is typical of that side of this House and also typical of his speech. I always listen with great interest to the hon. the Prime Minister. He is a splendid debater and I enjoy his speeches. But let us examine his speech on the question of education, which is a very important question. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of National Education would also have been able to put this case. Obviously the Prime Minister finds this matter of such importance that he himself wanted to deal with if. I agree that it is very important, but what did the hon. the Prime Minister tell us in this regard this afternoon? In the first place he told us that the Government was doing more for education than what was being done 20 years ago. But if this were not the case, it would have been a disgrace. Our national income has increased fivefold.

Yes, thanks to this Government.

No, in spite of the Government. The national income is increasing because of the initiative of the private entrepreneurs in South Africa. Under this Government they are experiencing enough difficulties. The fact remains that our national income has increased fivefold. The demand for skilled workers, technical and scientific workers, is infinitely higher than it has ever before been in our history. But what are the figures in this connection? The old United Party Government spent more than 16 per cent of the funds available on Revenue Account in our Budget on Education. According to the figures furnished to us by the hon. the Prime Minister, the figure is R23 million out of a budget exceeding R1,500 million on Revenue Account, which is just over 15 per cent. Let us now take the gross national product. In 1948 the United Party spent 2.3 per cent of our gross national product, according to the figures furnished to us by the Prime Minister, on white education. Last year we had a gross national income of R9.607 million, but only 2.5 per cent of that was spent on education. This is an increase of only .2 per cent. At present only .2 per cent more of our gross national income is spent on white national education. This is over a oeriod of 20 years. We have had an increase of only .2 per cent in suite of the tremendous growth in this country and the infinitely greater need for trained Whites in South Africa. The story which the Prime Minister outlined was a sad one. He did not even tell ns the full story. The hon. the Leader assisted him by way of an interjection to furnish the full information to this House. But he did not want his attention to be distracted by interjections, and he is also entitled to that. Consequently he could not say that more than 30 per cent of the teachers in South Africa merely teach in a temporary capacity today. They are not permanent pro fessional teachers but people who have been appointed on a temporary basis.

What about married women?

I shall still come to the question of married women. He did not tell us that approximately 35 per cent of the teachers who teach science and mathematics in South Africa are not fully trained to teach those subjects. The future of a country like South Africa is going to be determined by its experts and scientists. We are being led by people who have been trained in the humanities, but at present the world is making its highest demands on scientists and experts. Just see how our nation is not getting all it should in this connection because of this Government’s neglect and lack of planning and its inability to realize the needs of a growing community and a growing nation. These are all facts. The Transvaal possibly has the biggest shortage of trained teachers. This may be understandably so, because there we have economic development on the largest soale and there is an influx of the population to the Transvaal.

But while this shortage of teachers is prevailing the Adminisrator of the Transvaal, Mr. Van Niekerk, and his Council tell us that the cost of training one teacher is R2.006, but at the same time there are more than 8,000 married women available in the Transvaal who could in fact teach if there were no discrimination against them in terms of the special circumstances prevailing today. In that province there is a capital investment, which amounts to R16 million, of the State and the nation in trained women teachers. ¡Because of the shortsighted policy of the Government this investment which we have in the Transvaal today, is lying dormant. What is the Government doing about this? No commission is required to determine this. The Administrator of the Transvaal has told this to the Prime Minister. What this amounts to indeed is neglect and shameful indifference. The facts in this connection are against the Prime Minister. The facts testify to negligence, neglect and a lack of insight and a lack of inerest in the children of South Africa. The best testimony to ¡this came from the late Dr. Venwoerd himself, who replied to the statement of the ¡Prime Minister that a government who neglected these matters ¡did not deserve to govern.

Three years ago he admitted at the congress of the Nationalist Party at Bloemfontein that the Government had failed to do what was necessary to ensure the technical and scientific education of our children, as the Government had been too occupied with constitutional matters. Those were his words. With the ¡approval of my Leader I now ¡want ¡to make an offer to the hon. the Prime Minister. To anyone who is interested in the education of our children, and there is no greater cause in which we can be interested, it is quite clear that something must be done for education. There is great dissatisfaction amongst teachers. The Onderwysersunie and the Teachers’ Association speak with the same voice. The profession is unanimous that things cannot continue in this way. They have already said that they are not interested in what is going to be done next year. They want to know what is going to be done now to avert a crisis, not one which is going to come, but one which is here already.

If the Prime ¡Minister were to say even now that he was going to give the teachers of South Africa an advance on what might happen next year, we would stay here for another day or two in order to get the necessary Supplementary Estimates through this House. There you now have a test of the sincerity and the determination of the Government. We make this offer in all seriousness, because to us, and I trust to the Government as well, although I see no signs of that being so, there is no other matter requiring more attention and deserving more urgent attention from the Government than the education of our children. This offer is made in all seriousness.

No election is to be held in the foreseeable future. Why then are you making such a fuss?

Never throughout the 20 years I have been in this House have I heard the difference between the Government and the Opposition described more graphically than I have just heard from the hon. the Minister of Transport. We make this offer. We say that something must be done for the teachers. We say we are prepared, if necessary, to stay here a few days longer. Then the hon. the Minister of Transport asks: “Where is the election?” I want to ask the ¡hon. the Minister of Transroort whether he would deny that there had already been times when increases were granted to officials of the Public Services prior to an election when Parliament was not in session?

I am questioning how genuine you are.

I am asking the Minister a question and he has to reply. Has it, or has it not. ¡happened that increases were granted to public servants on the eve of an election although Parliament was not in session?

But now the Prime Minister says that he cannot do anything for the teachers as Parliament will not be in session. There we have it. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition. They think of elections and we think of the interests of the nation. The contribution of the Prime Minister outlined the two facets of this ¡debate. There was one trifling, minor matter, one sentence in a very sound speech by the hon. member for Pinetown, and in addition the question, a very important one, of education.But what about all the other important matters? ¡Not ¡only in this debate, but ¡throughout the entire Session, we have been trying to get the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Cabinet so far as to enter into ¡a dialogue with us about those ¡matters which really affect South Africa. ¡But the Government runs away every time; they avoid a direct discussion of those matters. To-day we witnessed that once more on the part of the Prime Minister. Manpower, for example, was one of the matters which we wanted to ¡discuss in this debate. Under the Vote of the Minister of Labour we also tried to discuss that question as well as the demand for labour ¡which the white population alone cannot satisfy. We made concrete suggestions for overcoming those ¡problems and we asked ¡the Minister of Labour for his reaction to those suggestions and to criticize our suggestions if he wanted ¡to do so. But we are still waiting for a reply. In his speech which introduced this debate, ¡a speech which the hon. the Prime Minister tried to belittle, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put similar questions, questions relating to serious matters, matters which seriously affect the future of South Africa and the standard of living of our people. But we did not receive a single reply.

Tell us about his minimum wages and about your rate for the job.

Attempts to escape reality were all we ¡had. We had a really laughter-provoking speech from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, ¡because apart from the speeches of ¡the hon. the Chief Government Whip, nothing raises ¡more laughs than the speeches of this hon. Deputy Minister. But let us now examine what attempt he made to reply to my Leader. He tried to reply to a suggestion by my Leader that there should be a national minimum wage for Whites. But did the hon. the Deputy Minister give any thought to what he had to reply to? My Leader referred to one particular type of worker in South Africa. He stated this very clearly. I checked this in his Hansard, which I have here.

So did I.

He said that it was unavoidable that under the prevailing circumstances of today there would be a small minority of white workers who would not be able to cope with the tremendous competition in the modern technical state, and that ¡they consequently had to be ensured of a minimum income in unskilled spheres of employment.

Will that minimum wage be lower ¡than the rate for the job?

The hon. the Deputy Minister and I cannot find common grounds which will enable us to discuss this matter.

It is very clear that we cannot.

The rate for the job differs according to the sphere of employment. The hon. the Deputy Minister proved that he did not know what he ¡was talking about. The rate for the job ¡which applies to a highly skilled toolmaker in a factory, for example, will naturally be infinitely higher than that ¡which will apply to an unskilled ¡worker, for example to a cleaner of buildings. In other words, the hon. the Deputy Minister tried to reply to a question which my Leader did not raise.

He said something foolish and you know that.

That is typical, because they try to evade the real debating points ¡all the time, just as they try ¡to evade reality in South Africa. Of all the speeches from the opposite side to which I listened, there was only one which in my opinion was worth listening to, and that was the speech of the hon. member for Germiston. He made an attempt to put his case and to defend the Government, although he did not receive a great deal of encouragement.

I could notice a great deal of jealousy, but no encouragement. But even he completely ruined his speech by making exaggerated charges and accusations, for instance that we no longer wished to try to defend our federal policy. But in every major speech of my Leader, when race matters were discussed during this Session, he confirmed the federal concept. At the end of last year ¡our Party ¡held its congress on policy. Most of the time of the congress was devoted to extending and justifying the federal concept and to adapting elements of our policy, the ones we inherited from history, to ¡the federal concept. That is why we changed our policy in respect of the Coloured community, for example, by making provision., for their recognition as an element in the federal constitution of South Africa.

We are consistent in adhering closely to that federal concept. Can ¡one say the same of the Nationalist Party? I shall come back to this question as I proceed with ¡my speech. First I want to refer to the realities which the Government is trying to evade the ones pointed out to them by my hon. Leader.

For example, he asked us to discuss the manpower position. But who on the Government ¡side tried to reply to that? Who on the Government side tried to throw any light on the approach of the Government to the critical shortage ¡of manpower in ¡South Africa and on its policy in this regard? Not one of themdid. Who replied to the problem which was stated, the essence of the problem, that the white community in South Africa on its own cannot supply all the professional, technical, administrative and managerial services to a population of 181 million? Who tried to reply to the statement of my hon. Leader, a statement which is generally accepted, that 10 per cent of our population has to provide these services and that if that 10 per cent had to come from the white section of the population alone, it would mean that more than half of the white people, man, woman and child, would have to do that kind of work?

What did you do when we wanted to establish university colleges for the Coloureds and the Bantu so as to provide them with training which would enable them to do their share?

I clearly recall what the attitude of the United Party was when that matter was before Parliament. We did not have any objection to that, but we said they were to exist alongside the open universities and that the autonomy of the latter was not to be taken away. Under the United Party thousands of non-Whites were trained, and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that. Mr. Speaker, do you see how circumstances in South Africa have changed to such an extent that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development today has to try to make out that his Government is liberal and that the United Party is too conservative? Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? I should like to hear him say outside this House as well, to the nation, that they are the liberals and that we are the conservatives. That ought to be very interesting. But my Leader also asked what we were going to do to lighten the overtaxation of the white section of the population but to ensure at the same time that the necessary services would still be rendered to South Africa? He did so because our interests still are in South Africa, whereas the interests of hon. members opposite are in the Bantustans minus South Africa or in South Africa minus the Bantustans. But our interests are in South Africa as a whole and consequently we ask what we are going to do in order to ensure that these specialized services will be available to South Africa? To that there has been no reply from the opposite side. In addition we pointed out the dangers which flow as an unavoidable result from the process which is in progress in our industries to fragment jobs, to divide them into their constituent activities, as a result of which more and more unskilled workers are employed as against a decreasing percentage of skilled workers. Because there are not sufficient Whites to do the essential skilled work and to provide employment to the masses of unskilled and half-skilled workers at the same time, unemployment will inevitably follow unless we strengthen the white population further. But to this too there has been no reply from the opposite side; there has not even been an attempt at a reply. Really and truly, Parliament is wasting its time with this Government, because this Government has no contact with the real problems of the nation. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put certain questions to the Government. The hon. the Minister of Finance still has the opportunity of doing something. He can put this matter right. That is why I am pleading with him; that is why I am bringing these matters to his attention once more, but I am probably wasting my time again. I shall nevertheless keep on trying, for up to the happy day when this Government comes to a fall we shall have to try to do the best for South Africa with what we have. My Leader also spoke about the realities of certain aspects of our colour and race policy in South Africa. He spoke about this policy of apartheid. I do not know what one is to call it, because it has so many names, but I shall keep to the name which Dr. Malan gave it, and that is apartheid. If this policy of apartheid is to succeed, there are certain questions we have to pose, ones which my Leader has already put to the Government and which I now want to put to the Minister of Finance once again so that he may deal with them in his reply to this debate.

The first question is this: Can we return the Native population of South Africa to the Bantu homelands in time? We are waiting in vain on a reply to this question. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development participated in this debate and quite rightly replied fully to the questions put to him by the hon. member for Transkei in regard to particular problems in the Transkei. He then came to this question. The Minister executed an egg dance, kept his eye on the clock, said nothing for five minutes and was very grateful when his time expired, because then it was no longer possible for him to reply to this question.

Strange things happen as far as this return of the Natives to their own areas is concerned. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education referred with a great deal of malicious joy to a document he had come across and which he described as confidential. It is a report about a committee meeting of the Cape Town City Council.

Where is he now?

It is a great pity that he is not present at the moment. It is a document on a confidential meeting of the health and housing committee and in the course of the meeting they referred to the fact that the principal labour force had decreased? from 42,000 in 1966 to 39,000 in 1967. Someone at the meeting then said that the decrease was attributable to the fact that they had tried to respond to the appeal of the Deputy Minister to decrease the Native labour force in> the Western Cape by 5 per cent per annum.

With better salaries and higher productivity.

That is not the argument which I want to advance. I now want to come to the question how factual or otherwise this statement is, I want to test this argument against reality. Evidently these figures refer to inner Cape Town; they do not refer to Greater Cape Town. They do not refer to the prescribed areas which are administered as regards Bantu labour by the Municipality of Cape Town. These figures have no bearing on the true facts in the Cape Peninsula. There is no decrease in Native labour in the Peninsula. I say to the two Deputy Ministers here that there is no decrease. These confidential figures mentioned here by the Deputy Minister, do not reflect conditions in the prescribed area of Greater Cape Town. He is not present at the moment and I address myself to the other Deputy Ministers who are present. I have the Senate Hansard here and we see that a question in regard to this matter was put to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development this year. The question was: “What was the total number of Natives in the municipal area of Cape Town on 30th June, 1966, and 30th June, 1967, respectively?” The hon. the Minister of Immigration replied as follows on behalf of the Minister, “Separate figures for the minicipal area of Cape Town …”—those are the figures which the Deputy Minister mentioned here— are not available, but the figures for the prescribed areas administered by the Municipality of Cape Town are as follows: June, 1966, 89,534 Natives”. The number was not 39,000 Natives as the Deputy Minister indicated here. These are figures supplied to the Senate on behalf of his own Minister. But he came along here with a quotation from documents of the City Council which contradicted those figures, and we have to believe that those are the correct figures. In addition the reply indicated that on 30tih June, 1967, the number of Native workers no longer was 89,000, but 92,000. Consequently there had been an increase. The only deduction one can make from this, is that at the same rate at which the Municipality of Cape Town is trying to comply with the request of the Deputy Minister to decrease the number of Native workers in Smaller Cape Town, and they are doing so, the Government’s administration is allowing in as many or more Natives for employers in places bordering on Cape Town, places such as Wynberg, Simonstown, etc. What kind of policy is this? Then, and I say this with all respect, the Deputy Minister has the audacity to think that we are so stupid that he can bluff us in this way. One would think we did not have the replies given to questions in the Senate ait our disposal.

He lied to us.

Order! Who said the Deputy Minister had lied to this House?

I did, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I do not say he lied to us, that I will never say, but I do say he underestimated our knowledge of this matter, or otherwise he displayed an infinite lack of knowledge of his own Department, and that is very likely. I ask you, Sir, how is one to conduct a debate with a Cabinet consisting of Ministers who make such statements and who are so removed from reality in South Africa, from reality in their own departmental administration? Surely it creates a hopeless state of affairs.

If it is the policy of the Government to bring about separation between White and Native in South Africa. I can understand it. There is ¡some logic in that; I can understand the idealism behind that. But where do we find the actual separation? Where are we made less inter-dependent, White and Native, in South Africa? Each time we raise these questions, we are referred to the border areas and the industries in the border areas. If ever there had been a deliberate policy of economic integration, if ever integration had been stated to any nation as an objective, then we have it from this Government with its policy of border industries. The only difference as regards the integration which is taking place at present, is that it is not integration between white employers in white cities and Natives who live in neighbouring townships, but between white industries of the South African state, White, and Native employees of Native states, black. That is the only difference. But the integration, the inter-dependence, continues. It is economic integration on an unprecedented scale and this is an excuse to get away from their own policy of job reservation and the protection of the level of the white worker in our country. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said here this afternoon, “You must not want the best of two worlds”. Where do we find a better example of that duality than in the policy of the Government? They want separation and they preach separation and they preach apartheid, separate development, development for all peoples along their own lines, parallel development, and whatever names they have given this ill-considered thing. And what do they practise? What is the basis of that separation? The basis of that separation is economic integration at Rosslyn, at Pinetown, at East London, at Rustenburg, and now at Brits. Now, I am not anti-Brits. but I want to say we must face up to the facts. Industries are to be established at Brits so as to utilize the Tswana labour which is available there, and that is a deed of integration. The whitepopulation of Brits is merely going to be supplemented by the Native population of the reserve. That is all it is.

The Deputy Minister tried to reply to the questions of my Leader and he said the United Party was opposed to the eight Bantu reserves which they want to develop to sovereign states, becoming independent. He then posed the question which he regarded as the final invalidation of our argument. He asked, “Why then did you not object to the independence of Lesotho?” The United Party has made it very clear that in its opinion precipitate action was taken in regard to the independence of Lesotho. We say precipitate action was taken in regard to the independence of many states in Africa. We are still taking the same stand as Dr. Malan took in 1950 when he warned the British Government against granting independence precipitately to areas in Africa, and we supported him.

What did you then do to him?

We supported him on that point. But now the Government has changed its attitude completely. I now want to put a question. During the discussion of this Vote the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development mentioned five or seven prerequisites for a Bantustan to become a sovereign, independent state. Is there one hon. member opposite who can say that those prerequisites have been satisfied in the case of Lesotho?

Did this House grant them independence?

No„ wait a moment. Of course not, but my question is this: Had Lesotho formed part of South Africa, would it have saisfied the prerequisites? Would it have been able, for example, to have satisfied the very high prerequisite of the Minister, namely that before such a state can become independent, it must be able to prove that it can provide employment to is own people and that its Government is capable of doing this?

Put that question to the Transkei.

No, no. The hon. the Deputy Minister, who is not present at the moment, reproached us by asking us why we did not oppose Lesotho’s independence. But now the Deputy Minister of Agriculture admits that if Lesotho had been one of our Bantustans, they would have had to oppose the independence of Lesotho. They would have been obliged to do so if they wanted to be logical and wanted to implement their policy as stated by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

He did not say that.

What does such an argument mean? Where is the insight, where is the acceptance of realities on which to base one’s policy and one’s arguments if we have such a Government?

A very important part of the speech of my Leader is that in which he lashed out at the Government by pointing out hat the Government had come to light with sophistries and false representations. He said that where we were dealing with such a complicated matter as race relations the Government had maintained that there were two lines of action only, that there were two choices only, that there were alternatives only but no choices. They maintain that there can only be complete integration or otherwise complete separation. My Leader said that was untrue. As the hon. member for Hillbrow said, that reminds one of the person who says that there are only two possible physical processes in nature, namely nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Both give rise to tremendous explosions which can destroy the world. But life is not like that. Providence does not present us with alternatives only; Providence does not say that for every circumstance there is only one of two things which we can do. Providence gives us many opportunities. Because we are people with a free will, we have an infinite number of choices. And, Mr. Speaker, what is the policy of the Government other than a third way which they are following? They are not following the way of total separation. They are not following the way of integration. They are following the way of integration on the borders of the reserves. But it remains integration. That is a third way. They know we cannot do without Native labour. At its best, one can say two things of their policy. They are changing the existing situation in this important respect that Native labour will no longer come to white industries but that white industries will be forced to where they will be able to obtain Native labour. This is one respect in which they have changed the status quo.The other respect in which they have changed tihe status quo, is that the Natives will no longer be retained as subjects of South Africa, but as subjects of other sovereign states. If there is apartheid, there is apartheid in one respect only; ultimately, on close inspection, the only thing the Government is offering the nation in the field of apartheid is citizenship apartheid. We will be citizens of the Republic of South Africa or citizens of the Republic, or whatever, of the Transkei, the Republic of Zululand, the Republic of Vendaland, the Republic of Tongaland, the Republic of Southern Sotholand and the Republic of Northern Sotholand. But economically we will all be integrated. There will unavoidably be white factories on the borders of each of these countries which will employ the labour of the independent Native republics. Surely this isnot following one of two ways only. Surely we do not have either integration or total separation. This is a synthesis. The Government’s policy is a synthesis of separation and integration. They are reconciling irreconcilables. To come along in the light of those facts and to allege that the nation of South Africa only has alternatives surely is pure, flagrant, blatant and provoking nonsense. Surely it is getting us nowhere to discuss this matter on this level. ¡We are not bringing the nation of South Africa one inch closer to the truth. What is the policy of the ¡Nationalist Party? I want to know what the policy of the Nationalist Party is today, as compared with the policy of the Nationalist Party yesterday, last year, ten years ago and 20 years ago. And what will the policy of the Nationalist Party be to-morrow? Has there ever in our history been a Pdtne Minister whose policies have been repudiated at such a rapid rate as those of the late Dr. Verwoerd? I still see Dr. Verwoerd standing there and making his statements. [Interjections.] I still see the figure of Dr. Verwoerd when he said that he would not allow white initiative to be used in the reserves, because that would be a form of neocolonialism which would have disastrous results. The United Party opposed him and said that he had to do so and that it was unavoidable that those areas should be developed. To-day the ¡Government comes along with all kinds of formulae to use white initiative and white capital in the reserves. I remember Dr. Verwoerd at Loskop where he wrecked the New Zealand rugby tour because he wanted no mixed teams of sportsmen in South Africa. What is the situation today? The first grievance published in the grievances column of Dagbreek which has been introduced at the request of the Prime ¡Minister, was a complaint that a boxing match between non-Whites had taken place in a white area under the Group Areas Act. What a change in the standpoint of the late Dr. Verwoerd. Dr. Verwoerd’s standpoint was that diplomatic exchange between White South Africa and the Native states of Africa would be impossible. He spoke of telephone diplomacy. ¡He spoke of a travelling ambassador. To-day this is being done and the United Party has accepted this as being unavoidable. Now a special suburb has to be built for these people. This is an admission of the false premises of their policy. What a repudiation of the standpoint of Dr. Verwoerd. Just look at the dissension, discord, public disputes, abuse and malicious gossip, gossip which nearly caused the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to have a stroke, within the ranks of the Nationalist Party about these constant fluctuations in and variations of policy. To-day a genuine Nationalist no longer knows what he is. Now I want to put a question and I regret that the hon. the Prime Minister is not present. There is no point in my putting this question to members of the Cabinet, because they are not able to give a reply. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether the premises of the policy of the late Dr. Verwoerd were false. If they were false, then I accuse members sitting on the opposite side of this House of having been weak in serving the interests of South Africa in that all of them submitted themselves to the wrong policy of Dr. Verwoerd. Was the policy of ¡the late Dr. Verwoerd the right one for South Africa? If so, they have no right to claim that they are still Nationalists, because then they are a new phenomenon in the politics of South Africa. They must decide where they stand. Sir, if you want to know what is happening in the Nationalist Party, and this is no easy matter for one to understand, I can take excerpts from the newspapers of ¡the Nationalist Party covering the past few years, and I can poke a lot of fun at them on that basis. But now I invite every South African who thinks for himself to take only last Sunday’s editions of Die Beeld and of Dagbreek. Both papers are recognized, esteemed papers of the Nationalist Party, on the boards of which members of the Cabinet serve. On one page after another one sees one big headline after another about dissension, discord, trouble and despondency within the ranks of the Nationalist party. On the front page of Dagbreek their is an announcement that a weekly column will be published at the request of the Prime ¡Minister so as to afford Nationalists an opportunity of airing their grievances. I have known the readers of the newspapers of the Nationalist Party from the days when the Deputy Minister and I both were United Party journalists. That was the most fruitful period of his life. We studied the Nationalist Press. Their policy has always been to sing the praises of the Nationalist Party, and they have been at great pains to do so. When there was nothing to publish, they looked for something on the basis of which they could sing the praises of the Nationalist Government. But now the grievances and the dissatisfaction have grown to such an extent that they have been obliged to make place in their columns for their readers to air their grievances, because if those grievances were to be suppressed, it would lead to an explosion. In those columns I have read a big headline about a source of gossip which has been revealed in the Western Transvaal. There a large number of Nationalists held a meeting and aired their grievances. One thing which I find such a fine grievance is that the Government, after having turned the nation against immigration in 1948, has now had to take a dear old gentleman from the United ¡Party to bring immigrants to South Africa in conflict with ¡their own policy. This is what the Nationalists say, not I.

But I have made a good job of it.

The hon. gentleman says he has made a good job of it. Sir, no matter what station one reaches in life, if one implements United Party policy one isalways doing a good job. [Interjections.] I have read something in one of these newspapers which is of special interest to me. Dr. Marius Swart, a professor at the new university of Port Elizabeth, addressed a meeting of Voortrekkers, and do you know what he told them? He said the Nationalist Party was no longer promoting the interests of the Afrikaner. They have done a terrible thing; they were now promoting the interests of the South African. He complained that the Nationalist Party was no longer looking after the interests of the Whites only but was now looking after the interests of all races. He then said the Voortrekker movement should no longer follow that withered thing, the Nationalist Party; they should no longer follow the “verlepte” (withered) Nationalist Party. Therefore we now have three schools of thought, three organizations within the Nationalist Party, and they are the “verligtes”, the “verkramptes” and, to crown everything, the “verleptes”. [Laughter.] In the years to come we shall be watching with a great deal of interest to see how this process will crystallize and which of the hon. members opposite will find their future with the “verligtes”, which with the “verkramptes” and, with the greatest interest of all, which with the “verleptes”.

But the “verleptes” will still give you a sound hiding.

I do not care who gives me a hiding; I want to know who is going to be victorious in the Nationalist Party. To me it is very striking that from the time the present Prime Minister became the leader of the Nationalist Party this process of dissolution, this spiritual and intellectual process of dissolution has been taking place within the Nationalist Party. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister is trying to take reality into account in some respects. That is why he has come along with an outward-going policy, and that outward-going policy is to take over certain aspects, and certain aspects only, of the policy of the United Party. That is his outward-going policy and that is why many of our English-language newspapers publish articles lauding the Prime Minister; because he is gradually, longingly, reluctantly, halfheartedly, dejectedly beginning to implement aspects of the policy of the United Party. But in that process he is confusing and dividing his own Party. And I want to say this: If a man wants to govern a country successfully and he is in office, he first has to prove that he can keep his own Party together. In opposition this can happen. I recall the days when the Nationalist Party was in opposition and when more Nationalist Party members were outside than inside the caucus. I remember the New Order and the Ossewa-Brandwag and the Afrikaner Party and the Ges-uiwerde Nasionale Party and the Herenigde Volksparty—I cannot even remember all the names. But if one is in power, one should at least keep one’s Party together. One has the influence, the power and the means at one’s disposal, but just see what the Nationalist Party looks like today. Read their newspapers. Listen to their speeches. To me it was very striking that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs did not complain that the United Party was slandering the Nationalist Government; he complained that his own people were slandering them.

Your slandering no longer counts.

Yes, I agree. Our slandering no longer counts, because it is so obvious. If the United Party gossips about the Government, we spread things which are generally accepted, but it is still news when Nationalists address their leaders in such a way that one of the Ministers has to urge them to exercise care. Now I ask how we can expect of a party which cannot govern itself, to govern South Africa with its problems and difficulties? Now we can understand why this party is trying to run away from reality, to evade realities, and to make the kind of speech which we had, to the amusement of the Opposition, from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and from the Chief Whip. Towards the end of the session one is usally somewhat tired, but I must say that my mirth, while listening to the speech of the Chief Whip, has rejuvenated me for another two years. It is, however, a flight from reality ‘ and an evasion of the real state of affairs in South Africa. In the last hours of this Session I want to make an appeal. I know this will be difficult, but let the Government try, in the interests of South Africa, to face up to the realities of life in South Africa, to face up to the truth, and let us base our public dialogue on the facts, on the realities and on the foundations of our life. Let us get away from Che phantoms and the illusions which have become characteristic of the Nationalist Party, especially during the past two years.

Mr. Speaker, you are also one of those men who came here in 1948. Do you remember, Sir, that in 1948 it was necessary for this party to carry someone in here on a stretcher, wrapped in a blanket, in order to achieve a majority vote?

Who was that?

Senator Struben. This party’s position was such at that time that it had to. carry someone into this Chamber wrapped in a blanket to enable him to vote. That, is how strong that party opposite used to be, but what are they today? But now the hon. member for Yeoville speaks about keeping people together. In view of the fact tihat this party is governing with a twothirds majority after having been in power for 20 years, it really is going very far to say: Keep the people together if you want the nation ito have any faith in you. How did they keep people together? How many times have there been splits in their ranks? [Interjections.] I know that this hurts the hon. member for Transkei. It is typical of that party that as soon as anything hurts them, they call upon the hon. member for Yeoville to speak. As soon as they have been given a hiding, the hon. member for Yeoville must come to their assistance. I now want to ask this question. The hon. member, in his fool’s paradise, and cherishing the wish that they should become the government, is deeply concerned at present because there supposedly is dissension here. He devoted one-third of his speech, if not more, to the question of the so-called dissension, and said we should read Die Beeld. and Dagbreek and we would see nothing but dissension. He is so concerned about that dissension, but what concern is that of his? On the contrary, he should rather be pleased iif there were any dissension among us, because then it would be so much easier for them to come into power. But he is concerned about it. It certainly is a peculiar party. But the basis of that hon. member’s speech is the dilemma in which that party now finds itself. That party adopts the attitude that if non-Whites are employed in industries and are active in the economy, that represents integration. He is nodding his head in agreement. Does he still remember a previous Minister of Bantu Administration, Mr. Daan Nel, asking him whether the donkeys with which he ploughed were also integrated with him?

Yes, but the Natives are not animals.

I want to tell the hon. members where their basic fault lies. To us integration is not a question of economic employment, but a question of having a joint say in the control and the government of the country. That is the integration problem, but I shall return to that at a later stage.

We have come to the end of this Session and we are going to return to our constituencies, and I want to ask myself the question what image these two parties in South Africa have to present after this Session. What image does the electorate see of these two parties? The hon. member for Yeoville has just asked again by way of repetition when our policy was changed and what our present policy was. We fought elections on the basis of this policy in 1948, in 1953 in 1958, in 1961 and in 1966, and the electorate of South Africa, whom the United Party tried to influence in the opposite direction, decided very clearly in these elections that the policy which the National Party advocated and is still advocating, is the policy which they want for South Africa. Now the hon. member must not say that the voters do not know what is going on, because they listen every night and every morning to sum maries of these speeches on the radio. They read reports on these speeches in the Press, and our voters are not so unenlightened that they can still be bluffed as the hon. member for Yeoville and others try to make out. I think that it is in fact a negation of the intelligence of the voters to say in this House that t.iey are too stupid to decide and that they do not know what they are deciding about.

I say we are going to return to our constituencies. What image does the United Party have? I shall tell you what their image is. The first image they have is simply the mourning band of the old Black Sash. Sannie is out of the country; she is no longer there, and they only have the old mourning band of the Black Sash left. The mother is dead as far as this party is concerned, because it cannot give birth to any new ideas, because it cannot create anything, it is only negative, backwardlooking; it can only raise objections. That is the first image. They are returning with that “Black Sash” only. After all, the United Party is refusing to recognize its own children; it is denying its integration policy; it is denying its Graaff-Senate plan; it is denying its federation policy; it is denying its large black placard. “Vote for the right to vote again”; it is denying its white leadership policy. At one congress after another one could previously buy this policy of theirs for a sixpence, but today the United Party is denying all those policies. During this Session it has not yet once come to light with an alternative policy to the policy of separate development, except that the hon. member for Durban (Point) came forward last night and posed here as the draughtsman of separate development, as the grandfather of development along individual lines.

That is the traditional policy of South Africa.

Last night the hon. member told us that it was the traditional policy of South Africa, but he did not support one of the laws which were passed to make separate development possible. Each of those measures was fought tooth and nail by the United Party and by him personally, and now he wants to pose as the apartheid leader, as the draughtsman of the apartheid policy. The United Party is now denying the various plans with which it has come to light over the past 20 years. Today they are ashamed of everything to which they have given birth; they are now iunning away from that. But let us look at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In his speech yesterday he alleged that everything which was done by this Government in the sphere of economics, had been planned by the United Party. He mentioned the Orange River scheme; he mentioned the oil pipeline; and other economic developments. I now want to ask him to mention me a father who collects presents and then puts them away for a stepfather to give to his children. If they had planned these things, if they had had them intheir hands, why did ithey not give them to South Africa? Why did they first decide to commit suicide with their integration policy and put these things away for the stepfather to give to the children? No, one should not aot like that; surely it is illogical.

What change has taken place under the Nationalist Party Government as to the basic attitude to life?

All that has changed under our Government is that the United Party is dying a slow death and that we no longer have an opposition today. Other than that, we are still following the same course we did in 1948. The only change is that the United Party is dying. We do not have a proper Opposition with which we can conduct debates here today. The United Party reminds me of the tail of a tadpole. Just as the tail of a itadpole becomes smaller and smaller and eventually disappears and no longer steers that frog, so this little tail in the House of Assembly is getting smaller and smaller and will eventually disappear. Where are the days of 1948 when we had to govern here with a meagre, slight majority; so much so that we could not pair off at all; so much so that there was the constant danger that the Government could be brought to a fall and see where we are standing now. I say that this frog’s tail is disappearing. Why? Because the National Party has advocated its policy to South Africa with faith and courage and has not concealed it under other names and changed it at every congress, but has said throughout: “That is our policy and those are the logical consequences of our policy”. The National Party has stated its policy with faith and conviction, but the United Party has no direction; it has no steering and can go nowhere, and therefore this frog’s tail is disappearing. Sir, the United Party has become redundant. It serves no purpose any more, and that is why it is disappearing. It realizes this itself, so much so that it has now acquired a professional political adviser of its own to tell it what steps it should take. And what advice has it obtained? The first piece of advice was: “Forget about your race policy; do not discuss it during this Session; conceal it; take over the policy of the National Party”, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) did last night. That was the first piece of advice to them. The second piece of advice they received was this: “You will not convince the electorate by trickery; slander the National Party as much as you can”. Mr. Speaker, would you have thought it possible that the day would arrive when a front bencher such as the hon. member for Durban (Point) would get up here in the House of Assembly and say that the United Party was the party that designed the policy of separate development? Imagine!

It is quite correct.

The hon. member says it is correct, but throughout they have opposed every measure of the Government to implement separate development. No, during this recess they want to set themselves up as tie apostles of separate development and brand the National Party as liberalist, as the hon. member for Yeoville has just done, and as negrophilists, as was recently done by one Mr. Wiley. Sir, I want to tell the House what methods the United Party is following. It is common knowledge that I made a gift of 50 sheep to Malawi. That was published in the Press, it was no secret to anyone and everyone knew that those 50 sheep were a gift. But in order to spread this bit of gossip in the rural districts, they go the hon. member for Orange Grove to put a question here in the House of Assembly, namely, whether any sheep had been supplied to Malawi, if so, how many sheep, and what Malawi had paid for them.

We did not have that information.

The hon. member did not have that information, but it was common knowledge. Why did he do that? He did so in order to enable one Mr. Rennie Louw, in the North-Western Cape, or a Mr. Wiley, or a Mr. Streicher to tell the people: “Just look what the Government is doing; they give 50 sheep to Malawi free of charge, but you farmers who suffer as a result of the drought, get nothing.” That is why that question was put. This is the methods which the United Party is going to follow during this period which lies ahead. They will inform the public: “Look, here it is recorded in Hansard. Mr. Etienne Malan put the question and here is the reply: “The Government is giving Malawi 50 sheep free of charge, but you farmers cannot get sheep free of charge; you must pay for your food in these drought-stricken areas.” That is the kind of politics we are getting in South Africa today. They know that this is the case because that is what they are doing. They will refrain from telling the farmers that their Party is the one which has always said that we should ensure friendly relations with other states. They will refrain from telling the people that this gift was made after an investigation had been instituted, and that those sheep are being used to start an experimental station in Malawi so as to convince the inhabitants of Malawi that that is the type of sheep which will thrive in that area, and that we are creating a market in Malawi for the breeders of these sheep. They will refrain from mentioning this; they will simply quote the reply which appears in Hansard, as they are already doing in those areas. That is the kind of policy which they are following. I want to mention another example.

The members of the United Party are the people who tell the farmers in the North Western Cape and in the drought stricken areas where the farmers have suffered: “Lookwhat the Government is doing; it is lending R8 million to Malawi at 4,per cent interest whereas you farmers have to pay 8 per cent.”

Is that true or is it not?

The hon. member asks whether or not is is true. It is a half; truth; it is a white lie, the same sort of lie that trapped Eve when the snake told her (that she would acquire all wisdom by eating an apple, and a white lie is worse than a downright lie. The United Party is spreading this white lie in the rural districts. Why do they not tell the electorate that that is part of the amount which we in any event had to pay to the U.N. before to be given to under-developed countries, that that does not equal the full amount we had to pay the U.N. before, and that we are now obtaining 4 per cent interest on that money, and that Malawi has to spend 80 per cent of that amount on buying South African goods? No, politically it does not suit them to tell that to the public. They come along with this half-truth, or with a white political lie, to mislead the electorate, because they have no policy to put to them. Let me state this very clearly: In my opinion the Republic of South Africa is the greatest welfare country in the whole world. As a white Government, with our revenue, we shoulder a greater burden than any of the other countries.

Why does the United Party come along with this kind of propaganda? They change their policy from year to year and then they present themselves as the draughtsmen of our policy. Why? Because they have no national ties. They have so few national ties that they did not want South Africa to become a Republic; they did not want South Africa to have its own flag or its own national anthem, the symbol of a nation. That is how lacking they are in national ties. I want to mention an example, and I now come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because this is the kind of propaganda which is being made; while we were celebrating a Festival of the Soil in South Africa in order to educate the electorate or the whole population of South Africa that they should strengthen their national ties and that their first love should be for this country and that they should love and care for this soil, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used the soil conservation idea to make some political capital in Swellendam. That is what he was doing while we were celebrating the Festival of the Soil. [Interjections.]

I am mentioning examples of the United Party’s actions, and I am going to furnish figures to the House. While we were celebrating that Festival to make the whole nation conscious of soil conservation and of nature conservation, he belittled these things in a political election by saying that since the National Party had come into power nothing had been done for soil conservation in South Africa, but he refrained from adding that we inherited an Act in 1948 without a single soil conservation work having been tackled, without a single cent ever having been spent on soil conservation. He refrained from telling the electorate that since 1948 we had introduced nine amendments to the Soil Conservation Act in order to streamline that Act and facilitate its implementation.

And 19 amendments to the Group Areas Act.

He refrained from adding that apart from the nine amendments which we had introduced, we had adopted seven administrative measures to grant increased financial assistance in order that farmers with that financial assistance, could set about the task of protecting the soil more effectively and rapidly. That is the sort of policy which that Party has, because in its heart it has no national ties whatsoever. That is the opportunist Party that wants to fight an election with gossip. When, during this recess, we examine the image of the United Party and present that image to the electorate, I shall hold up to the electorate of South Africa a political party which has become politically dishonest. It has become so dishonest politically that it has denied all its former children, namely its federation plan its Graaff-Senate plan, and so on. It has run away from its old allies, namely the Torch Commando, which cost it 12,000 votes in my own constituency in 1952. It has run away from its Action Stations and its Black Sash. Above all it is a Party which is so opportunistic, that at any inopportune moment when the U.N., which were already against South Africa during their period of office, passes resolutions, they take a delight in those resolutions. They take a delight in those resolutions as the hon. member for Yeoville has done.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself; that is a wild allegation.

It is an altogether correct allegation. Then they use this forum as a platform to tell the world that owing to our apartheid policy, our petty apartheid and the fact that we imprison terrorists. South Africa is no longer popular at the U.N.

Who said that?

You people have said so repeatedly. I want to make it clear that that Party has lost its national ties because it has rejected the Republic, the flag and the traditions of this country and nation. It is living on opportunism. That is what is going on. In our nationhood it rejects the idea of a nation of diversity.I want to conclude by saying this. In contrast to that there is the image of the National Party with a fiery young Prime Minister, the Party that has done more to bring about the correct human relationships in South Africa, than any other Party has ever done before. It is the Party which has done more than any other to bring about the correct inter-state relations between South Africa and the southern countries of Africa as well as those further to the north. In spite of that, the United Party has tried to sow suspicion as regards the ambassadors who come to this country. Those hon. members said here again today that this Government was going to build a separate suburb for this reason. That is the way in which this Party acts. The image of the National Party is the image of a Party which has done more for the continuation of the correct human relationships and inter-state relations in South Africa than any other Party or any other Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow the hon. the Deputy Minister. We know that he becomes excited and makes some curious statements. I do, however, feel that we must say that when it comes to the love of our fatherland, it seems to me that the hon. the Deputy Minister is saying that the Opposition has no love for their fatherland, but is prepared to fight for it and the Nationalist Party members love their fatherland very dearly but they are not prepared to fight for it. That is what this boils down to. When I see them cutting up our fatherland as they have been doing recently, with the 50,000 acres they cut up last week for example, and handed over to other kingdoms, I am reminded of a farmer and his children. What is the position of a farmer who says to his children that he loves them dearly and that he will see to it that they have his farm when he is dead. In the meantime, however, he is going to take parts of it and hand it over to the Bantu living on the neighbouring farm. By the time the farmer dies the Bantu next door have the property and the children are left without any land. How can this be a love of our fatherland? That is the difference between what is being preached and what is being done by the Government at present.

In what was probably his last speech this session, the hon. the Prime Minister devoted a good deal of his time to education. He must have done this because he was aware of the importance of education at the present time. My mind goes back to 1965 when we on this side of the House laid emphasis on the importance of our education system. It was emphasized by speaker after speaker on this side of the House, starting with the hon. member for Wynberg. All we got in response was sneers from the other side of the House. This afternoon the Prime Minister found it necessary in his last major speech of the session to devote a long time to the importance of education. This question is so important that he says that a government which fails in regard to education should make way for another government. It will have failed in that cardinal principle which permits it to continue as a government. All the other measures are of no avail and of no significance when they are weighed against the importance of education. Our world is now entering the atomic age and education is vital to us. We must have education for our whole population. As I understood him, the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon only spoke about white education. I shall therefore also deal with only this aspect of education. I want to refer to what was said on this side of the House. I want to refer to my own speech in 1965. I notice the hon. the Minister of National Education’s expression because he can see what is coming. He remembers the reply he gave me. I will quote it to him shortly. Time has passed so fast that I can hardly believe that it is three years ago that the hon. the Minister made that speech. We pleaded for the training from childhood of our children to produce scientists and mathematicians and all the other people necessary in this modern world. Without the teachers we cannot train those people. The teachers are basic to the whole concept of education in South Africa. I want to refer to the Hansard of 5th May, 1965, column 5379. I dealt here with the salary scales and the conditions of service of teachers. I pointed out that there were a tacit agreement and in some cases explicit understanding, as is the case between the provinces and the Government, to the effect that there should not be pirating of teachers from one province to another or from the Central Government to the provinces and vice versa. We had teachers in the Department of Education, Arts and Science, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. the teachers of the Department of Coloured and of Indian Affairs, and furthermore the teachers of the four provincial education departments. The salary scales and conditions of service in all these cases were set by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science.

No, that is not true. I had no power whatever to do that.

He took these specific powers shortly afterwards. The hon. the Minister is not listening to me. I said clearly that that was what I said in 1965.

In 1967 you said that you were against the National Education Policy Bill.

Yes, and how right we were. Mr. Speaker. I know that the hon. the Minister is angry because he knows what is coming. He will grow more angry before I have finished. He is responsible for his own history. But he is not responsible for his own destiny. That is the point I made then. As thedebate progressed it appeared that there was such an understanding between the provinces and the Government departments. They had agreed not to pirate one another’s teachers. I therefore suggested to the hon. the Minister then that he should look into the matter and see whether there was not perhaps good cause for an increase in their salaries and an improvement in their conditions of service. If he, as the Minister of Education, was prepared to deal with the matter from that angle in his own department, the provinces and the other departments would follow suit. I wanted ¡him to set the example. This is what I said—

Then came the hon. the Minister. He got very angry and in column 5404 of the same Hansard volume he replied and said—

The hon. the Minister did not know what we meant by the expression “salary increase”. He went on to say—

We made adjustments in 1966 again.

I did not notic that I interrupted you when you were speaking The Minister went on to say—

That was aimed at me. I was initiating dissatisfaction in this House, because the hon. the Minister said that he knew of no dissatisfaction outside. He went on—

That is exactly what happened.

I take note of that interjection. The hon. the Minister says “That is exactly what happened”. Am I then to take it that it has happened and that the teachers’ claims have now been satisfied?

In 1966, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, R9 million was allotted for the adjustment of teachers’ salaries.

In 1965, the hon. the Minister knew of no dissatisfaction and he had had no requests for increases in salaries, but the next year he spends R9 million on increasing of salaries for people who did not ask for it. He had not had a single complaint and he received no requests for increases in salaries but within a year he gave them an extra R9 million just out of the kindness of his heart. What has he done for the teachers over the last two years? Was there by any chance an election in 1966? That is a rhetorical question to you, Sir, but it is not a rhetorical question to the hon. the Minister of Education. Was there by any chance an election?

He cannot remember.

There was R9 million’s worth of election, and now that the election is over, I want to ask him what he has done for them since. Will the hon. the Minister tell us that? What increase in salaries has he given them since 1966? The teachers throughout the whole of South Africa, and this is not politics, are in revolt against the Minister because he is now the man who has taken the power to control the whole of their destiny, but when we listened to the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon, we realized it was the destiny of White South Africa. No teachers, no education for our children. The whole of the destiny of South Africa is in the hands of that hon. the Minister. Months ago, the hon. the Minister appointed a committee to go into the whole question of teachers’ salaries and their conditions of service, and that commission has reDorted to him. He knows what is in the commission’s report. Teachers in the Transvaal and Natal that I know of, and possibly elsewhere, are sending telegrams to the hon. the Minister, asking for information on the critical issues involved in the trouble that they are having today, the salient features, the specific points of chief concern in their representations for an increase in salary and better conditions of service. There is also a continual repetition in the case of Natal in regard to the resolution passed by the Provincial Council some four years ago, asking for independent status. What is the hon. the Minister going to do here in Parliament to tell South Africa what he is proposing to help the teachers with, so that our educational system shall not collapse because of the failure of the hon. the Minister to timeously grapple with a problem which it was his duty to grapple with? The complete ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the hon. the Minister is to blame here. He is the man who did not know his job, because he could not see his job. He did not know his duty, because he could not see his duty. He could not foresee what was happening in the teaching profession, and in spite of his own

experience in that profession, he was unable to see how his fellow South Africans, because the Government were failing in their duty, were going to leave as they are in increasing numbers, and go elsewhere because of his policy and the way that he is administering that department. We call on him to tell the teachers of South Africa, through Parliament, what he is proposing to do for them.

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to reply to all this nonsense uttered here by the hon. member for South Coast, but nonsense cannot simply be let through without comment. In that same debate to which the hon. member for South Coast referred, I said the following in column 5405 in reply to an interjection made by the hon. member for Durban (Point)—

Hon. members, the hon. member for South Coast in particular, approached the matter from a materialistic point of view this afternoon, and forgot about idealism. Let me tell him once again: There was no demand whatsoever for improvements in the salaries on the nart of the teachers when these matters were being debated in 1965. However, after we had discussed the question of salaries during the Parliamentary session and after the salaries of Government officials had been adjusted by 71 per cent, which represented the rise in the cost of living, and after the salaries of teachers had been adjusted in the same manner with effect from 1st January, 1966, all the teachers’ unions met.

Did you do this after the Parliamentary session?

I am saying that the adjustment was made on 1st January, 1966, after the Parliamentary session.

The Prime Minister says that nothing can be done.

I am referring to an adjustment made on 1st January, 1966, after the prorogation of Parliament. It was contained in the Estimates of that year. [Interjeotion.J I shall deal with the present state of affairs in a moment. First of all, I want to deal with the hon. member for South Coast. A blatant attempt is being made to achieve something which neither the hon. member nor any member of the Opposition can achieve, for there is no such thing as dissatisfaction at present. [Interjections.] Oh yes! I am saying this with the greatest responsibility I have at my disposal. This dissatisfaction resulted from certain suggestions made to certain people by irresponsible persons. But not one of the nine teachers’ unions acted irresponsibly in regard to this matter, as the Opposition tried to pretend this afternoon.

The hon. the Prime Minister stated the whole matter very exhaustively. This does not concern salaries only. I have always insisted on this: In 1963, after the establishment of the Education Council—and I want to repeat it now, as hon. members do not seem to have understood this—four sub-committees were appointed, which conducted a searching investigation in regard to the case of the teachers. This investigation concerned the admission of teachers to the profession, the way they are recruited, the reasons why so many people leave the teaching profession, the status of the teacher, their conditions of service, their training, etc. These questions are all olosely interrelated matters, and patching up the salaries will not suffice. However, the hon. member for South Coast must listen to me now. After those reports were submitted, I indicated in a very exhaustive statement in the Press what had happened in regard to these reports. The Education Council was the first to receive the report of the sub-committee. The Education Council referred to the heads of education, they being all the directors of education and my own Director of Higher Education. The directors met in Pretoria this year on 20th May and decided to meet once again in Cape Town on 10th June. Having met on 10th June, they approached me on 11th June and held discussions with me at which they pointed out to me all the implications of the matter. I made certain proposals to them, which they in their turn were to discuss with the teachers’ unions, so that we can hold a final discussion in regard to their report in August. These teachers’ unions have nine representatives. I then added: Now a decision remains to be made by the Cabinet, in the first place, and the Administrators, in the second place, because the Provinces must bear 50 per cent of the expenses. Now I want to ask: Is there any negligence? The teachers outside and the responsible teachers’ unions are quite prepared to view the matter in its entirety and stop trying to patch up the position of the teachers; they are prepared to give the teachers their required status and to rectify matters in regard to their training.

The other announcement made by the hon. the Prime Minister, is the one in regard to the commission of inquiry which has to submit its report on 30th November this year so that legislation can be piloted through next year. If ever anything had to be done for the teaching profession, it was done and it is still being done. This is the most hollow-sounding attempt I have ever heard a senior member on the Opposition side make to try and chase up a hare here. I want to tell him straight away that he will not succeed in chasing up this hare. I have received the most wonderful telegrams, even from his own province, from his English-language association. All that they ask is: May we not have it a little sooner than the end of the year, or before the Estimates? The hon. the Prime Minister has announced this very clearly this afternoon. We cannot have it sooner. The suggestion of the hon. member for Yeoville that we should extend the session another few days, is a foolish and senseless suggestion.

Why?

Because the investigation has not been completed and because one would prefer to set up the salary scales for teachers on a professional and scientific basis. One does not only want to draw up a structure of posts according to which they will receive small increases according to the old posts structure. Hon. members who have no understanding of this, should not be concerned about it. Then they will do much better.

I want to conclude by saying the following. I have every confidence that the teaching profession will prosper and flourish when this new era dawns for them. I anticipate that we will clear up a matter which has not been our concern for many years. In the first place this Parliament has never had the power to deal with the training of teachers. Neither this Parliament nor its Ministries have ever had any power to enable them to determined the reason for these shortages and to determine the best methods to remove these shortages. As from 1st January this year, this Parliament has for the first time had a say in this matter. This Parliament, this Government and this Ministry will see to all matters in regard to education with the greatest conscientiousness and will see to it that justice is done not only to the teacher, but also to the education of the child, upon whom the future of this country depends.

Mr. Speaker, the teachers of South Africa will most certainly react to the statement made by the Minister of National Education today and it is therefore not necessary for me to react to it.

But I want to address a word of thanks to the editor of Dagbreek this afternoon. I am a faithful reader of Dagbreek now, and on Sunday I read with very great interest how they are going to render a particular service to the readers of Dagbreek and to the people of South Africa. I am referring, of course, to the “political lonely hearts corner”, in which questions may be asked which are going to be answered by Dr. Connie. The hon. member for Randfontein is the man who is going to answer all the questions. But I myself am surprised that this service has been established, becauseaccording to what the Leader of the House said a few weeks ago, there is nothing wrong with the Nationalist Party. The hon. the Minister said at Parow—

I am looking forward with very great interest to the questions which will be put to the editor of Dagbreek. I am looking forward to a largescale competition among the readers of Dagbreekand I do not think that there will be a shortage of questions. The offer was made by this newspaper at a very opportune moment in the political history of South Africa. Everyone wants to know today where the Nationalist Party is heading. What is its policy? Is it still the policy of the Nationalist Party to repatriate the Indians as was its policy in 1948? Is it still the policy of the Nationalist Party to regard immigrants as foreign elements that are going to plough under the Afrikaner in South Africa as was the case in 1948? Is it still the policy of the Nationalist Party to stop the white cities of South Africa from becoming black as the hon. member for Primrose told me was the policy of the Nationalist Party when we were students at the University of Oxford? Is it still the policy of the Nationalist Party to complain about the large amounts of money being spent on Bantu education and Bantu housing? Is it still the policy of the Nationalist Party, as it was in 1948, to advocate white dominance, which was the policy of Dr. Malan and Adv. Strijdom? Or is the policy something else to day? And lastly, is the Nationalist Party still striving today to bring about Afrikaner unity as was the case in 1948? You will remember, Sir, because you were a member of the House, at that time the late Mr. Strijdom said that there was only room in South Africa for the farmer and the farmer’s philosophy of life.

Is that still the policy of the Nationalist Party? Or is the policy of the Nationalist Party, 20 years after they took over the reins, to accept the Indians as a permanent part of the population of South Africa, to give them a community council of their own and eventually their own Parliament in their own homeland? Is it not the policy of the Nationalist Party today to bring more immigrants than ever before into South Africa? Are they no longer a danger to Afrikanerdom? Are they not the people who will plough under the Afrikaner in South Africa? Are they not a danger to the culture, the philosophy of life and the traditions of the Afrikaner in South Africa? Must I now conclude that the influence of the hon. the Ministers Waring and Trollip and the hon. member for Maitland carried more weight with the leaders of the Nationalist Party than for example the influence of the hon. member for Krugersdorp, who spoke so nicely about immi

grants yesterday, as well as that of the hon. member for Carletonville who also has a great love of immigrants? Is it the policy now to render the cities of white South Africa black? The figures which were quoted by the hon. member for Yeoville today indicated that the Bantu population in and about the white cities of South Africa was greater than ever before. Is it now the policy to spend more money on Bantu education and Bantu housing than any previous Government? Is it the policy today to promise separate freedom to the Bantu populations of South Africa? Is it the policy of the Nationalist Party today to bring about South African unity rather than Afrikaner unity? We are now coming to the end of the Parliamentary session and we are entitled to have an answer to all these questions. We are entitled to know whether the Nationalist Party of today is true to the policy of 1948 or to ’.he policy of 1968.

The members of the Nationalist Party are afforded a wonderful opportunity during the recess of setting out its present policy with all its oonsequences and in all its facets. The Nationalist Party members will probably be able to boast of their recent achievements, such as the loan of R8 million granted to Malawi at an interest rate of 4 per cent. This is a wonderful achievement. They can also boast of the increased immigrant figures, which were mentioned so proudly by the hon. member for Primrose in this House recently. And then they can also speak highly of the exemptions from job reservation which were granted by the hon. the Minister of Labour. They can also speak of the foreign capital which is streaming into South Africa in spite of the warning which the late Mr. Strijdom issued to the people of South Africa, namely that if we receive capital from overseas, we are in danger of becoming the slaves of overseas imperialistic powers. Lastly, they can boast about the new sport policy of the Government, a sport policy which now allows a non-White world champion to come to South Africa to fight against another non-White in a white stadium and in a white group area before a mixed audience. Those are the recent achievements of this Government. I hope all the members of the Nationalist Party will tell their constituents exactly what their new policy is.

But it does not stop there. What about the outward policy of the Government? They can boast about the great achievements of visits by high-ranking persons from black neighbouring states. They can speak highly of the arrival of black diplomats in South Africa to improve relationships between South Africa and the black countries of Africa. According to the editor of Dagbreek South Africa can no longer live in isolation from the world. He said that everyone should assist and that every Nationalist Party caucus member should defend the Government through thick and thin, whether at symposiums which have become the fashion these days or from political platforms. Even supporting organizations, or shall I rather say splint organizations, such as the Rapportryers, must be harnessed to proclaim to the nation this message of the new achievements of the Government’s outward policy. They can also harness the Afrikanerorde, and I am sure there will be no lack of helpers. The S.A.B.C. has been harnessed long ago, but it seems to me as if the S.A.B.C. has become somewhat tired of the game lately. But the Nationalist Party will definitely not succeed in making an impression on the people of South Africa, because the Nationalist Party is essentially “verkramp”. They are all verkramp and the ordinary member of the Nationalist Party simply cannot understand what is happening in his Party. I met a leading figure of the Nationalist Party here in the Peninsula recently and I asked him whether he was verlig or verkramp. His reply was: “John, I really don’t know any more these days. Because I am just a mixed up kid”. Many of the members of the Nationalist Party here in this House and outside are to-day “mixed up kids”.

I am looking forward to the answers which the hon. member for Randfontein is going to give the readers of Dagbreek. But if the National Party members neglect their duty and are not going to convey the message of the outward policy to the people of South Africa, the members of the United Party will definitely not neglect their duty. They will test the policy of the Nationalist Party as against that of the United Party. We shall supply the answers, especially the answer to the most tricky problem facing South Africa, namely the continued existence of white leadership in South Africa. We in the United Party honestly believe that the Whites must govern with justice and justness. With us there is no question of giving away any land. With us there is no question of uhuru for black states. We believe that it is the calling of the white man in South Africa to lead the non-White people of South Africa as it has always led them in the past. We have had sufficient proof of what has happened elsewhere in Africa when the political influence of the white man is taken away.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think hon. members will expect me to make a lengthy speech at this late stage of the session and of the debate. I should like to take up a few minutes in replying to a few of the financial matters touched upon in the course of the debate. In the first place I want to thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for the good wishes he extended to me in connection with the coming session of the Monetary Fund. I want to reply to two questions he put to me. The first question put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was whether a member who did not make use of drawing rights at the outset, could decide to do so later. The reply is that normally we expect these special drawing rights to be allocated over a basic period of five years in annual instalments. A member of the Fund is entitled to become a participant. But a participant may elect whether or not he wants to I accept drawing rights over a basic period. If a participant does not make use of the nights at the beginning of a basic period, he can in the course of the basic period apply for allocation of such rights over the period still remaining in that basic period. We take it that the Fund will then consider his application sympathetically. When a second and subsequent basic period opens, a participant is automatically entitled to his allocation, whether he had drawing rights in the previous basic period or not. The second question the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked was whether a member could pay his debt to the Monetary Fund in gold, and whether the drawing rights made any difference to that. The reply is that a member can meet certain of his obligations in gold. However, the provisions of the Monetary Fund are extremely complicated in this respect, but the provisions relating to the repayment of debts in gold are not affected by the drawing rights.

The hon. member for Pinetown touched upon a few problems here which I just want to mention briefly. In the first place the hon. member for Pinetown said that we were budgeting for a growth rate of 5½ per cent, but that the State expenditure had increased by 8.4 per cent in comparison with the previous year. I did not expect the hon. member to make such a comparison of things which are not comparable. The 5½ per cent growth rate mentioned, is a real growth rate. As compared with 1966 the national product increased by 9.3 per cent in terms of current prices, whereas the real growth rate was 7 per cent. As against this increase of 9.3 per cent, the State expenditure on these Estimates compared with those of the previous year, was 8.7 per cent on the Revenue Account. The increase in the Loan Account during this year, as against the previous year, is estimated at only 7 per cent.

The hon. member also mentioned here the danger of the domestic liquidity that has developed. This is attributable to the enormous inflow of foreign capital and to the favourable balance of payments. Since we are aware of the potential inflationary danger of the domestic liquidity that is developing, we took all the necessary steps in the past in order to impose a credit restriction on banks, and now we have also proceeded to taking the step of imposing a restriction on the investments of banks. In other words, the policy is to move in that direction. I am fully aware of the fact that this restriction on the credit of banks is a desirable measure, and that it entails problems. I am fully aware of this, and I am looking forward to the day when it will be possible for us to effect a change here as well, and we are also moving in that direction. But I fear that for the present we cannot do without this ceiling on the credit provided by banks. To meet the liquidity problem in the meantime, we are pursuing our further fiscal and monetary policy; in other words, we are attempting to drain away the surplus liquidity, and we are doing so, inter alia, by means of the sterilization of funds by the State. For example, by means of Treasury obligations we are borrowing much more from the public than the State requires for its own needs and that surplus amount is being sterilized. This is the method we are using at present to try to drain away this surplus liquidity. We could, of course, also do this in another way. i.e. by relaxing exchange control. The hon. member referred to this during a previous debate. The hon. member for Parktown also referred to this during a previous debate. We can do this by removing or relaxing exchange control. I do not think we ought to do this, not at this juncture. What is meant by that, of course, as the hon. member knows, is that we are allowing South African citizens to invest larger amounts of South African capital overseas, temporarily or permanently, and that we allow foreigners to withdraw the money they have invested in South Africa more freely. I want to tell the hon. member that we are already doing so through administrative channels; we are working in that direction. But, with a view to the uncertainty in the international spheres, I think it would be dangerous at this juncture to remove exchange control or to relax it to any significant extent. We are doing this administratively, we are doing this within certain limits, but we cannot take this too far at the present moment. The internal problems to which the hon. member referred are connected with the external problems. As long as we have external problems which are not our problems, but problems which are caused by uncertainty in the monetary sphere on an international level, as long as that international monetary uncertainty exists overseas, we inherit that problem here. Those international problems are causing domestic problems here; the one is connected with the other. We can only hope that we will arrive at a solution to the foreign, international monetary problems very soon. I do not want to detain the House by speculating on this matter, but I am quite confident that there are movements in that direction overseas at the moment and that we might see a solution to the international world problems in one direction or another within the near future, or at least an indication of the direction in which the world will move, be it in the direction of an increase in the gold price, or in the direction of the demonetization of gold, which I do not expect. Whatever happens, I am confident that the world will not be able to wait very long without arriving at some decision or other in regard to its monetary problems.

The last point I want t-o touch upon has also been mentioned by the hon. member for Pinetown. He made the statement here that the domestic economic position was worse that it had been for a long time. Surely, the hon. member spoke without his book. If we take the major economic pointers which determine the economy of a country, we shall find that in spite of its problems, South Africa finds itself in an economically sound position to-day, such as has seldom been the case before. We are in that sound position which enables us, as I said yesterday, to grant assistance to major countries like England and France. Our position is a sound one in that we have full employment. Our position is a sound one in that we have a growing, and a rapidly growing, national product. Our position is a sound one in that we have over the past ten months had relative stability of prices in this country. According to all criteria, South Africa finds itself in one of the soundest, and perhaps in one of the two soundest financial positions in the entire world. We have our problems. What country does not have its problems? But these problems do not cause us great ooncem, and in any oase they do not cause us that concern which many other countries in the world are feeling in regard to their finances today. A few weeks ago an I.M.F. team visited us, and they made a thorough study of the economy of South Africa. I wish I could have made their report available to hon. members. It is a testimonial to the economy of a country of which any country in the world could justifiably be proud. We have our problems just as any country has its problems, but to us they are all challenges which we know we shall be able to solve in due course with the co-operation of the entire nation, challenges we as South Africans want to meet, because it is possible for us to meet them on the basis of a strong and sound economy. Therefore I am pleased to be able to conclude this debate by taking this point of view, namely that we can conclude this session in the knowledge that we can cope with the problems facing us, both domestic and foreign, on the basis of a strong, sound, and growing economy.

Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to break away from the line which has been the theme of discussion these past two days and refer to another matter, which I regard in a very serious light, and which, people outside regard in a very serious light. After having made my case on that point, I want to offer one or two comments on the Coloured people, who have not been mentioned to any extent during this debate of the last two days.

You will recall, Sir, that on 19th February I made a speech in the House, in which I referred to certain allegations against the activities of the Special Branch of the Police in regard to Coloured persons who had been interrogated or questioned from time to time, and I cited a few of the examples, which had been brought to my notice by people who were complaining Shortly after that, on 28th February, I got a letter signed by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police, in which he said, that he took a very serious view of the allegations I had made in the House and he inquired of me whether I would not submit the names of the people who had made the complaints. At first blush I regarded this as a most serious intrusion on my rights as a Member of Parliament in terms of the rules and privileges of the House, but at the same time I am cognizant of the fact, that as a citizen of this country, I also bear responsibility. So I replied to the Deputy Minister of Police and said, I would be very happy to co-operate with him and to come to his aid, if he would give me certain undertakings, namely that a senior officer of the Police should do any further investigating, or investigate those cases which had already been complained of: Furthermore the persons concerned should have a legal representative of their own choice present at the interrogation or questioning. Any documents, books and reports of the Police should be made available to me and such interrogation should take place in my presence. I received a letter in reply on 8th March, in which the Deputy Minister of Police said, that he had received my letter and that he would write to me again. Now, three and a half months have gone by and I have not heard one word. I am not unduly concerned about that because I have, through the Coloured persons concerned, discovered—and I am happy to be able to say so—that the questioning has ceased. In the ordinary course of events one might be inclined to let the matter rest there and say no more about it. But when the reports of what I had to say in the House appeared in the public Press, I got a complaint from two white women, the first of these women being the mother-in-law of the second one. A man called upon her at her place of business and the point at issue was the address of some person who had left this country some eight years ago. The lady concerned could not supply the address at the time, but this individual stood about, to her great embarrassment in the course of her duties at her job, and more or less suggested that she was not telling the truth, when she said that she did not know the address. Now this is the serious thing that I wish to bring to the notice of the House. She then discovered that her mail was being opened by this individual and thrown into the postbox in this open state; and comments were made to the daughter-in-law by the individual concerned that he would get the information he wanted sooner or later. The daughter-in-law has stated that this individual has persistently intercepted her mail.

Nobody is taking any notice of you.

I am not concerned who takes notice of me, except the Ministers concerned. [Interjections.] The result was that this individual waited in a queue while this lady was paying her light and water accounts, followed her into the city and said that he would find out what had to be found out. What is more, he suggested to her that he would get the information and that her children would suffer if she did not mind her p’s and q’s.

That is nonsense

It is not nonsense. I have affidavits here to prove what I say. My point here this evening is not in any way to attempt to stir up any trouble because I feel, and I have said this before, that I think the Police, and especially the Security Police, do a good job, but there are individuals among them, who are over-zealous and who take advantage of their position to a degree, which is not known to the hon. the Minister in charge of that Department.

Did you report it?

I will deal with the report later on, because I have had experience of reporting this sort of thing. I have another file here with me, and this is the position. About three or four years ago, when a debate was taking place in this House on the question of the ill-treatment of Coloured persons in charge offices, a lot of argument was bandied back and forth about the veracity or otherwise of certain affidavits which certain members claimed to have had. I did not take part in that debate, but I had such affidavits in my possession. They came to me quite unsolicited from a prominent attorney, and I sent these in good faith to the then Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minster. I drew his attention to the fact that this was going on and asked him to investigate it. Almost 12 months went by and one day in my office, I was visited by a gentleman in plain clothes who claimed to be a colonel. He explained to me that reports had come from Pretoria asking for an investigation of the particular matter, about which I was complaining, and he was very curious to know where I had got my information. I said to this gentleman that all I was interested in was in seeing that a stop be put to this sort of thing, because I believed that the functions and the duties of the Police do not encompass that type of activity. Subsequently, I got a letter explaining to me that the matter had been investigated and that the Attorney-General had declined to prosecute. A number of reasons were given. I then wrote to the Department of Justice and asked for the return of my affidavits, but to my horror and surprise, I got a letter back saying that they had been misfiled or lost. The hon. members opposite must not say to me here, that I should report these matters and bring them to the notice of the responsible Minister, because I have done so. Now I am bringing this to the notice of the House and I am doing it in a good spirit, because I want to ask the Minister in charge of that Department to make absolutely certain, that when the Special Branch do their investigating, they do it in a way which is within their powers and within their particular ability and the facilities at their disposal.

I have had an opportunity of discussing this very point with a high officer in the Police, who shall be nameless, and my information is that the Police have other means of getting information, when they want it. I am prepared to accept that, and I say that also in good spirit. I believe the Police should be supported, but at the same time I believe that the Police should also realize that the average citizen has rights and privileges of his own. [Interjections.] The Deputy Minister has taken 3½ months without accepting the proposition I put to him. I say, and I say quite kindly, that I am not so naïve as to believe that the Police do not know, who the people were, to whom they spoke, because I think they do know. I also think that a big inquiry was instituted from top level and this position was ascertained. I believe it is my duty to the House and to the public to make them realize that there are voices which will defend the rights of individuals, because I want to say to you, Sir, that you have no idea of the terror and the fear that enter into the hearts, especially of Coloured people when this sort of thing happens to them.

You are just talking for the outside world.

When you get the case, as I now have in front of me, of two white women who are sufficiently sophisticated not to accept intimidation, then I ask the Deputy Minister whether it is his policy, and does he approve of it, that Special Branch officers should open people’s mail and throw it into a letter-box in that open state, just because they want to find the address of a man, who left this country eight years ago and because he corresponds with this lady’s mother? This is the last opportunity I will have this Session to raise these matters and I sincerely hope, that the ventilation of this complaint will lead to the end of the ham-handed methods of certain—and I emphasize “certain”—members of the Special Branch, who in their zeal, overstep the mark and intrude in the private affairs of individuals to an extent which is not acceptable to the general public in South Africa. That is all I wanted to say, but I also want to say that I am delighted to see that the hon. the Prime Minister is in his seat and that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police, whom I asked to be present, is also with us.

I am rather tempted to ignore that hon. member completely, but I do not think that I should do so. I just want to tell him that we know him as a man who has been embittered by white politics, and who has taken refuge in the position in which he finds himself to-day. Whether he wants to admit this or not, he is now making use of the fact that he came to this House in that way to make propaganda which can be used by the enemies of South Africa, both at home and abroad.

It is not propaganda.

I want to ask the United Panty whether they are proud of the fact that that hon. member stated in this House the other day—this is typical of his conduct—that the Coloureds in this country are being treated like dogs.

It is a disgrace.

Did he or did he not say that? What he said this evening was in the same vein. You will never hear him put in a good word for the Police, the people who ensure his safety as well as ours. Before I have done with him, I just want to say this to him: I have listened to him and I am not at all convinced that he raised the matters which he mentioned here to-night with the Department or with the Minister in the correct way. I am quite convinced that he did not do so, and I am prepared to tell him that. He is using the platform which Parliament offers him to harm South Africa.

He is an underminer.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Uitenhage has just made the remark that the hon. member is an underminder.

But you are also one.

I am sitting here behind the hon. member for Uitenhage; he did not say a word.

On a point of order, if it was not the hon. member for Uitenhage, then somebody else said it.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the hon. member for Simonstown, who was speaking before business was interrupted. The hon. member stated here, as his Leader also did in his speech, that the Government had abandoned its policy in respect of various matters for other policies.

One hundred per cent correct.

Let us take them one by one; we are prepared to take them one by one. The hon. member mentioned the Indians. In 1948 the National Party, when it was in opposition, stated that if it should come to power, it would introduce incentives to encourage the Indians to return to their own country.

Did the Government succeed in doing so?.

After the National Party had come to power, the Government introduced those incentives in the form of cash payments, free passage, etc., and in this way the Government kept its promise. After all, one could not take these people by the scruff of the neck and send them back to their own country. Some of the Indians did return to India; that cannot be denied, but one could not, after all, have taken these people by the scruff of the neck, put them in chains on board ship and sent them back. But what is more, since we are discussing the Indians, this side of the House immediately did away with the representation which they had obtained in this Parliament. What is the policy of that side of the House which to-night wants to level the reproach at us—just imagine—that we did not send the Indians back? Their policy is not only to keep them here, but also to allow them to walk through those swing-doors and give them seats in this House.

Who made them citizens of South Africa?

What is more, it is their policy, as stated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to negotiate with the Indians in regard to what form of political representation they are in future going to receive in this country. That is my reply to that hon. member, and if he wants to use it to make propaganda in the country areas, or in the cities, as he apparently wants to do if the speech he made to-night is any criterion, then I am asking him kindly to tell this to the people as well.

The hon. member also spoke about immigration, which was also one of the complaints of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, the National Party put a stop to immigration in 1948. There were very good reasons for doing so. They had been invited by the United Party to come out here in their millions. Was there any work for them at that stage? The economy of South Africa was at that time not able to absorb such a large number of immigrants. The only practical effect of such large-scale immigration would have been that the immigrants would have taken the bread out of the mouths of the people of South Africa.

Did that happen in Canada and Australia?

There was also another reason for doing so. On a occasion in this House the hon. member for East London (City) has spoken about the millions of immigrants who went to Australia, and has stated that we could have had them as well. I am, therefore, making the accusation that the Opposition at that time wanted to use immigration to plough under the Afrikaner in this country. That is why the National Party put a stop to immigration, at the right time and in the right way, in the interests of South Africa, and now we are bringing immigrants out here in terms of our policy. Sir, that hon. member has asked whether we still advocate the policy of co-operation between Afrikaans and English-speaking persons. This side of the House states to the whole of South Africa that all who subscribe to the political policy and principles of the National Party, are welcome to join it.

As “bywoners”

The hon. member for Durban (Point) has said “as ‘bywoners’ ”. It should stand recorded that that is his attitude.

Disgraceful!

He is saying precisely, but merely in other words, what the hon. member for East London (North) said to the then Prime Minister when he included two English-speaking members in his Cabinet. He wrote a letter to an English-speaking person in Durban in which he stated that this was the type of “yellow Englishman” we were including in the Cabinet. He denounced them as cowardly Englishmen; I want to ask that side who are asking us where we stand in respect of cooperation between Afrikaans and English-speaking people, where they stand.

The hon. member for Simonstown also stated that he was going to tell the people about this loan which we had granted to Malawi. I now want to ask the hon. member whether he and his Party are in favour of this loan which has been granted to Malawi? If the hon. member for Simonstown does not reply, I shall say that he is too afraid to reply. I am asking the hon. member again: Are you and your Party in favour of this loan to Malawi?

Ask the Leader of the Opposition.

That hon. member has no courage. I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Are you and your Party in favour of the loan which has been granted to Malawi?

We laid down certain conditions.

You are not the Leader.

You see, Mr. Speaker, this is how one stands with this Opposition. They want the country to follow them, but the country will only follow people for whom they have respect. The country will have no respect for people who are not prepared to state where they stand.

In regard to this diplomatic representation which has now been introduced, the hon. member also stated that it was a new policy. Sir, let me read out to you what the former Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, said in this House on 24th April, 1964. He stated—

He was referring to hostile states, and he went on to say—

A deadly silence prevails on that side.

Must I read it out to the hon. member again? I want this to sink in deeply. The late Dr. Verwoerd stated explicitly that he would be prepared to have diplomatic relations with countries which wanted to have friendly relations with South Africa. In what way has there been a ohange of policy now? Mr. Speaker, I can continue in this vein, but there is another colleague of mine who will return to this.

Before I proceed to deal with a few other matters, I would just like to have it recorded that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used these words in his speech yesterday—

I am not going to take this matter any further now, but I told those hon. members that they were against border industries. They are against the development of the border industry area of East London, King William’s Town and Queenstown, and it has been proved here that the entrepreneurs are being intimidated with a hostile labour market, and also that the white workers of South Africa are being intimidated, as was done yesterday.

Is that the best you can do?

The hon. member for Pinetown has asked me: “Is that the best you can do?” Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a financial measure, the Appropriation Bill here. We have been discussing this for 12 hours; we are now at the Third Reading stage, and the Opposition has as yet not made one single contribution to this debate in regard to financial matters. The hon. member for Pinetown rose and spoke for 15 minutes. For 7½ minutes he spoke about his constituency and about Bantustans. What a wonderful testimonial for the financial policy of this Government and for the implementation of that policy!

Before I come to the financial policy of the Government and other matters, I should like to ask a few questions while the hon. member for Durban (Point) is still here. He stated here yesterday—

Do not stop there. I went on to specify.

He stated: “We believe in separate development, unequivocally.”

Separate development in what spheres?

I shall come to that; that I promise the hon. member. I want to ask why the hon. member for Durban (Point) said that. Why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not say so?

Marais Steyn did not tell him to say so.

Why is it left to the right wing of the United Party to say these things? And why does the left wing keep quiet? Why has the left wing not taken part in this debate since yesterday?

But Die Burger says that I am Danny the Red.

I now want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether that is now the policy and whether he agrees with it. We now have the position that hon. members opposite stand for “separation”. For the concept “separate development” consists of two separate concepts, namely “separate” and “development”. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that they stood for “separation”. If that has been their policy for a long time, could they tell us what Afrikaans expression they use for the word “separation”?

“Segregasie.”

And “development” is of course “ontwikkeling”. In that way we eventually arrive at “segregasie-ontwikkeling” (segregation development). If we assume that the correct translation of “separation” is “afsondering”, I want to ask the hon. member on what basis they advocate it—on a voluntary one?

Socially, residentially and …

The hon. member for Germiston quoted here what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said during the U.P. congress held in Bloemfontein in 1965, namely—

This corresponds with what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in his constituency this year, namely—

May I ask you a question?

No, not now. I now want to ask. if they advocate “separation”, what happens the day Coloureds enter through those swing-doors and occupy seats here in the House? Is the whole basis, the whole concept of separation not being destroyed by that? [Interjections.] Hon. members will try to lure me away from this point, but they will not succeed. When they speak of “the traditional”. of “sensible” and of “common sense”, it all simply means one thing—voluntary separation. But if the United Party were in a position to allow six Coloureds to enter here today. would common sense dictate that they should eat apart, enjoy their refreshments apart? The Opposition also wants to arrange things on a voluntary basis in universities. Mr. Speaker, what are we in reality heading for with such a policy of voluntariness? But I want to ask the Opposition why they are now doing a somersault all of a sudden? An hon. member opposite said that that has always been their policy. But I have sat here for seven years, and year after year they have been ridiculing the policy of separate development. They said, “There is no separation and there is no development”. But that which they ridiculed then, they embrace to-day. The hon. member for Hillbrow, who is sitting over there, has said on more than one occasion: “Where there is separation, there is no development, and where there is development, there is no separation.” But now all of a sudden it is their policy as well. Mr. Speaker, what are we to think, what is the country to think of an Opposition which does somersaults in this way?

But this is supposed to be a financial debate, and for that reason I should now like to say a few words about finance. Since 1961 the nature of the criticism levelled by the Opposition has been opportunistic on the one hand, i.e. calculated at deriving as much political benefit as possible, but when it came to monetary policy, they spoke so generally that no matter what happened later on, they could always say that they were right. As far as that is concerned, they displayed wonderful “hindsight”—in fact, better than their “foresight”. In this way they always tried to cover on both sides of the question. On the one hand, for example, they asked for more expenditure, but when it came to taxation they asked for a decrease in taxation. In our fight against inflation over the past few years they continually levelled the accusation that the State was spending too much. In fact, they went as far as to accuse us of fighting inflation down to the private individual’s very last cent. But while, on the one hand, they are saying that the State should spend less, they are, on the other hand, pleading for additional expenditure. Where does one stand with them, Mr. Speaker? They have displayed this dualism throughout. But this year the National Party has been in power for 20 years, and yet the economy of South Africa is one of the strongest and healthiest in the whole world, irrespective of the criterion in terms of which it is measured. The hon. member for Kensington laughed the other day when I referred to what John von Ahlefeldt had to say about this. Now. however, I want to refer to what Stephen Mulholland has to say about this, namely—

No matter what criterion we apply, our economy has grown tremendously. The hon. the Minister said to-day that our real growth last year was 7 per cent, and over the preceding seven years, 6 per cent. This is what this person has to say about this, “A rate of real economic growth unmatched in the Western world”. This achievement has been reached with a minimum of price increases. This was in fact one of the points which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday. He said that we failed because we could not peg the cost of living. However, I just want to mention a figure to the House which will prove that we did succeed in doing so. From July, 1967, to January, 1968, our cost of living increased by 0.3 per cent.

And since January?

Since January there has been an increase of approximately .04 per cent. Now I should like to tell hon. members how we compare with other countries. I have here an edition of the International Financial Statistics. All the countries are mentioned here. I shall mention the figures for some of these countries in respect of the years 1961 and 1967. I shall first read out the 1961 figure and then the 1967 figure: South Africa—404, 121; New Zealand—106, 128; Australia—107, 123; the United Kingdom—106, 130; the U.S.A.—104, 117. The figures for Japan, which had a higher growth rate than we did, are 113 and 157. Israel’s figures are 116 and 158. I can mention quite a few more: France—114, 139; Germany —106, 123; Italy—106, 139; the Netherlands— 106, 133. Seen from this angle as well, South Africa has not done badly. There are actually only two countries in the whole world which have had a slower rate of inflation over the past 10 years than South Africa has had. I think that this is a wonderful achievement. I should just like to add that this was coupled with the rise in the standard of living of our people.

What have the old age pensioners got out of this?

We spoke about that when the Budget was discussed. The hon. member does not like the figures. They tried to say yesterday that the Government was pursuing policies which had done nothing to ensure the progress of the people, and that it had therefore failed. That is what was said in the amendment. In 12 hours of discussion on that proposal, not one of them rose to speak about these matters. Not one of them rose. Let me just state what the increase in the standard of living of the nation has been. Over the past 10 years the average income per capita, after price adjustment, has been 2.8 per cent, per year. Over the past five years it has been 4.3 per cent, and over the past year it has been 4.5 per cent. I just want to read out a few other figures about the average earnings of the nation. I want to compare the figures for 1958 and 1966. For the purposes of this comparison, all the 1958 figures, which I shall read out first, will represent a hundred. The consumer price increased from 100 to 118.3. The earnings of employees of the Central Government increased from 100 to 141.2. In mining it increased to 144.3, and in the manufacturing industry to 147.3. South Africa has, as far as the Whites are concerned, the greatest number of motor cars per capita, second in the world only to America. Things are going well for our people, and I do not want to deny anybody the right to a better life.

I do not want to deny anybody the right to ask for better working conditions and better salaries, but in addition we must not forget that we should be grateful for what we have in South Africa and that we should be thankful above all for a National Government which has given us such a strong and sound economy. We must be grateful for the fact that in the past few years we have weathered the international sea of storms reasonably unscathed. We must be thankful, with a view to the unpredictable years that lie ahead, for our having this strong and sound economy. We have all of this, because this Government stands where it stands, because the nation of South Africa knows where it stands and because the outside world knows where it stands, to lead South Africa through this period as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the hon. member for Queenstown was not prepared to answer the case put by the hon. member for Karoo, and probably quite rightly so too. I think that it is the job of the Deputy Minister of Police. We are looking forward to his coming into this debate so that he may give us the answers. He resorted to the old excuse of saying, whenever anything unpleasant has been raised by us, as a matter of public interest, that we are helping the enemies of South Africa. It is the old, old story.

The hon. gentleman had a lot to say about the colour policy of this side of the House, and about Indians and immigration. Those matters have been discussed ad nauseam in this House for years, and also in this session. I am not going to waste my very short time in replying to the points he made.

He did, however, make one very interesting observation. He said that English-speaking South Africans are very welcome in the Nationalist Party, and that everything is being done to welcome them there. I shall not reply to that either. I shall leave it to Mr. Blythe Thompson and Mr. Edmund Elias to make a reply on that point. They tried it. They fought elections for these gentlemen. They will answer that point.

Another point raised by the hon. member was the question of border industries. He suggested that my Leader said that he was against border industries. To put the record straight, Sir, I should like to read to the House once again what my Leader said on this point only yesterday. He said:

That is what my Leader said. My Leader has stated over and over again that as far as the decentralization of industries is concerned, this side of the House will back it every time when it is done on economic and strategic grounds, but not when it is done on ideological grounds. That hon. member represents an area which is very much suited to the decentralization of industries. If that area had a real live-wire member they would have had some there already. I think that they should get down to the job.

The hon. member also referred to the cost of living, and advanced reasons why the cost of living has gone up. Was his party not the party which came into power in 1948 on the promise of a reduction of the cost of living? Where has the value of our money gone now?

I, who have followed politics for a long time, never thought that I would ever have to hear from Nationalists what we are hearing from these hon. gentlemen here to-day. They are the descendants of those fiery Nationalists before 1948. The most amazing thing is that they come here and, without blushing, one after another, tell us that they have not changed their policies. The Chief Whip spent a half hour doing so here to-day. He spoke of the days when Nationalists were Nationalists. Those were the days, Sir! He talks about “aanpassings”. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, Sir, but this one does not smell so sweet. Is it not true, Sir, that this party came into power on the slogan of “Kaffer op sy plek en Engelsman en Indiër oor die see”? That is the slogan with which they came into power. Do you remember the song and dance they kicked up when the late Mr. Hofmeyr spent something like £50,000 on Native education? Do you remember what a row they kicked up? Do you know, Sir, that there are not many of those Nationalists left in this House? The Minister of Transport is one, and I think it is rather significant that we do not find him telling us that they have not changed course. He remembers how he went from platform to platform and preached nothing but unadulterated baasskap.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, that Minister was in England for five years, and he has not learnt a thing. He asks the same silly questions, like: Will you allow your daughter to marry a kaffir? [Interjections.]

May I ask a question?

No, I am sorry but I do not have the time. That self-same party which came into power on those slogans and all those battle cries, one can to-day hear cooing to those self-same kaffirs. I am sorry. They are not kaffirs any more. They are now Bantu. They now coo to the English and the Indians. One could not find better pals now.

When one comes to think of it, those despised verkramptes are the only Nationalists who have kept course. “Hulle is die enigste wat koers gehou het.” Although that party repudiates them, there are many verkramptes on that side who have the same ideas in their heart of hearts. But do you know why they keep quiet? They keep quiet because the bandwagon is too big and too comfortable. They know that if they say a word, out they go

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir, I know what the Minister’s question is. These new Nationalists are pale, dehydrated and “verlep” compared to the old Nationalists. That is all they are. They have taken so many of the ideas of this side of the House that what they are to-day is actually very verkrampte Sappe. They are very verkramp. No wonder that their own followers are now calling them “kafferboeties” and liberalists. That is what they are.

In the few moments at my disposal I want to refer to a matter which is mentioned in the amendment moved by my hon. Leader. The amendment reads inter alia as follows:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is discussing an amendment which has already been negatived by the House.

He is only referring to it. {Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, one would have expected the Chief Information Officer of the Nationalist Party to know better. No wonder … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed with his speech.

My hon. Leader suggested that this Government has done little or nothing to ensure the ultimate welfare, security and progress of the people. I want to stand still for a few minutes this evening on the security aspects of our country. A few weeks ago we discussed the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Defence and I am very sorry that he is not here to-night.

He is fighting for you.

When we discuss these Votes the ordinary members of the House are at a grave disadvantage, because we are only allowed to speak for ten minutes under the Vote, while the hon. the Minister waits until the end and replies to what we have said. He then makes the most outrageous and wild statements and one cannot get back at him because of the limited time at one’s disposal. Those statements are sent into the world and they stand uncorrected. I want to make use of this opportunity to put one or two of those matters straight

The first matter on which I want to speak is the strategic implications of these so-called independent Bantustans. When we raised this matter under the Vote, the hon. the Minister asked us in this reply what we were worried about; the homelands were always there and nothing has changed to alter the defence situation. That is perfectly true. He went on and said that the fact that self-government was granted, had not affected the defence aspect in any way. That is also true, but only partly true. It has not affected us yet, but, on the other hand, we have not reached the ultimate yet. What is the position going to be when these states are fully independent?

The hon. the Minister told us that these people will always remain our friends, and because they will always remain friendly he bases all his planning on that fact. It is completely unsound to build one’s defence strategy on only one assumption. Surely one must take into account all the situations which might arise and I suggest that as far as these Bantustans are concerned that it is not only possible, but highly probable, that not all of them will remain friendly and that there may be a time when some of them will, under certain circumstances, probably be our enemies. Surely one must take this into account when one’s defence pattern is planned? In this respect the hon. the Minister has not given us an answer, because I believe that he has no answer. The problem is so complex that he refuses to face it. The problems created by the independence of Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana are admittedly not so serious, because they are surrounded by white territories and are at the moment friendly towards us. We are grateful for this,, but this position will obviously not continue and there will at one time or another be a Government in those countries that is going to be unfriendly towards us.

So what.

The hon. the Minister says “so what”, but that is exactly what I want to say to him. If we look at Botswana, we see that Botswana already poses some problem to us, because it is an independent State which not only borders on the Republic of South Africa, but also on Zambia. We all know what is going on in Zambia and we all know what a base for unfriendly people Zambia is for us. The independence of these territories is a fact. We must accept it and plan accordingly, because it has increased our defence problem.

Our own Bantustans, with which I want to deal now, will make our problem much more complicated. In the first instance, the most advanced of these Bantustans, namely the Transkei, has a long coast line which none of the other territories which have independence, has.

Why don’t you pause for a moment?

It is amazing how some people cannot listen to the truth. We must keep one thing in mind, namely, that long after the Transkei and the other territories have gained their independence they will still be have-not states and they will still be poor states. They will still be hopelessly dependent upon the Republic and they will not like it. Are they not going to look elsewhere for assistance to help them in their plight? Are they not going to turn to people who are only too ready to help them? How are we going to stop this? These states will eventually straddle our communications and our water resources and will increase our borders tremendously and I do not even want to speak of the jumping-off places that they will provide for people ill disposed towards us. We see it happening to-day to our neighbours. Can one imagine the complications when we have all these states right within our borders? The hon. the Minister is quite happy however and he says that nothing is changed and that these states will always be friendly. How naïve can a person be, or is it just the old Nationalist Party technique, namely that when you see a thing that you do not like, you just pretend that you do not see it, and tihat you stick your head in the ground and hope for the best? One gets tired of these amateur strategists who are so qualified and so able to defend South Africa during peace time. In peace time it is so easy, but I can assure them that to defend this country of ours during war-time is quite a different story. These independent states will create very grave problems and I would like to meet the general who will not agree with me in this respect.

The hon. the Minister talks about the black proletariat that will be around our cities under our policy, but it will not be any different under his. They will still be there and it will be no different. The only difference is that under our policy we will have full control. They will not be citizens of another country, and, what is more, we will have control of the whole of the territory of South Africa. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence and the Government what they will do during war time if these states are against us. Are they going to intern the nationals of these states? What are they going to do with them? Intern them, jail them and thereby bring the whole economy to a standstill because 80 per cent of our workers will always be nationals of the states? Under our policy we will have full control over these people and over all South Africa. We know exactly how to deal with problems like these. We had a Nationalist proletariat against us during the last war and we knew exactly how to deal with them. The mild and the meek ones went around making inflammatory speeches. Others committed sabotage. We managed all that. How did we manage it? Because they were all our citizens. They lived in one country and we could deal with them.

You could not deal with yourself.

We have had a wonderful example of the problems a country can run into only a few weeks ago, when France was in turmoil. Can we imagine what the position of the French Government would have been if these people, who were out on strike, were nationals of other countries. What would France’s problems have been if France were to be chopped up into various independent states right within her borders? Would they have got this matter under control? Not on your life! They could not do it. It just cannot be done.

The Government’s policy, if and when they carry it out, will pose a serious threat to the security of South Africa, so serious that the Government will not face up to it. Therefore they turn a blind eye to it and say: It cannot happen here. That is why the Minister advanced his puerile arguments when he is confronted with the clash between the Nationalist Party’s policy and the security of South Africa.

There is another matter which the Minister finished aside very lightly when we raised it. That was the question of the siting of the various fuel tanks throughout our country. We pointed out that the storage tanks are sited in a very stupid way. They are concentrated close to our industrial areas, forming an ideal target. They are sited above the ground. They are vulnerable from the air, from the sea and to saboteurs. The Minister defended the sating by saying that, if they were placed underground, only a third would have been completed and it was best to have them all rather than only one-third. The vulnerability should have been taken into consideration. What is the good of having these tanks above the ground if they can so easily be destroyed? Then we have nothing in any case. We may then live under a false sense of security that we have abundant fuel supplies. It could all go up in smoke in one fell swoop.

There are other countries that were faced with the same problem. The NATO organization in Europe had the same problem. What did they do? They constructed steel-lined concrete tanks. They built them at exactly the same speed as we did. They were, admittedly, 15 per cent more expensive, but much more durable. They are earth grounded. Some of them are completely buried. But it was well worth it.

There is a third matter which the Minister gave us a story about, which I think we must look at. That was when we raised the matter of certain promotions. I do not want to go into the matter of the promotions of senior officers again. But the point I want to make is that the Minister tells us that he was satisfied that these were the best officers for the job, that he had consulted most of the senior officers and that none of them raised any objections. He asked whether we thought that the officers he consulted were “toadies” and “creepers”. Of course they are not “toadies” or “creepers”. They are very fine officers. But they are not fools either. They know that only in a short period of time during the rule of this Government two chiefs of staff were sacked because they opposed a Minister. These people will remember that. They know that there was the case of the one-time head of the Air Force, who vigorously opposed a Minister when he proposed promoting and appointing one of his cronies. What happened to him? He was out. Do hon. members know who that was? Me. These people are not so foolish as to protest and oppose the Minister. They know that once the wheels of the Broederbond and the Nationalist Party are set in motion, they have to toe the line. Even the Minister has to toe the line. Under these circumstances one cannot expect them to protest. So the Minister must not come forward with the story that he consulted them and that everything is “hunkydory”, everything is lovely in the garden.

Mr. Speaker, there was a time when I sat in this House and participated in defence debates, but even at that time I would have refused to reply to the hon. member for North Rand who has now tried to make a defence speech. I want to refer to a few matters which the hon. member raised. Firstly, he tried to present himself here as the martyr who had fallen prey to Government policy and had been cashiered. Are hon. members aware under what commandant-general of the Defence Force he was cashiered, and for what reasons that was done? Why does he now want to pretend here that they were political reasons?

No, I did not say political reasons.

No, the hon. member has just said it.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point), who is continually making speeches, must not think that he will put me off my stroke. But I shall get around to him to-night. I am still going to make him important, even though he is perhaps of minor importance in this House. He will just have to exercise patience now. If he would only remain quiet, I shall get round to him. The hon. member for North Rand must not make that kind of speech here.

But I want to refer to a few other minor matters, which I also want to dwell on tonight. To-night the hon. member told us again what great champions his party were of the policy of decentralization of our industries. The United Party have consistently opposed border industries, ever since we made a start with that policy. We never heard about decentralization, but since the policy of border industries has began to succeed, and they have seen what fruitful results we are obtaining and that development is taking place in border areas, for which all the members who represent borders here have pleaded, they have realized that they cannot merely leave the matter to one side. Hon. members will recall only too well how the hon. member for East London (City), for example, advocated here that opportunities for employment should be created in the Ciskei. Hon. members will also recall, for it was only yesterday, how the hon. member for King Williams Town advocated border industry development here. All the other members who represent border areas have pleaded for border industrial development. Now that those people have realized that they cannot simply leave border industries to one side, they have discovered a new word, with which they have come to light. They are not exactly champions of border industries, but they are the greatest champions of the decentralization of our industries.

May I ask a question?

But I know what the hon. member is going to ask? It will only be a stupid question. He may as well keep quiet.

This is important.

No, Sir, hon. members can kick up any kind of fuss they please, this decentralization which they advocate, is merely our border industry policy. Because where do they want to decentralize to? I want to tell hon. members a little joke. The hon. member for Albany, my nieghbour—unfortunately he is not here to-night—went to Grahamstown and stated how stupid the Government was, that the Government did not want to declare Grahamstown a border industry area. For just think what development there could have been in Grahamstown! I should also like to see development there, because I represent more of the Grahamstown district than he does. But that is the story he had to tell there, and then this Government went, and actually gave Grahamstown border industry benefits a week or 10 days ago, and what has been the result of that?

Why?

Because I represent that district and because there must be development where I am, because where a good Nationalist is, there one must surely have development. Now they are asking in this House what this implies; is it going to imply that Grahamstown will also be incorporated into the Bantu area? Is it not strange that the United Party should regard every move on the part of this Government either with suspicion, or work up opposition to it amongst the people who can derive benefits from it. But I want to leave the hon. member for North Rand at that. I do not think he expected to get much more than what I have already devoted to him.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the report of the Border Industry Committee is correct when it states that a majority, 76,000 of the present border workers, were there before the border industry policy was introduced, and only 55,000 after that policy?

It is obvious to me that the hon. member has never read that report, otherwise the figures would have been correct. The hon. member’s figures are totally incorrect if he wants to pretend that there were more workers in the border industries before the border industries were there than there are now. Surely that is a childish thing to say. The hon. member is a grown man, and he ought to know his politics better than that. But we shall leave it at that. And now I promise him that I am not going to reply to any further questions asked by him if he wants to ask such stupid questions.

I want to come to the speeches which have been made in this Budget Debate. As this Session began, so it is ending, i.e. that we still do not know where the United Party stands in regard to the fundamental problems in this country. I listened to the hon. member for Simonstown this afternoon, and I listened to the hon. member for Karoo, people who are in the same party, and I was quite surprised, because the one sits on my right-hand and the other on my left-hand. But I then discovered that I was wrong, it is because I am sitting here that the one is sitting on the right and the other is sitting on the left. But how the standpoints of those two hon. members can be reconciled in one single political party is beyond me. Do you know, Sir, that the hon. member again made that Van der Merwe speech here this afternoon …

Listen now, listen now! [Laughter.]

I beg the hon. member’s pardon. This was not meant to apply to him in any way. But that hon. member made another speech there at Buffelsjag, in the Swellendam election, and now the hon. member must tell me if I am doing him an injustice. I was not at Buffelsjag, and I did not hear what he said. I have to rely on Press reports, and if the Press reported him incorrectly, the hon. member must say so. But the Press report I have before me, reads as follows—

Now the hon. member must simply tell me whether he is satisfied about Mr. Tema being treated in that hospital, or whether he is dissatisfied about it.

The question was put to me, and I replied.

The hon. member can simply tell me whether he agrees that a Minister of a friendly neighbouring state could be treated there, even though the hon. member for North Rand wants to make a hostile neighbouring state of them in advance. Does he agree that such a Minister of a neighbouring state can receive treatment in a hospital here? He can simply say yes or no. [Interjections.l I do not have time to listen to a speech. The hon. member can merely tell me whether he agrees with it or not. But this Press report goes further, it states—

Even if it is a Minister. Now the hon. member can tell me again: Is that his policy, even though the persons concerned are ministers of neighbouring states, or must they be treated in the Bantu hospitals.

I shall furnish you with a reply next week-end.

I would have liked a reply now. I should like to know where this party stands, because I have listened to one member who sits on that side of the party and I have also listened to one member who sits on the other side of the party, but they are in the same party and these people who should have one policy, and I should like to know where that party stands in regard to these matters. I want to know from the hon. member for Simonstown and from the hon. member for Karoo whether there is any party relationship between them, and whether that party is going to implement that policy. Now I have asked the hon. member for Simonstown two questions. Then the report continues—

[Interjection.] Let me just complete my argument, then the hon. member can ask a question. Sir, I have listened this evening to the hon. member for Yeoville. and he said that the outward-going movement of the hon. the Prime Minister was merely the policy of the United Party. He stated that the United Party agreed whole-heartedly with the outward-going movement of the Prime Minister. Then I must accept that the United Party also supports the Prime Minister when he receives diplomats of neighbouring states such as Malawi here. But according to this report, the hon. member for Simonstown differs with his party. Can the hon. member now inform me as to whether this newspaper report is incorrect, or is he in the wrong place, with the party whose policy the hon. member for Yeoville stated here this evening? [Laughter.] No, the hon. member must not laugh now. This is a serious matter. The country outside wants to know where the United Party stands.

I have already referred you to the newspaper report of the following week-end.

I wonder whether I should not resume my seat in order to afford that hon. member the opportunity of putting his question. No, now he no longer wants to put his question. Why does he no longer want to ask questions? I want to know where the United Party stands, because I want to know whether I should listen to the hon. member for Karoo or whether I should listen to the hon. member for Simonstown. Where is the happy medium? [Interjection.] Oh, there the hon. member for Mooi River is! Apparently he is on the right road. But I have not finished with the hon. member for Simonstown yet. He stated—

He was referring to Mr. Kachingwe …

Just think that Mr. Kachingwe has to live in such a man’s constituency, such a man as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, somebody who is so conservative and who is such a stickler for separate residential areas!

Is it a fact that a non-White from a Back country, a neighbouring state, received treatment in a white hospital in Johannesburg; and secondly, is it a fact that a Black diplomat has received accommodation in Rondebosch which is a white area?

Yes. We do not have first and second class diplomats here. At this stage Mr. Kachingwe is not a diplomat yet; he is still second in command of the Malawian mission. But that makes no difference, he can become a diplomat. But it is a friendly neighbouring state.

But is it a fact?

Yes, it is a fact. Does the hon. member have any objection to that?

I have raised no objection

Oh, he has raised no objection to that. Why are these questions being put to me, and why did he make that speech at Buffelsjag during the election when he was helping Koos van Eeden there—Koos Yster and not Koos Hoender? It is because he wants to sow suspicion against the National Party and for no other reason, because he has now stated to me that he is not opposed to it. that he is also in favour of it and his party says they are in favour of it, and his party has stated that it is the policy they are advocating, this outward going policy of the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjection.] He has now stated that he is not opposed to that. Very well, he has now asked me two questions, and I am only asking him one. Does he agree that that representative, a diplomat, should receive the same treatment as other diplomats?

That is an old type of Nat question.

How am I going to get a reply to this question? I am being quite honest and upright. I just want a straight answer. I want to know whether the hon. member objects to that, but if he does not want to tell me then surely I have to assume that this report is correct—

[Interjections.] I am now asking this question: Is that what the hon. member stated, and is he in agreement with it? Is that his policy? [Laughter.] Do not laugh. I asked a perfectly simple question, and the answer can be given as a simple yes or no; the hon. member can either nod or shake his head. It is really a bitter experience. Sir. to have to deal with a United Party man. You do not know which way those people want to go, or what their policy is. Do you know, Sir, that I listened to the hon. member for Karoo and thought that the hon. member for Karoo was wrong, because I thought that the policy of the Party was that which had been announced by the hon. member for Simons town. But now the hon. member for Simonstown does not want to tell me what the policy is. Now I want to tell him that I have exactly the same opinion of him as the English Press had of him when they stated—

And I want to give him the assurance that if my Leader, the Prime Minister, accepts him, I would walk out. No, “We would not have him”. {Interjections.] There is somebody else who would walk out with me. We do not have room for such cowardliness, for people who do not know where they want to go and who have no policy.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may not accuse another hon. member of cowardliness (papbroekerigheid).

I am saying that people who do not have a policy …

Order! Mr. Speaker gave a ruling to the effect that that word may not be used. The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw it.

Sir, I shall withdraw it, but then, with my hon. colleagues, I say: “My vocabulary is really becoming depleted now.” I shall withdraw it, but at least he knows what I think of him. “Mr. Vorster has no time for a reactionary such as Mr. Wiley.” There is no place for him in this Party; there is no place for him if he does not know where he wants to go with South Africa, and does not know which way he wants to go with his Party.

I now come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who is sitting there yawning. I have sympathy with him. I have sympathy with a leader who has to keep a party on the go with such people as the hon. member for Karoo and the hon. member for Simonstown.

What about the hon. member for Innesdal?

With such people he has to keep a party on the go, and he must try to overthrow the Government and get hold of the government of the country. I leave him at that with his problems. I am going to return now to questions put to me in regard to my portfolio, and in regard to which I have not yet had an opportunity to reply. Yesterday afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that consolidation of the Bantu areas had now broken down, that it was no longer necessary.

You do not understand very well.

I wrote down what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, and as I have it written down here, he stated that nothing can be done about consolidation. Is that correct? He does not reply, and it seems to me that I shall merely have to leave the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at that.

I said that except in the case of the Transkei it was getting bogged down, like you.

Good. I quite like an occasional sally from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I would have been very disturbed if he had praised me; I would then have felt uneasy; I would then have known that I was no longer on the right road. Sir, we have dealt with the Estimates here this year, and the hon. members of the Opposition did not criticize one single figure in the Estimates under the various Votes. I want to ooint out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that R3 million less is being voted this vear for the purchase of land than was voted last year. Nevertheless R5 million was voted last year during this period of a shortage of capital. Is there one person on that side who stated that this R5 million which is being voted for land purchases this year, is insufficient and that the consolidation of the homelands should take place more rapidly, that the clearance of black spots should take place more rapidly, or that the removal of poorly situated areas should proceed more rapidly, and that larger amounts should be voted? No, not a word was said about that. That R5 million went through without any comment. The Government and I would like to proceed more rapidly with the consolidation of the homelands than this R5 million allows us to do, but for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to say that “consolidation has been bogged down” is so much nonsense, which we have grown accustomed to expect from him. Land will be purchased with this R5 million this year, as land was purchased last year for R8 million, and next year it is to be hoped that a large amount will be made available for the purchasing of land in order to effect the consolidation of the homelands. But I leave the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at that.

Now I come to a remark made here this afternoon, in regard to which you had to call hon. members to order because they cast doubts on the figure which had been furnished by my colleague when he said that there had been a decrease of 7.1 per cent during the past year in the number of male Bantu labourers in Cape Town. That figure was ridiculed, and somebody passed a remark here which was in fact unparliamentary because what it amounted to was that my colleague had allegedly told an untruth here. Let me furnish the House with these figures again. These figures are derived from a committee report. If there is still any person on that side who wants to cast doubts on these figures, then I challenge him to do so now. Here are the figures as furnished by my colleague, figures which have been derived from that committee—

In other words, a decrease of 7.1 per cent.

May I ask a question?

No, first give me a chance to complete this argument. Hon. members have now asked me to furnish them with the figures which were furnished in the Senate in regard to the total number of Bantu in the Cape division. They pointed out that according to the figures furnished in the Senate, there were 89,500 Bantu in 1966, and that there were now 92,000, in other words, an increase of 3,000. Mr. Speaker, it is precisely this matter which my hon. colleague and I. and the hon. the Minister are working on. The number of workers is decreasing, but the population rate is increasing, and what is that attributable to? It is attributable to the fact that men, women and children who are born here, qualify in terms of section 10 of the Group Areas Act of 1945 to remain in the urban areas. One cannot remove them, even though the number of male Bantu workers has diminished. No, what those hon. members are putting forward is not an argument. That brings me automatically to the argument brought forward here by the hon. member for Pinelands yesterday afternoon when he spoke of “all the harsh measures that we are taking”, to keep out people who are not employed here. Sir, the hon. member for Transkei is sitting there shaking his head now; he is enjoying himself so immensely. What we are taking are not harsh measures. I should like to put this question to the hon. member: If 7.1 per cent of more than 2,000 male Bantu are kept out of the labour market here, must these other people who are not employed or who are pensioners or who are living on charity or who are loafers be allowed to live in accommodation here which the taxpayer of South Africa has to provide and subsidize? Must they sit here because in terms of section 10 they have qualified for the right to stay here?

Yes, if they have worked here.

Yes, that is the policy of those hon. members. If that should be allowed, then White South Africa will not be able to remain White, because then the Bantu who are already here will inundate us as a result of the natural increase. Whether the Bantu works here or does not work here, he will never have a natural home here, housing will have to be provided for him, he will have to obtain services, hospitalization and education, etc., in the white areas, but the man who needs labour here, will not be able to obtain housing for his labour here. The Bantu who does not work here must return to his homeland where we are spending almost R35 million each year on the development of the Bantu; where we are not only establishing border industries, but also homeland industries. We are developing the homelands to such an extent that they can offer the Bantu a decent subsistence, and this is where these Bantu pensioners must go and live. We do not have any “harsh measures”. The pensioner can obtain a house in his own homeland; he can draw the same pension there, and his cost of living will be much cheaper there than it is here in the white area. Why should he draw his pension here in the white area simply because he qualifies, in terms of section 10, for the right to remain here. I am warning the United Party that the day will still come when this section will be deleted. I hope that myself and my colleagues, and the hon. the Minister will live long enough to see the day when this section, which these people are hiding behind in order to make South Africa preponderantly black, will be removed from the Statute Book of South Africa and when the Bantu will have his home in his own homeland and when only those Bantu will enter the white areas who want to sell their labour here, no matter how eager that integrationistic party on the opposite side wants to see that White South Africa should be the homeland, not only of the Whites here, but also of the Bantu here in our midst, because if that day should ever arrive, then we will have no chance of survival here.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has just given an incredible exhibition of Nationalist “humanity”, of Nationalist respect for the person of a human being. He has said here coldly and callously that a man may have earned permanent residential rights in a Bantu township in a white area, a separate Bantu township alongside or near a white town, but at the end of his useful life he must go back to a so-called homeland which he has never seen, the reason being that he is no longer economically productive; he is no longer useful; he is no longer a unit of labour to be used and exploited by the white man, and because he is no longer useful he must be sent back. That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. He says, “He is no longer of any use in the white area; why should he sit there grazing in the white man’s area?” Sir, the fact that that man has possibly be born in the white area, has grown up there, has retired and has his family, his children and his grandchildren living there, is meaningless to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

If a white person was born in Umtata, does it mean that he must die there too?

Yes, if he wants to. If his family, his children and his friends are there, then he should be entitled to retire there and spend his old-age in the company in which he has been living all his life. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister now going to kick the aged Whites out of Umtata? He will not even buy their homes, unless they are sick or unless they die or unless there are special reasons.

That is a misrepresentation.

I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to name one old-age home for Bantu in the Transkei.

There is Sada, for instance…

Sir, I am not talking of the Ciskei; I am talking of the Transkei.

In the Transkei there are old-age homes as well.

Where?

I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to name one.

You know very well that they have their own Government.

I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to name one. Sir, this is the Deputy Minister who is responsible for the homelands and he cannot name one old-age home in the No. 1 homeland, the model homeland, the Transkei. But he is prepared to chuck the Bantu out of the Western Province and say that they must go back to their homelands. What do they do when they get there?

We will not throw out a single Bantu for whom we do not have a home there.

Mr. Speaker, I accept that challange. They are being sent home and the hon. the Minister says that is his policy. He confirmed to-night that it was his policy. He said that when they cannot work anymore they must go back to their homelands.

[Inaudible.]

But he does nothing to house them in their homeland.

That is a misrepresentation.

The hon. the Minister treats them like vegetables.

Order! Surely the Deputy Minister has had his turn to-night.

He treats them like vegetables instead of human beings. These are people with feelings just as that hon. Minister has. To say that when they can no longer work for the White man, they have no further place, is to deny them the fundamental right of every human being, namely the right to exist, to contribute his labour and to enjoy his old age in peace and in surroundings in which he wants to spend them. Those fundamental rights of a person that hon. member accepts only in so far as they are useful to his Government and the White man. But earlier he attacked the hon. member for Simonstown. How the wheel has turned! The hon. the Deputy Minister has as good as accused us of calling them “kafferboeties”

I did not and you know I did not.

I say “as good as”. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s whole attitude was that here we are trying to show them up as liberals. We are not trying to make them look like liberals. We are not doing it. They are doing it. We are not doing these things. When the hon. member for Simonstown says that they are doing this, that and the other then they must not get criticism but we get criticized for pointing it out. The hon. member for Simonstown gets criticized for pointing it out. May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: Were these facts which he pointed out? Of course they were facts. It was the truth. The hon. member for Simonstown says that he does not disagree. He simply pointed them out but the hon. the Deputy Minister seems to be extraordinarily sensitive.

He answered a question

That is right. He did not even point them out. He was asked a question, he replied: Yes, that is so. But look how sensitive the hon. the Deputy Minister is. He is as sensitive as can be. For what? Is he worried about the hon. member for Innesdal? Is he worried about the hon. silent member for Innesdal who has sat through this whole session without participating in a single debate on a politically controversial issue. He has talked on non-controversial issues. He has talked on cultural affairs. But now I have an opportunity. The hon. the Prime Minister challenged me in the first debate of the session. When I interjected: “Wat van Jaap?”, he said: Ask the hon. member himself. I am very glad to see the hon. member on one of his rare visits to this House. I want to accept the hon. the Prime Minister’s invitation. I want to ask the hon. member for Innesdal now whether he accepts unequivocally the new Bantu policy of the Government. I am waiting for an answer.

When you have sat down, and I have an opportunity to speak, I will answer.

I am asking a simple question. We have the new vision and Mr. S. E. D. Brown of the Observer has criticized it. The hon. member for Innesdal says that he rejects the attacks on the Prime Minister but he does not repudiate the Observer or Mr. S. E. D. Brown. Now I want to ask the hon. member direct to his face this simple question. Does he accept the new vision, the new policy of the Nationalist Party, the “verligte uitwaartse” policy or does he agree with Mr. Brown? It is a simple question. Does he repudiate S. E. D. Brown’s attitude towards the colour policy of the Nationalist Party?

Sit down, so that the hon. member may reply.

I will give the hon. member an opportunity but the question we want him to answer is the question the hon. the Prime Minister was so confident he would answer at the beginning of the session. If I ask a follower of any party the simple question whether he repudiates an attack on the policy of the party, any loyal member of a party would say: Yes, I do. But that hon. member cannot. He has to get up and make a speech about it. That hon. member cannot say that he repudiates the attacks on the party. Or does he?

How many of my questions have you answered? [Interjections.]

Order!

Here is an hon. member who is not prepared to publicly repudiate attacks on the policy of his own party. He has to get up and make a speech so that he can camouflage it. I shall give him an opportunity. Unless he needs an awful long time to wriggle out of it I will give him sufficient time to say yes or no. I will give him sufficient time to say whether or not he supports the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] I will give him a fair chance.

Do you still beat your wife, yes or no?

Unlike the hon. the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who appears to have other habits, I have never beaten my wife and therefore that question does not apply. But the hon. the Minister apparently has other ideas.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The Deputy Minister questioned the figures which I asked him about from the report of the Permanent Committee for the Location of Border Industries. In the 1967 report of that committee the findings of that committee are that there were 76,000 people employed in border industries before the introduction of the Government’s policy. Is that figure correct or incorrect?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister does not know. This is the high priest of border industry and he does not know the figures for his own industry. Is it incorrect that 55,000 people have been placed in border industries?

How many people live in Durban (Point)?

In Durban (Point) there are 13,872 people who are voters and 9,000 of them belong to the United Party. Here we have the high priest of border industry who does not know how many border industries he has created. There is the hon. member for Queenstown

Could I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, certainly.

Is it correct that on page 3 of the Permanent Committee’s report these words are used—

That is correct but the hon. member started two lines below the figure of 76,000. I want him to go back to page 3 to, I think, the fourth line on the page, where it is said that there were 76,000 people employed, of whom 55,000 were Bantu. My figures are still correct. There were still more Bantu there in 1960 under the United Party policy which the hon. the Deputy Minister says did not exist. Under the old “Sap-beleid” there were more people in border industry than they have put in during the last six years. But one of the factories in the Queenstown constituency has closed since border industry started. What have they done to develop coal at Indwe? Nothing. They sit here and talk but when it comes to facts, nothing happens.

May I ask the hon. member one more question? May I ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that it says on page 3, in line 9, that an estimated 76,000 workers were employed in secondary industry in the border and Bantu areas in 1960? From 1960 to 1967 employment in the Border—and development areas described in section C of this report, increased by more than 62,000 persons …

Mr. Speaker, he has just confirmed my figure of 76,000, and I thank him for it. I do not get injury time, so I just want to add this before I sit down. The Deputy Minister is hiding behind a smokescreen of artificial border areas. He takes what is a normal white industrial area, he proclaims it a border area, and suddenly he says that is a border area. He has done that with Umlazi, with Pietermaritzburg, with Ladysmith, with East London, and with many other places. Now I want to give the hon. member for Innesdal the opportunity to get up and say he repudiates categorically and without qualification the attacks by S. E. D. Brown in The Observer on the Bantu policy of the Nationalist Party. It is a specific question which I ask him, namely whether he repudiates the attacks on the non-European policy of the Nationalist Party, and I now give him the opportunity to answer.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is rapidly drawing to a close. If there is one fact which has been proved during this session, then it is, in spite of the fact that the United Party did everything in its power to be more national than the National Party, how unnational that party in fact is. It has been proved here once more how useless the United Party in fact is as far as the Whites in this country are concerned. A little while ago I asked the United Party a question, and it was a simple question. I asked them if they believed in White domination in the White area of the Republic of South Africa, and their reply was an unqualified “no”. Why do they not believe in it? Because that is the great difference between the United Party and the National Party.

May I ask the hon. member whether he will answer the question which the hon. member for Innesdal refuses to answer?

I shall give that answer, yes. The hon. member for Innesdal repeatedly … {Interjections.] I shall give the answer now. {Interjections.] The hon. member now wants to evade my question to him, because this is the basic difference between the National Party and the United Party. I shall answer that question now. [Interjection.] But it is not his turn to speak now, it is my turn to speak. Since when does the hon. member for Durban (Point) have the right in this House to decide who will stand up to speak in a debate? It is not fair. The hon. member for Innesdal repeatedly affirmed in public his absolute loyalty to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the National Party, and why should he do so once again this evening? He has already done so repeatedly. It is altogether unnecessary to repeat it once more merely because the hon. member for Durban (Point) requests it. What the United Party has likewise repeatedly done, is to prove that they stand for nothing but total integration in South Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order 68.

Mr. Speaker, since hon. members on that side of the House have not availed themselves of the privilege of discussing financial matters, there is nothing for me to reply to, and therefore I move that this measure be now read a Third Time.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Will he answer on behalf of the hon. member for Innesdal?