The parliamentary system offers the Opposition various opportunities of attacking the policy of the Government and at the same time of making their alternative policy known to South Africa. One of those opportunities is a Budget debate. They had such an opportunity during the no-confidence debate. In the past we were used to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when he introduced a motion of no confidence, coming forward with ten different points of attack with ten subdivisions each, but this time he departed from that procedure; this time he concentrated on one matter. It is the prerogative of the Opposition to choose its own platform of attack. This time they attacked the policy the Government is following in order to ensure the survival of the Whites in South Africa, in order to ensure co operation between the various races and the peaceful coexistence of those races, and they attacked the policy of separate development. Contrary to their usual practice they concentrated their entire attack on this one important facet of the South African political life. In the past they had four days in which to do that; this time they felt that they had a very strong case, and that is why they requested five days for that debate, and during that time they devoted all their attention to doing so. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go into this any further, but that motion was rejected here by the representatives of the nation by 117 to 40 votes. Shortly after that they had their first opportunity of testing the opinion of the nation outside. They could have nominated a candidate in Graaff-Reinet but they did not see their way clear to nominating a candidate there in order to test the opinion of the nation and that seat was handed over to the National Party unopposed. This entire motion of no confidence was concentrated on race relations in South Africa and what policy we see as the solution to the problem. But shortly after this test, something else happened; the hon. member for Umlazi crossed over from that side to this side of the House.

Some of them are going to run away. *

In a short resume of the reasons for his resignation from the United Party he stated in the first instance that he had been impressed by the frank approach of the Prime Minister to South Africa’s greatest problem, i.e. the colour problem, the very problem the debate was all about. While the United Party was attacking and condemning the policy of separate development, the hon. member for Umlazi crossed over and offered his assistance to the National Party Government because he believed that the solution to our problems lay in the application of the policy of separate development. That is indeed support for the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister; it amounts to a motion of no confidence in the United Party itself by its own members. Sir, it was their most concentrated attack and what was the result? Their attack did not even impress one of their own people; on the contrary, the result was that a former supporter of theirs crossed over to this side of the House. One can well understand the mixed reaction in the ranks on that side when the hon. member for Umlazi crossed over to the National Party. We can well believe that it was a heavy blow to the United Party. But, Sir, this is not the first time it has happened. Nor is it the first time it has happened as far as Natal is concerned. This is the third member of Parliament for Natal who has crossed over to the National Party.

Still more are coming.

Hon. members on that side do not want to say much about this matter. There were expectations that they would make use of this debate to say something about it, but the Cape Times says that “they decided to play it cool”. We can well understand why they do not want to say much about it. The fact remains that this is not the end of it; there are even more people among them who feel dissatisfied and unhappy. We see in the Sunday newspapers that Senator Pilkington-Jordan made a certain statement. He had this to say about the latest United Party crisis (translation)—

We see therefore that even Senator Pilkington-Jordan does not feel very happy about the leadership there. Hon. members may ask: But why quote him? Well, Senator Pilkington-Jordan is in a special position because he is a Senator elected by the electoral college of Natal to have a seat in the Senate. He is unhappy about the leadership in Natal, and we can understand why the United Party, so shortly after the loss of Umlazi, felt unhappy about his criticism. The Senator was then called in to the Leader of the United Party, and a statement was subsequently issued. The newspaper report read as follows—

The report then states that the Senator feels that he should perhaps have consulted the leader of Natal first. He should perhaps have considered the matter further before making his statement, and he said: “It might have changed my opinion.” So he was not at all convinced after that little conversation. I think therefore (hat we are entitled to assume that we have by no means experienced or seen the final disintegration of the United Party. They put me in mind of the story about the Coloured who caught crayfish along the coast and then threw them into a basin of boiling salt water. A passer-by saw the crayfish in the boiling water and asked him whether it was not cruel to act in that way, upon which the Coloured replied, “No, my master, we always throw the crayfish in, and by now they have become used to the boiling water”. So many leaders of the United Party, so many of their Senators, so many of their M.P.s and so many of their leaders outside have crossed over, that they have probably become used to it. As I say, we can be sure that we have not yet seen the final disintegration of that side.

Apart from the fact that this debate affords the Opposition an opportunity of expressing their no confidence in the Government, it also affords them an opportunity of attacking the financial and economic policy of the National Party. Parliament was prorogued eight months ago, and we thought criticism of the general policy of the Government would be forthcoming in this debate. It was not forthcoming in the no-confidence debate, and during this debate the Opposition’s attack centred around the drought conditions in South Africa, as well as the position of pensioners, as viewed against the background of the high cost of living. These were the only items they selected, these were their only points of attack, and the fact that they only selected these points is to our minds proof that there are no other matters to which they attach any value. We must deduce from that that they do not see their way clear to attacking the general financial and economic policy of the Government. We know that there is confidence at home today as far as South Africa’s economic and financial position is concerned, and we also know that there is confidence abroad. One of the most striking signs of the confidence abroad is without doubt the fact that so much capital is flowing into this country.

During the first three quarters of last year the influx of capital was R325 million, and if we take this back to the amount since the beginning of 1965, we see that the total influx of foreign capital was R901 million. It can be said that this influx of money is attributable to the fact that there is a lack of confidence in certain monetary units overseas. That is partly correct. We will not deny that part of this capital was flight capital, “hot money”, but at the same time we know that a great deal of the capital which flowed in was in fact investment capital which made a contribution to the economic development and prosperity of this country, capital which we have never discouraged but which the Government has always said was welcome. However, this great flow of capital also gave rise to problems. It caused a large measure of liquidity which did in fact have a disrupting effect. The Minister of Finance took certain steps, such as the latest jubilee issue, a campaign to draw off capital. To a certain extent he relaxed foreign currency exchange, so that investments could be made abroad. But we know that there is still an overabundance of liquidity.

Perhaps it would have been possible to intensify measures against this influx and disruption; but on the other hand we had another problem as well, i.e. that this capital was having a prejudicial effect on the Stock Exchange. But the fact that this capital flowed into South Africa is also attributable to the fact that the outside world has confidence in the rand, the South African monetary unit. That is another reason for this capital influx. But that was not all. It was not only confidence in the monetary unit which caused the capital influx; it was to an equal extent confidence in the political stability of a government which has caused capital to flow into the country. This Government has during recent times seen to it that there was political stability, an important factor which has fostered confidence in South Africa.

But if we were to think of the problems recently being experienced, then I think one could not help referring to the unstable conditions in the monetary sphere. Here in particular one must think in terms of praise of the contribution which my colleague, the Minister of Finance has made in order to try to stabilize South Africa’s position in that unstable world. He has done everything in his power to maintain South Africa’s position. He emphasized repeatedly that South Africa believed that a higher gold price was justified. But apart from that, new demands were made on him when attempts were made to demonetize gold, to remove it as the basis of the world’s monetary unit. He was not consulted in regard to steps which were taken, but during all that time he played an important role by displaying his own confidence in gold. During that time the outside world, the ordinary citizen and the speculator, also showed that they had confidence in the price of gold. In the same way there were other governments which also had confidence in the stability of gold. It is no wonder that towards the end of last year and the beginning of this year even the most important establishment began to have doubts as to whether this attempt to do away with gold as a monetary basis was justified. As recently as January of this year the First City National Bank wrote as follows—

I think this is the standpoint which is beginning to prevail. Since we are to-day referring under this Vote to the contribution of the Minister of Finance, we can rest assured that the whole of South Africa is behind him in maintaining that important right that our newly mined gold can be sold to the Monetary Fund. We praise him for that contribution and we are convinced that his confidence therein is not only supported here, but is enjoying ever-increasing support in the world.

As regards this increased speculation on the Stock Exchange, to which my hon. colleague referred, I do not want to go into details, but there is another aspect to which I must refer. One of the reasons for this excessive speculation on the Stock Exchange is the takeovers which are taking place there. I want to refer here to the causes which led to this speculative purchase of shares during recent times, i.e. the large number of amalgamations of undertakings on the horizontal as well as the vertical plane, I admit that a great many benefits can be derived, not only for the undertakings concerned, but also for the national economy as a whole through the merging of undertakings. However, the amalgamations can also be aimed at giving the groups in question a position of power in the market, or at giving them control over important raw materials. The amalgamation of undertakings for the latter purpose cannot of course be regarded as being in the interests of the country. I therefore want to issue a serious warning to undertakings in the Republic not to proceed to amalgamation with the principle aim of acquiring for themselves a position of power in the market or a control over important natural resources.

The Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act of 1955 contains in its present form powers in terms of which mergers can be investigated and the merged undertakings can even be disbanded, if such an investigation should reveal that the merger would establish a monopolistic condition which was prejudicial to the public interest. If amalgamations take place which in my opinion are prejudicial to the public interest, I will not hesitate to use these powers. I may also add that my Departments are at present giving consideration to the formulation of more extensive statutory powers which would enable the Government to take more effective steps against amalgamations which may be prejudicial to the public interest.

Mr. Sneaker, when we consider the economic position in South Africa, we look back with a measure of pride to the position during the last few years and particularly since 1963. The growth which has taken place is without parallel. According to the economic development programme the target which we have set ourselves is a growth of 5½ per cent. Up to the present it has been 6.4 per cent, even higher than that considerable target we set ourselves. The question as to whether we are going to maintain it, has been put by an hon. member on the Opposition side. I may say that the Government has decided to retain that target of 5½ per cent for the ensuing six-year period. The figure for the past year, which has still to appear, may be less than 5½ per cent. We are expecting this, because Government measures were aimed at effecting a lower rate of growth. We shall consequently welcome it, since our actions were aimed at achieving that. But even if the average development for the ensuing few years is lower than 5 per cent we will still be able to maintain an average of 5½ per cent when our actions and growth in recent times is taken into account. South Africa therefore occupies an economically strong position to-day, and the interest of the outside world is focussed on it. It is therefore no wonder that 28 trade missions visited South Africa last year, and that this number will certainly be exceeded this year. However, that growth has brought with it problems as far as inflation and an increasing cost of living is concerned. The Government measures which were aimed at curbing the increasing cost of living have been successful, because in 1967 the rate was only 1.8 per cent. When we compare this with that of the rest of the world, South Africa’s position is one of the most favourable. The First National City Bank publishes an annual comparative survey. From that it appears that during the ten-year period 1957 to 1967 the average increase in the rate of inflation in South Africa was only 2.2 per cent. The only appreciable or comparable country where the rate during those ten years was less, was the United States of America. But in other countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, all the European countries, Canada and Australia, the increase was greater. We have therefore succeeded in keeping it low. There has been a greater increase during the past year, and the hon. the Minister of Finance has indicated that the average was 2.7 per cent. There is a rising tendency, but when we make an analysis it becomes apparent that food is a very important factor. Compared with the previous year, for example, the price of vegetables increased by 29 per cent and that of fruit by 8 per cent. The prices of fish and meat have also in creased. There are special conditions, such as drought conditions, which caused this increase. Although there has been an increase in the cost of living, the important question is what happened in regard to wages. One then comes to this important conclusion, i.e. that although there was an increase in the cost of living during the past few years, we find that the wages of Railway workers, factory workers, miners and public officials have increased to a far greater extent during the past ten years than the relative increase in the cost of living. The same applies to pensions. The Government has been attacked here on pensions, and I have made a comparison with the position as it was in 1961. While the cost of living increased over the period 1951 to 1961 by 60 per cent, pensions increased by an average of 140 per cent, and war veterans pensions by as much as 214 per cent. The Government has therefore not been indifferent to this very important sector.

Reference was also made here to the assistance to farmers as a result of devaluation. In this regard as well the Government has not been indifferent. In view of the minute or so which I still have at my disposal, I shall only be able to review the position very briefly. The assistance rendered by the Government as a result of devaluation to various sectors of our economy amounts at this stage to more than R5.3 million. Of that R1.65 million went to the citrus industry; R1.1 million to the canned fruit industry; R780,000 to the pineapple canning industry; while R2 million was paid out in support of the most important deciduous fruit. The latter amount will be transferred to the Deciduous Fruit Board for distribution. In addition, there are certain sectors of the industry which have also been assisted. As hon. members will recall, the Minister of Finance stated on a previous occasion that he expected certain sectors of agriculture to suffer hardships as a result of devaluation, and that the Government would consequently give consideration to lending assistance in deserving cases. Well, we have honoured this undertaking.

When we look back over the past few years therefore then we do so with pride, on account of the economic and financial stability which has been effected and maintained by this Government.

I was amazed to see the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs spending so much of his limited time trying to draw a red herring across our path. I could not see what he hoped to achieve by that and, consequently, it was just as well that he came back to economic affairs. This is not the type of thing we expect of a Minister. It is much more appropriate for hon. gentlemen sitting on the back benches.

But let me say that I agree with the Minister that in South Africa to-day we have a very fine stabilization of our affairs. However, that is not due to the Government, but to the individual, to the entrepreneur. [Interjections] Let me prove this by just one statement. In this strong economic structure the weakest link is those things tackled by the Government. I refer to the border industries specifically. Let me deal with this for one moment. I had an opportunity during the last recess of visiting some of these border areas. Let me tell the House what I found at, for instance. Hammarsdale. Hammarsdale was being held up to us as being a very fine effort on the part of the Government to establish industries which could give employment to the 35,000 Bantu who could be employed there. I went into a very large factory there a factory which is producing cloth. Now, it is very interesting to see how that cloth is being produced. By the way, this cloth is being produced there for sale mainly within South Africa. What did we find? The cloth was manufactured mainly from second-hand clothing brought into the country from Australia and America. The clothes are then sorted and shredded and the wool residue is converted by means of a wonderful process into cloth once more. My colleagues and I looked around to see whether South African wool was being used. This is an important consideration, because the I.D.C. must have spent a lot of money there. Did the I.D.C. spend that money to promote the use of South African material and to give employment to the Bantu of the vicinity? Well, what did we find? I was told there that the only type of material for which South African wool was being used was in the material for army overcoats. I always thought that it is the intention of the Government and of the I.D.C. to build up this type of industry in order to promote the use of our own materials. Or is the material being used there, South African material which went overseas and came back again in the form of second-hand clothing? Here we have these large factories and we must remember that they have been put up to employ 35,000 people. With what result? We found that even in this very large factory only 57 Bantu were employed in three shifts, 19 per shift. These figures may be wrong and I stand to be corrected. But these were the figures I was given there. Most of the work processes were mechanized, with the result that there was very little work left for the Bantu to do. The question one asks oneself is, why were these factories established there? What perks did they get? That is what I would like to know. In the report of the I.D.C. I find that for border area development the I.D.C. has during the year 1967 spent almost R49 million. Mr. Speaker, the time has come when, where such large globular sums are invested by the I.D.C., we in Parliament should at least be given a detailed account of how this money is being expended and with what results. For instance, I should like to know how much of this R49 million has perhaps been lost? In any event, what has happened to this amount of money? Has every cent of it been used up? The Minister should tell us. The Minister of Finance can perhaps in his reply tell us how the I D C. works and whether it is possible for us to get a breakdown of these figures so that we may know exactly what is happening to the money that is being spent here. After all, this is taxpayers’ money and the taxpayer is entitled to know what the Government spends on ideologies and how it is spent.

I want to come back to the question of mining taxation. I agree with the hon. member for Kensington that the time has come for mining taxation to be reviewed if it is at all possible, especially in regard to the marginal mines and new mines. After all, it is the new mines which will give employment to the mineworker As the old mines go out. the new mines will take over and employ those people working on the old mines. I want to know whether it is possible to arrange taxation in such a way that there will be no fear of a mineworker losing his job because of the rising costs of secondary industry. If the cost goes up we will find that it may be almost impossible to mine the gold we have underground. I think the person who is entitled to be protected from the very start and who is entitled to get any reward when the price of gold goes up is the mineworker, but we cannot afford at this stage, because of taxation—there may be other factors also—to be left with the fear that some of our mines are in danger of being closed, however, marginal they are. It is virtually impossible to re-open a mine, as the hon. the Minister knows. We want to see these mines working and employing as many of our people as possible.

Now I want to leave that for the moment to go back to the question raised by the hon. member for Constantia, who spoke about the prices in cinemas. This was featured again this morning in most of the newspapers, and I think it is time that the hon. the Minister does something about it. There is an inequality, firstly, in the prices being charged, whether the province has an entertainment tax or not. In the Transvaal there is no entertainment tax and yet the prices there are higher than they are in some of the other places. Not only are the prices different from province to province and for the same type of entertainment—I am sure it does not cost more to show a picture in Johannesburg than it does in Cape Town or in Durban—but on different days of the week they are entitled to charge different prices and the prices are highest at the week-end. Who goes to the cinema at the week-end? It is the working man. Why should he have to pay more because he chooses to go on a Saturday, than if he had the opportunity of going on a Monday? These things should be levelled out. It is one of the things which are annoying to the ordinary man in the street, and we would like to know whether the Minister intends doing an thing about it. I suppose this is one aspect among hundreds of prices which vary from place to place.

I want to leave this now and deal for a moment with the position of the fixed salaried man, the man in the street who has a fixed salary. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs told us that his salary has increased more than the rise in the cost of living and he gave us percentages. Now percentages do not impress me at all. If a man is earning R1 and he gets 100 per cent increase, he earns R2, but it sounds nice to say that his salary has gone up 100 per cent. But in actual figures we find that the man in the street with a fixed salary has great difficulty in making ends meet, and especially the young married couple. What do we find there? The young married man finds it virtually impossible to buy a house. The cost of land has gone up tremendously. It is strange to me that a piece of vacant land which two years ago cost RX should now cost three times as much, and not only that, but the cost of building has gone up, too. Homes which could have been erected at R5 a square foot two years ago, are to-day costing R8 per square foot. The ordinary salaried man finds it almost impossible to buy himself a house. If he rents a house he finds difficulty in paying the rent, so what happens? His wife has to go out and work as well. The same sort of circumstances now apply to flats because the rentals of flats, except in the case of rent-controlled blocks of flats, have risen beyond the reach of the ordinary wage earner and there again the wife also has to go out and work. What is more distressing to me is that many of these flat owners refuse to have children in the flats. It may be possible for a young married couple to live in comfort in a bed sitting-room with a kitchen and bathroom, but once they bring in a child they are barred from the flat, so they have to rent more expensive accommodation. Where does the money come from? If the wife has to go out and work as well as the husband, they have to employ a servant for the child. The employment of a servant to-day, according to Nationalist ideology, is absolutely taboo; that must not be done. But say, for instance, a servant is not engaged and the child is put into a creche. Sir, it costs money to keep a child in a crèche. I would like the hon. the Minister to make a study of the position and to see whether it is not possible again to start fixing the rentals of certain flats where the rentals have risen beyond the reach of the ordinary working man; to see whether something cannot be done to force landlords to allow newly married couples, young people who are starting in life, to have children living in the flat. It is becoming almost impossible for people to buy houses or to rent houses, and yet if they want to go into a flat they find that they cannot go into a flat because children are barred. I think we should do something about this.

Now, Sir, a word or two about pensioners. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has touched on this and told us how well off the pensioners are to-day.

He did not say that.

That is what he tried to sell to us. I want to know whether the hon. member for Brakpan agrees that they are not well off? Are they well off or not? What did the hon. the Minister say? He gave the impression to this House that they were well off. The hon. member for Brakpan agrees with me that they are not well off. Sir, as in all other countries our population is increasing very rapidly. Not only is there a population explosion in South Africa which is affecting the Whites and the non-Whites, but because of the advances made in medical science we find that people are living to an older age, so the Minister is now faced with the problem of having to provide pensions for more people for longer periods. That is a problem that we have to face. If these people are going to live longer and there are going to be more of them, now is the time to start making provision for them. What I said about a young married couple also applies to some extent to the pensioner. The pensioner cannot possibly afford to continue living in a house if he happens to have one because rates and taxes have risen out of all proportion to the value of the house. He finds that he has to sell his house in some cases and then look for other accommodation. What happens to the male or female pensioner who is living alone? They cannot live in a house; they have to find other accommodation, and with the sudden rise in the value of ground, people no longer have lodging houses. A number of boarding houses are disappearing from the scene, and what do we find? We find the old people have no place to go to. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) told us yesterday what was happening in his town. We have got to see that provision is made for these people and it has to be made now so that in a couple of years’ time these people will have a place to go to. For the life of me I do not know what this Government is doing in this respect, it has been dilly-dallying so long in making provision for these people. It is impossible for a pensioner to exist on the pension paid to him by the department. He gets R28 per month plus a little bonus of R4, which means he has R1 per day to live on, if he gets the bonus. Of this money he has to pay about 50 per cent for his rent alone and that means he has a meagre 50 cents with which to live on the rest of the day. How is he going to spend it? He has to make a choice—either he has breakfast or he has lunch or else he spends the money on his supper. That is what it is coming to. It is all very well for those old people who can stay with their families, but I am particularly concerned about the pensioner who has no family and who perforce has to live alone.

Another point arises from the shortage of accommodation for the old people in the centre of our towns and cities. Until a few years ago that is where they used to live, but the buildings are all being knocked down now. They now have to live out of town, sometimes far away, and they have to have transport. What do they do? The hon. the Minister tells me the pension increases have kept pace with the rise in the cost of living. Well, last year it cost one five cents to travel by bus from Sea Point to Cape Town, this year it costs seven cents. That is about a 40 per cent rise, and yet the Minister tells me that according to the way he looks at the figures the rise in the cost of living is not outstripping the rises the Minister gives to our old age pensioners. The Minister was telling me how much vegetables were being produced, but can we imagine an old age pensioner buying goods wholesale? Image an old man or an old woman buying a whole box of tomatoes because it works out cheaper per pound, yet the old person does not have a refrigerator to keep them in. All he can do is buy one or two tomatoes for ten cents. That is what the poor old people have to do, they cannot buy in bulk. One cannot buy half-a-pint of milk from a milk shop any longer, one has to buy a pint. Why should that have happened. People with families can buy a pint or even three or four pints. [Interjection.] But the pensioner must have money with which to buy it, and when he has bought it he must have a place in which to keep it because he cannot afford to let the milk go sour and throw it away.

I should like the Minister to go into these matters and find out how many people need help, and, if necessary, make sure that help is coming to them. What do we find in the survey which was done in Johannesburg recently? There we find 40,000 people at the moment who are over 60 years of age, and 1,600 of them have incomes of R50 or less per month whilst 7,000 have no income at all; they do not get a cent other than the social welfare or old age or any of the other pensions. They have no other means of living.

Are you referring to families or individuals?

To individuals, not families, because there would be many more people if the figures referred to families. We also find that the average rental that these 40.000 people are paying, comes to R32 per month. That is equivalent to the whole of the pension that this person would receive. I have been lenient with the Minister when I said that a person paid half his pension in rental, but it is much higher than that. How these people manage, is beyond me. It has been admitted here that the cost of living, percentagewise, has risen by 2.7 per cent this year alone. The price of food, per se, has gone up 3.6 per cent. There are a hundred and one other matters in regard to which the pension must see them through. They have to see about the cost of illness. They have to find a place to attend to their illness. A person goes to a hospital, and he may really need admission to a hospital. Because of the shortage of nurses at the moment, he cannot get into the hospital, he cannot get a bed in the hospital. So what happens to this poor individual? He has to go home where there is nobody to look after him. I spoke about this matter last year. I said to the Minister that something had to be done to improve the facilities of the district surgeons, if they are available. But there is a shortage of district surgeons. Where are these people going to get their help from? Those who are ambulatory are still able to go to clinics, but very often it is far from their place of residence. It is very easy to say, “If you are ill, go to a clinic. But you must either walk there or pay the bus fare”. I leave it with the Minister to solve that problem. But he has to do something about it.

What do you suggest?

I will tell the hon. the Minister what I suggest in the minute or two at my disposal.

Firstly, there must be a rise in salary of those people who are going to provide health services, so that people will be attracted to that type of work. At the moment, this type of medical practice is the orphan, the Cinderella of the department. It is the least attractive part of the whole profession. We have to make it much more attractive. We have to see that there are clinics that are accessible in those areas where there is a large number of people who require help. There must be clinics in the poorer localities. Local authorities must be encouraged to establish them. There must be more district surgeons and district nurses. The district nurses must be able to visit the patients. There must be telephonic communications in the areas with those people who are prepared to render the service. Does the hon. member know that to-day, if one wants to obtain the service of a district surgeon, one has to get it through a police station. Do hon. members know what the policy of the Government is in this regard? To close police stations, whenever possible. How many police stations were closed in Johannesburg during the past few years? Where do these people go to obtain permission for a district surgeon to visit them if the police station in the area is being closed? They close the police stations, because it will allow for more personnel to go to another place. But the man who needs the police station, he can stay without it. We are not talking about protection from the Police; we are talking about emergency cases. If I ring up and say I want the district surgeon to come to so and so, and give them the address, I have very little chance of that district surgeon arriving there. He will want to get authority to go.

I want to leave these matters at that. I have tried to be as explicit as I possibly could, and I hope that what I have said, will be taken note of. I hope too that those people who jeered at what I have said, will get up this afternoon and give solutions to the problems that I have put before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Rosettenville will forgive me if I do not follow him in his line. He loaded his gun with a lot of small shot. What I do want to do is to say thank you to the hon. member for Kempton Park for the welcome he gave me yesterday. It is typical of the welcome I have had throughout from this party, and I want to express my thanks publicly now. I also want to thank all of those people in South Africa who took the trouble to react to what I had done and I want to say that I am pleased and thrilled with their reaction. The people of South Africa have shown me, and I believe the country as a whole, in no uncertain terms that they want unity between the white groups, they want the white man’s future assured and they want an honest solution to our colour problem. Of all the messages I have received whether by telegram, letter, telephone or personal calls only ten people have disapproved of the action I have taken. I want this House to know this, because I think it is important and that it is going to be important in the future. It is also obvious to me that the people who have taken the trouble to contact me and send me their good wishes are also of the same opinion as I, namely that these objectives I have named are only achievable by this party and by this Government.

It is not my intention to deal now with the problems of the United Party, because they are no longer mine, and for that I am rather thankful. There are one or two points which I think should first be answered. The first one is the fact that I have read in the newspapers, and I have also heard, that certain people class me as a liberal. I would like to bring to the notice of the House that as long ago as 1964 I questioned the policy of the United Party regarding its application to the Coloured and Indian people of this country. I would also like to point out that I am here where I am and that I am happy to be here. I think this is perhaps the complete answer to that particular problem.

I now want to deal with a question that has been raised, namely that I have heard that I was not going to get the nomination in 1971 from the United Party for the constituency of Umlazi. I was not going to get it in 1965 either, but I got it. From the reports I have had from senior people in the United Party I see no reason why I should not have got it in 1971 as well.

I now want to deal with the question of resigning my seat in Umlazi. This question of resigning has cropped up from time to time whenever anybody has changed allegiance in this House. It is a fact that a person is elected to a seat, but in addition to that I would like the House to know that I have not had one request from a person in my constituency to resign my seat and to fight it again. This is quite significant, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Port Natal is a constituent of mine and even he has not done so. I have had a belated request from the Regional Council of the United Party in Durban, which arrived a week and a day after I crossed the floor of this House. One is inclined to think that perhaps they were not quite so worried about it either.

Sir, the question has been asked: “Why am I throwing race federation overboard?” I shall tell this House why. I am doing so because I believe it is white “baasskap” in a gift wrapping. It has been said that people do not understand it and that that is why they do not accept it. But, Sir, of course people understand it. I believe that the people of South Africa are far more intelligent than that. They know what people are trying to sell them. The hon. member for Simonstown knows what it means, because he says: “We unashamedly stand for white leadership.” May I tell him, Sir, that he does not have to apologize for white leadership. This Government has been showing this country white leadership for 21 years now, and very successfully too. They have not had to be ashamed of it, or unashamed of it. They have not had to make any apology whatsoever.

Let us look at this policy of race federation briefly. I do not have much time. Let us see what its aims are. Its aims are basically, I think, to give the various race groups of South Africa control of those things which intimately are theirs. It also suggests that they be brought together in a federal parliament. First of all I want to say that the federal aspect of bringing together the “haves” and the “have-nots” is itself a cause for some explosion in the future, and for unhappiness for South Africa. What representation will the various groups have in that parliament? None at all, Sir. The Coloureds can go to Parliament if they can get elected. What has been the past history of the election of Coloured people? They have not been able to succeed in being elected. Therefore the chances of the odd Coloured man ever being present in that federal parliament are almost nil.

What about the Indians, Sir? No provision has obviously been made for them. It is said that we will discuss the matter with them when the Opposition gets into power. What kind of a promise is that to the Indian community of South Africa?

And what about the Bantu, Sir? It would appear that for all time they are going to be represented by Whites. So, what kind of a federal parliament is this, and what kind of representation is this to give people within that federal parliament? That federal parliament is obviously going to be controlled only by the white group of South Africa. Is this an honest and sincere approach to the problems and the aspirations of the various race groups of South Africa? Sir. I say it is not, and this is why I call it “white ‘baasskap’ in a gift wrapping”. I do so because I sincerely believe that that is what it is.

I now come to separate development, as I see it. What does it mean? I believe that it means exactly what it says. I believe that it offers advancement to all the racial groups of South Africa without any restrictions, according to their ability to advance. Now, what more can any man ask, Sir? The United Party puts restrictions all along the road in the way of the political advancement of the various race groups. There will be restrictions—T have mentioned them—upon getting into the federal parliament, which is supposed to be their parliament where they can voice their opinions in matters of national importance. You see, Sir, even in the case of the Cape Coloureds, the hon. the Prime Minister was quite honest. He says that our children will have to solve their problems in the future. I admire him for making that statement, because it shows in him an approach to this problem which is honest and sincere. He is not prepared to tell South Africa: “We will manufacture a Colouredstan. We will do this, that and the other thing.” He has told us quite sincerely: Let us first make the Coloureds aware of themselves. Let us first bring the Coloureds together as a group of people. They have been used as a political football over the years. First of all these people have to have confidence restored in themselves. They have to be taken away from regarding themselves as the unwanted race of South Africa, because it would appear that they are more unwanted than any other group. These people have then to have their dignity restored. They must then be put on the road to managing their own affairs. I believe that this policy of separate development puts them on that road. We cannot say: “There is your Colouredstan, you can have it to-morrow.” But I do not believe that alters the position one tiny little bit. The Opposition cannot fight with this, because this still offers the Coloureds far more than their race federation policy offers them. It offers the Coloured people throughout South Africa immediate representation. They can now get their image back again. They can build themselves up as a group. They can have a council in which they can express their opinions. Through this council they can consult with the Government immediately, and not in the distant future, if they can get elected to a parliament. They can have this right now, Sir. I believe that this offers them a promise for the future which is going to make all the difference in the world to the Coloured people.

My time is unfortunately very short. I should therefore in conclusion like to remind this House that it is easy to sit and criticize a government which is implementing the details of its policy in public view. You know, Sir, when one is in opposition it is quite easy to say, as it does: You do not expect me to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. We, Sir, this Government, have to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, and thank goodness this Government has the courage to dot those i’s and cross those t’s. They are doing it to the satisfaction of the people of South Africa. This is in my opinion a wonderful thing, because it is very easy to advance theories of various other race solutions in South Africa, whilst you know that there is a government in power which is strong enough and has a policy which is acceptable, and which it is implementing. But whether those theories become practical from the point of view of a party in power is a different matter altogether. Is it any wonder, then, that this Prime Minister has the support of the people of South Africa, that he is leading South Africa from strength to strength, and that he has been able to maintain peace and order in these times of change and unrest in many other countries of the world? I support him one hundred per cent.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat made reference to an honest and sincere approach to the problems of South Africa. On the 8th of February he expressed, at the end of a lengthy debate, his lack of confidence in the Government. On the 10th February he drafted a motion condemning the Government’s neglect of housing. On the 11th of February he thought fit to move where he has moved. I do not propose at this stage to deal with the other matters which he has raised, but I shall just say that I think this situation has been aptly described, when it was reported as follows: “It was a short walk. It has caused some talk, but it has solved no problems.” [Interjections.]

We are this afternoon taking part in a part appropriation debate, in which we have been regaled by a Minister of Economic Affairs, frittering away time, on snoek stories, or crayfish stories, when there are serious economic problems facing the majority of the people in this country.

I want to deal with some of these problems. The first one is the tax problem which exists in this country and which has been brought before successive Ministers of Finance of this Government; but I will say for the present Minister of Finance that he is the first one who said he would do something about investigating it. Year after year there have been requests to this Government to eliminate the bulge of taxation which is oppressive to certain income groups. The hon. the Minister’s predecessors have been unresponsive to these requests which have been made, not only from this side of the House but from every commercial and industrial organization throughout South Africa, and although the hon. the Minister was good enough to say last year that there would be some investigation I want to say that the public must realize that for ten or more years they have been burdened by this bulge and this form of taxation because of the neglect of the Nationalist Government to get down to the problem.

But that is not the only problem which has been shelved by this Government. At the present moment this burden has been investigated and I think the country demands of this Minister of Finance that it be adjusted in the Budget of 1969. One finds, for instance, in South Africa at present that at a taxable income basis of R5,500 the taxation paid in South Africa exceeds that paid on a similar income in France, Germany, the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom. One finds that at an income of R6,500 per annum, the burden of taxation, apart from exceeding those in the countries I have mentioned, also exceeds the taxation in Australia and in the Netherlands. And when one reaches a taxable income of R16,000 per annum, there is only one country in the world which has a higher income tax than South Africa, and that is the United Kingdom. Percentagewise the marginal tax rates, including the loan levy on taxable income for those persons who are just on the R6 000 mark per annum, are about 42 per cent. At R10,000 it is 58 per cent and at R18,000 it is 74 per cent. If individuals are denied a substantial part of the fruits of their labour, the economy as a whole will suffer through obviously lower productivity, including the possible aggravation of the brain drain. Those words are no doubt familiar to the hon. the Minister. They are the words of the investigating committee of Assocom in their memorandum in which they have been asking for this adjustment. Over-taxation is and has been inherent under the Nationalist Government because of the State’s practice throughout the years, as has been referred to by hon. members on this side, of under estimating revenue and over-estimating expenditure. On one occasion there was a discussion on the duties of a Minister of Finance and it was pointed out that the accepted duties of a Minister of Finance are to estimate the expenditure that is required to run the country and then so to estimate the income that he is to take from the taxpayer as to balance the Budget. The remark was made that that has not happened in South Africa for many years. The surpluses have far exceeded the estimates of the Ministers of Finance. The comment was then made that the Nationalist Ministers of Finance have been approaching their problems as shopkeepers trying to show the highest profit and not as Ministers of Finance trying to balance the budget. The resultant surpluses have been diverted throughout the years from the Revenue Account to Capital Account. It has been done, I realize, at a certain time in the history of this country under the Nationalist Government when it was impossible to obtain foreign capital and loans to finance capital works. There may have been a justification in those days to so over-tax, but there is no justification at the present time to continue to impose taxation at the present incidence. I do not think I have to quote to the hon. the Minister of Finance; he will be aware of what the estimates have been each year and what the results have been at the end of that financial year in the way of surpluses, but that is no cause for the Government complimenting itself that it has been so out in its estimates that those two figures do not correspond. I should imagine that the goal or objective of the Minister of Finance is to try to see whether at the end of the financial year he is able to be somewhere near to what he anticipated the position to be. As I say, there was the excuse before that foreign capital was not available for this procedure to be adopted. Perhaps that is not going to continue. A recent estimate of the position of the taxpayer in South Africa has indicated that .5 per cent of the total population contributes 62 per cent of the total tax collected. This should be linked with the fact that only 5 per cent of the population of South Africa pay direct taxation. This emphasizes. to my way of thinking, the inequalities in the distribution of wealth and earning power in South Africa, and until there is a change in that earning power and the productivity which goes with it for all sections of our population, the burden of taxation will continue to remain resting on the small percentage affected at present.

The hon. the Minister has mentioned the necessity for controlling the liquidity of this country by siphoning off funds which are excessive in his view to the immediate requirements of the country, and I believe in certain spheres they are excessive. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has given thought to the effect of the exchange control regulations presently applicable which prevent the foreign heirs of an estate in South Africa, taking more than R20,000 as capital and the income earned from the Republic. I do not know the actual figures of the amount involved in blocked accounts of this nature, but I am sure it must be quite a considerable sum. If there is to be siphoning off, I am sure some relaxation in that respect might have quite an impact on the amount of funds presently blocked and remaining invested in South Africa. I shall be indebted to the hon. the Minister if he will indicate whether there is to be a new approach to this particular aspect of inheritances in this country being permitted to leave the country.

I want to turn to the majority group of our population at the present moment. Those are the people to whom the words buoyant economy, economic expansion, capital growth, take-overs and mergers mean absolutely nothing. They are the people the hon. member for Rosettenville referred to as the fixed income group. Whilst it is true—and I accept it—that the tempo in the rise of the cost of living has been moderated in recent times, the rise continues and the increases continue. It increases at a rate far in excess of the increase in the earnings of these fixed income groups. Sir, I do not know for the life of me why so far as civil servants are concerned this Government does not, as it could so easily do introduce an automatic adjustment of Civil Service salaries coupled with a rise in the cost of living. It is a simple issue. Instead of waiting until pressure comes from the railway artisans or the post office workers or the Public Servants’ Association, let one have a contented public service that knows that there will be an automatic increment to meet, percentagewise, to the extent that it can be met, the rise in the cost of living. We have asked for this over and over again. The hon. member for Rosettenville referred to the medical services. Sir, in 1964 the Minister of Health of this Nationalist Government was approached by all four provinces and by the State Health Department to adjust the salaries of the nursing profession in South Africa. What did he do? The Government made an interim adjustment; it appointed a commission and, as far as I know, the commission has not reported to this day. That is how these people are being dealt with in meeting the problem of rising costs and rising expenses. Sir, let me turn to another category. In 1967 there were in this land of prosperity 95,000 white people living on an old-age pension and 20,000 white people living on a war veteran’s pension—people who must exist and live out their lives as old-age pensioners on R32 per month and as war veterans on R40 per month. One does not have to ask for figures and percentages to realize what can be done with this amount of money. I want to ask hon. members: Where can a person in Cape Town, in Bloemfontein, Kimberley or East London have a roof over his head, provide his clothing and food and meet his other requirements on an amount of little more than R1 per day? Mr. Speaker, a char or a garden boy gets far more than that as wages, and they get their food as well while they are on the job. This is how the senior citizens of South Africa are being treated by the Nationalist Government. Sir, in my constituency—and I am sure my constituency is not unique in this …

What did they get in your time?

I am sure that the same position applies in Jeppes. I hope that the Jeppes old-age pensioners will listen to this. In my constituency there are numbers of old-age pensioners whose sole means of surviving and finding a roof over their heads is to get a room in an old house which is about to be demolished, stay there for five, six or eight months until the demolition starts and then move off to find another room of that sort. This is happening to many of them. Their plight is one which I believe this Government should do something about. They should not be left to the charity of their fellow-beings. Their plight is the responsibility of this Government. The same applies to the Civil Service pensioner. It is true that there have been some increments and some additional allowances, but these people who have earned a pension through their sweat and toil throughout their working days are finding themselves forced to accept ever-decreasing standards of living during the last years of their lives. Sir, I might be asked what is to be done about these people. I believe we need a 1969 approach to this problem and not a 1929 approach. In other countries attempts have been made to assist these people who do not want charity and who are able to pay reasonable rentals. For instance, in Holland one has the system of blocks of flats being built by the Government Department, retained and let at a fair, economic rental which can be afforded by these people. An attempt is made there to provide the housing that is so necessary for these people. This is certainly not being done here at the moment. The Government thinks that by handing over a cheque to a welfare organization it is discharging its obligations to the old people of South Africa. Sir, that is passing the buck to the welfare organizations who are conscious of this problem and are attempting, and prepared, to do something about it. Sir, many of these pensioners and retired people face heavy expenditure as well during their declining days—medical and nursing expenses. I want to give one instance of a man who was prominent in the business life of South Africa during his younger days, a man who is retired and married. He has a fixed income from his earnings and his savings during his working years. As I say, he held a prominent position in the commercial life of this country. He has a taxable income of R3 500 a year. He has been crippled for a number of years and he is obliged now, because of the age of his wife and his own disability, to employ a permanent nursing assistant in his home. He is not the only one; there are many of them. The doctors’ bills he pays, the chemists’ bills he pays; he is no charge on the State. There is a modicum of an allowance so far as tax is concerned, but this man who is paying R720 a year for essential nursing in his home, cannot deduct one cent of this from his taxable income. By staying at home he is saving the cost of being maintained in a provincial or State institution, but because he is doing this and is being independent there is no consideration shown to him.

Sir, I want to deal also with the position of the young people of this country. It is true that the hon. the Minister dealt with the problem in his second-reading speech when he referred to the cost of land and the cost of shares. Sir, the two of them have, I think, contributed to a very serious problem which faces young people in this country. It seems to me that the young man or the young woman of to-day is faced with two alternatives. The young man must either marry and live from day to day with ever-increasing difficulties to make financial ends meet; he has the ever-present fear that there might be some unexpected expenditure which cannot be met out of his income. Sir, this is in the main because of the rentals which have to be paid by these young people. I am talking about the young man who goes into a commercial undertaking, a bank or an insurance company. He does not want to live in an area where he has to travel miles and miles every morning to come to town and go back again. He is entitled to live in a reasonably respectable area in the city in which he dwells. Sir, he either has to do that and live through those difficult days or decide that he is not going to get married until he is well into his thirties when he will be earning an income which will be reasonable and enable him to provide a home. In the meantime he joins the permissive society until he can afford to get married. I believe that this has a serious effect on the young people of this country; it has a most serious effect on them. They either marry young at the normal age and are then faced with this depressing burden of meeting the cost of living or they postpone marriage and join the permissive society until such time as they can afford to marry. Sir, I believe that these are matters which the hon. the Minister can cause to be investigated. Has he, for instance, considered to what extent the housing position of these people might be alleviated if building societies were authorized to develop townships? I believe there is a possibility that this may be beneficial in bringing down housing costs. These young people have fortunately, because of innovations in the private sector, had some relief from the cost of living. The cash and carry principle that has been introduced widely in the cities has brought down the cost of foodstuffs to some extent for these people. The cost of some items has been reduced considerably. At the same time while this is being done in the private sector, we find the Government at the present moment bringing before this House legislation which will certainly affect the cost of other items, in so far that the private man now is to be denied access to wholesale purchases of his beer and his wine from wholesale merchants. Wholesale purchasing is a considerable saving. The hon. the Minister knows just what can be saved by a young couple who want a carton of cans of beer by getting it through a wholesaler instead of through a retailer. It is a considerable amount. While there is the cash and carry system in the private sector being introduced to assist this type of person, the Government says no, we must now introduce a system whereby we curtail the rights of these people to buy their liquor and their beer on a wholesale basis.

I believe that this matter which I have mentioned may be regarded as a small item by people sitting in high office in the Cabinet of this country. But it is one of the many items affecting the lives of the fixed income group in this country. I believe that this Government has for too long shown a complete lack of concern for these people, except when pressurised. The people in the fixed income groups are civil servants on whom we as a country depend for the efficient administration of the affairs of this country. They are people, young people, men and women, and older ones, who contribute to every aspect of our commercial and industrial life. Amongst them are those who are living in the twilight of their days and yet they are faced with these continual financial anxieties. I believe that these are matters which this Government has not given attention to. I believe these are matters which have been brought to its notice year after year, but there have been no practical steps except in the generality. It is for those reasons that I support without any hesitation the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia.

Mr. Speaker, I trust the hon. member for Green Point will forgive me if I do not follow his line of thought. I want to take this opportunity publicly to add my welcome to the hon. member for Umlazi. The hon. member for Umlazi and I have very much in common. We are both English-speaking South Africans of British descent. [Interjections.] We are both here on this side of the House in this party for exactly the same reasons. It was the other day that the hon. member for Umlazi joined us. It was 21 years ago that I as an English-speaking South African also accepted the honesty and sincerity of another National Party Prime Minister, Dr. Malan. I joined the party for the same reasons as the hon. member for Umlazi. i.e. to help a National Party Prime Minister to build up a united white South African nation, a nation with two languages and two cultures, with one undivided and unshakeable love and loyalty to South Africa, and with one South African nationality.

Mr. Speaker, I also joined the National Party as the hon. member for Umlazi did to help the National Party in working out the intricate and difficult problem of race relations in South Africa, and to work for the survival, welfare, happiness and the safety of the white South African nation, in order to save our children. I am convinced that if many more members opposite were to listen to their South African hearts, they would also have the courage of the hon. member for Umlazi. On the question of race relations, there is a vast difference of approach between us on this side and hon. members opposite. It seems to me from what we have seen lately, and from what we have read and heard, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. members opposite, whose official name is the United Party, are not really so united. They belong to a party which was originally formed, under Afrikaans leadership incidentally, in 1910—the predecessor of the United Party, the South African Party, was formed in 1910 and its aspiration from the beginning was to keep South Africa under a foreign monarchy. That is why they found it necessary to fight South African nationalism for 50 years; that is to say, the nationalism of their own people. Therefore, it seems to me that, having lost that battle against South African nationalism, they are entangled in their old imperial thinking. They think it is possible under their so-called federal blanket to smother the natural nationalism and political aspirations of the non-White people in South Africa. As opposed to that, the National Party takes a realistic view of our problems.

I want to deal briefly with their federal conception as it would apply to us in South Africa, if they were to come into power, and how it would affect the ordinary man. Firstly, I want to deal with the idea of white leadership as well as with the answer to the dilemma of how the black people. the Bantu, are to have political rights in one state with the Whites. It seems to me whether a state is unitary or federal, the dilemma is not solved. Even under a federal state the black people will have to have their political rights here in the same chamber. The United Party recommends that the 12 million black people of South Africa should be given eight white representatives in this House, while the black man in Malawi, Lesotho. Botswana and Zambia is ruling himself. The Leader of the Opposition hastens to assure us that if there is a natural pressure, as he anticipates, for greater black rights in this House, or for direct black representation, he will refer to the white people, to whom he will give a veto right. In practice it means that every white South African, every housewife and every typist, will be brought into a head-on clash with black South Africa. This would happen if they were to say no to a referendum on the increase of black rights in this House. Then they will be faced with the anger and rage of the primitive black people at every level; where we have to rub shoulders on the streets, where we have to work together in the mines and everywhere we would have that clash. It is quite obvious that black South Africa rejects the idea of federation, and they do not only reject the idea of a federation between White and Black, but also a federation of all the black race groups. We have had an example of a federal government which was handed down by Great Britain to Nigeria, and which has ended in chaos and tragedy. Last year I paid a visit to Malawi. I found a happy country, a country concerned with working out its own salvation; I found a country where black-white relations were completely relaxed and I was tremendously impressed by the leadership and statesmanship of Dr. Banda. I was also impressed by the integrity of his Ministers and their eagerness to work for their country—a country which has a tremendous feeling of friendship for South Africa. Is this not the same Malawi which a few years ago was a member of the Central African Federation and which worked for the break-up of that federation? I say black South Africa and black Africa definitely reject the federal idea. The white veto is not a safeguard, it is really a guarantee that white South Africa will clash with black South Africa. Under our policy we have grasped the thorny branch, we have accented the fact that the black man must have his political rights in his own territory. Since the white people representing the Bantu were removed from this House it is an incontestable fact that relations between the Bantu and white South Africa have immeasurably improved. There have been no further Sharpe-villes, there have been no further clashes, the temperature has been reduced and black South Africa is busy working out its salvation.

Mr. Speaker, as a man of the Cape I particularly want to speak about the Coloured problem. What does the United Party suggest as far as the Coloureds are concerned? They want six representatives in this House. Well, we know of the tremendous increase in the number of Coloureds and by the year 2000 there will be three Coloured people for every white person in the Peninsula, and soon they will be in the majority in the Cape Province. As we know, in a democracy numbers count. How long will they be satisfied with six representatives here? It is my conviction that if Coloured members enter this House it will be the beginning of the end of white South Africa; it will certainly be the end of the white man in this province, the Cape. I say so because we cannot have Coloured members of Parliament and still maintain social segregation and residential segregation. I want to tell hon. members opposite that white South Africa completely rejects integration with the Coloureds and the Indians. It is said that this is a Northern view, but I was born in the Peninsula and have lived here all my life, and not only do I know what the feelings of my electorate in Maitland are but I know what the feelings are of the white people in the Peninsula. I say they flatly and finally reject integration with the Coloureds.

Is that something new now?

If we want to know what would happen with Coloured representatives here we only have to look at the Cape Town Municipality where there are Coloured councillors and where Coloureds have the municipal vote. Even though the Municipality knows that the white people want it, they are too afraid to put up beach apartheid notice boards. They are paralysed into inactivity by the presence of the Coloured councillors and by the Coloured voters. They lack the courage to reserve a children’s play park for white children in a white area, even though they know the Whites want that done. If we had Coloured M.P.’s here the implementation of the wishes of the white people would be paralysed completely.

Mr. Speaker, what is our answer to the Coloured problem? We believe the Coloured people must develop separately. The United Party in their time neglected them and merely used them for their votes. The Coloured man needs a chance to develop, he wants to find his self-respect and to find his political soul. In 1960 Dr. Verwoerd said there was one nation, the white nation, that the Coloured man would develop separately, but he could not see the end of the road. The Coloured man is going to become a nation, and when the hon. the Prime Minister said the other day that the Coloureds will become a nation one day, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) laughed. Well, I wonder why he laughed. Is it because he does not understand concepts like nationality, or is it because he does not take a proper pride in his own white South African nationality? The Prime Minister said we are going to lead the Coloured man in a direction away from the white man, in the direction of self-realization so that he can have the opportunity to improve himself. This generation has solved the problem of black nationalism. It is true that the next generation, that is to say our children, will have to solve the problem, the dilemma of the brown South African nation side by side with the white nation. What we have done is this. We have guaranteed the safety of our children by virtue of the fact that we will hand down to them a white Parliament, a Parliament that will not be paralysed by a Coloured electorate or by the presence of Coloured M.P.’s. When our descendants have to solve the Coloured problem, they will be able to do so because their hands will be free and they will have retained the control of their own destiny as white people here, whatever adjustments they may have to make concerning their future.

Let me conclude by saying this. We saw the hon. member for Umlazi crossing the floor to this side of the House. Let me assure hon. members opposite that all they saw was the peak of the iceberg; what is underneath is very interesting. [Interjections.] It does not matter where they are, but I know the hon. member for Umlazi, an English-speaking member, is only the peak of the iceberg, because in my own constituency and throughout the country there is a movement across party lines towards the National Party, a movement by English-speaking people who traditionally supported that side, because they accept the sincerity and the honesty of the Prime Minister, they trust the Prime Minister, they know they are safe with the Prime Minister. They know that in the National Party and its policy of separate development they have the one and only guarantee for the safety of our children.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Maitland and from his speech I tried to understand something about Nationalist Party politics. I had great difficulty because he roamed from 1910 onwards, he talked about the safety of the Whites and of the impressions he gained when he visited Malawi, and he also referred to federal states. His party does not believe in federation, it believes in separate nations. We will eventually have the position in this country where we have a number of separate nations. At one time we thought they would total eight, but it may even be more. All these little separate nations will have separate prime ministers and separate parliaments. They will be absolutely separate from the white nation, but they will all be working together in the white country to keep it going. When all these little black nation Prime Ministers meet, and a white Prime Minister is present, I wonder who will be the chairman of that conference. Will the black Prime Ministers elect a white Prime Minister to preside over them, or will there be a black Prime Minister? I could not judge by the speech of the hon. member for Maitland, but if one listens to the speeches made by other hon. members on that side and one reads between the lines of the pamphlets issued, one realizes, as my Leader said in the No-Confidence debate, the absolute failure of the separate development policy. It is falling to bits all around them.

The hon. member for Maitland was telling us about the solution to the problem of the Coloureds. Why did he not tell the Prime Minister that? He has no solution to the problem. But the hon. member has one. I thought the hon. member in his caucus would tell the Prime Minister, “I live amongst the Coloureds; I have the solution”, but his Prime Minister says that we do not have the solution, we must leave it to our children.

As the hon. member continued his speech, he must have thought. “I do not know whether this solution of mine is so good as far as the Coloureds are concerned, but at least we will leave a white Parliament; our descendants can solve the problem.” The Nationalist Party thinks that they are building a road …

At least we think!

You think you think! One only has to listen to the various interpretations of the policy of separate development to see that it means a lot of funny things. We listened to the hon. member for Kempton Park. He was giving a definition of the word “volk”. It means to him the English-speaking South Africans and the Afrikaners. I have been to a little fishing village not very far from Cape Town. Do hon. members know what they call the Coloured fishermen? They call them the “volk”! You must be careful. You must have your dictionary altered. Your Hansard is going down in history, because you say …

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. So there is this muddled thinking. A great deal of arrogance has been shown by the various speakers, the arrogance of power, while we know that this party internally is cracking up.

Where is Jaap Marais?

Where is he? The Nationalist Party has many little leaders sticking their heads out. Even the Prime Minister is worried. One wonders who is going to lead the Nationalist Party next. Is it going to be the hon. member here, or is it going to be Dr. Meyer? Who is it going to be? Their strength and arrogance show that they have been in power far too long. We had a demonstration here last night with the Minister of Economic Affairs getting up and starting off with what we thought would be a constructive speech.

Of course it was!

Last night, yes. But after he had slept over it and probably had been got at, he rose and started talking politics that one would expect from the back benches. A speech of that type does neither him nor us any good.

There are more serious matters. I noticed that, through all the speeches made by hon. members on that side, the Minister of Finance never even picked up his pen, because they never spoke about the Budget. They never spoke about the country or her welfare, but purely about the ideologies of their party, either to impress somebody or to get a front bench or a seat in the Cabinet. I do not know which.

We on this side of the House were pleased to learn that the hon. the Minister of Finance had been overseas to go into the question of currency requirements. We are told that he went to raise loans; not so much because of the fact that he required money in this country, but to establish our claims. I cannot think of any time that South Africa was refused any loan, especially when the United Party was in power. We were able to lend Britain something like R160 million worth of gold. The mere fact that the hon. the Minister went over there to raise these loans or to establish the claims for those loans, shows one thing, namely that as far as this country is concerned, we have not been able to generate foreign exchange by any other means than gold. Our exports are not what they should be. One wonders what has happened to our export market. We export gold and raw materials. But that is still not sufficient. We do not export enough to establish the foreign currency that we require. It is a matter that this Government should look into. They should do something about it. As a result of the policy of this Government—not this country, this Government—there is no African market. The big market next to our very door is closed to us. Not because we cannot produce the goods, but as a result of this Government’s policy, we have lost this African market.

We live in a world of currency fluctuations, and I think we are fortunate that we do have gold, that we are the largest producers of gold in the world. As I have said before, behind all the speculation on the market and on the currency markets of the world are the living hopes of some sort of revaluation of gold from the 35 dollar limit. It has been sold at a higher price, but the fixed price still remains. Our Minister of Finance has tried to have that altered, but he has not been successful. He still lives in hopes. Under the circumstances we therefore have to live with the fact that that is the price, and we have to keep our house in order. As I have said, we have to encourage our secondary industries and our exports. We have to build up our country financially, accepting the fact that the price of gold is going to remain at 35 dollars. That is the position. We have to have the necessary capital overseas to meet our commitments. Hon. members must not forget that we face great dangers. We have heard members talking about these dangers. We are building up our army, which requires a considerable amount of equipment. Our Airways must be developed. We require general development in this growing country of ours, and this costs money. We have to find the necessary cash to pay for it. We have to try and establish a reserve so that we may be able to pay for the goods we require. On the goldmining side, we have what are called dying mines. I think the hon. the Minister and the Government should look at these mines and try, if possible, to keep them going. The possibilities of an increase in the price of gold may keep a lot of these mines that are on the verge of closing down from doing so.

We have heard about inflation. Despite the fact that this side of the House told the Government years ago, before it even recognized the fact that we had inflation in this country, this inflation bogey is still with us. There has not been the increase per unit in productivity as we had hoped. One cannot help on reading articles by well-known industrialists in any industrial journal to take note of what they say. They tell you that unless this country of ours makes the full economical use of the manpower available we will never overcome our manpower problem. We are not going to cure our position by immigration and we have got to examine the whole situation. I personally and my party reject the whole position of the separate nations. We look at South Africa as one prosperous whole in the economic sense. We feel that if this country used its population to the greatest degree and more efficiently we would go very much further than we are at the present moment. The Government tells us that there is no such thing as economic integration, but we, of course, know that it is there. The white population of this country, as pointed out by the hon. member for Green Point, carry a very heavy burden as far as taxation is concerned. We have to help our Coloureds and our Bantu to become more viable so that they can take their place in the growth of this country. As was said by other hon. members on this side, one notices that hon. members opposite never mentioned the man in the street and the persons who put them in this House. The hon. member for Maitland tells us that he was elected in Maitland, but he never tells us about his voters. He always tells us how pleased he is to be a member of the other side, but he never mentions the welfare of his voters in this House nor does he worry about the welfare of his voters. We on this side of the House are concerned and have been concerned with this aspect over the years. In our amendment we mention the man who is living on a fixed salary. First I want to speak about the civil servants. The civil servant has, over the years, through his associations, had to come to the Government and ask for increases in salary, but invariably when he does get the increase it is completely out of date. This is because it takes the Government two years to wake up to the fact that something should be done and when it is done it is usually completely out of date. When one talks to the civil servants, and especially those in Pretoria, where there are probably more civil servants per square mile than anywhere else in the country, one finds that a very deep dissension exists amongst these people. They have to struggle on on this fixed salary, live up to a certain standard, educate their children—education up to matric is free, I know—with the different costs it entails, and so on. Nothing upsets them more than when they see this Government, who has been in power far too long, driving around in these magnificent cars and living in the big houses they have purchased at enormous cost. When one talks to them they say that they are Nationalists and that they vote for the Nationalist Government, but that they have been in power for too long and that it is time for a change and time that they went. This is the growing feeling in this country. The Government, with the vast majority they have in this House, have lost touch with the voters. They have been here too long and think they can get away with anything.

I now want to say a few words about pensioners. In my constituency—and the hon. member for Maitland has a few too—there are pensioners who can eat meat only once or twice a week and have to live on bread and “mieliepap” in a back room. They just cannot afford anything better.

Mieliepap in the Cape?

Yes, believe it or not, that is what they have to live on. I have already told the hon. the Minister that he is out of touch with the voters. I will take him to some of these people.

Capetonians do not eat miliepap!

Over the years we have asked this Government to adopt a stable social security policy. I do not think that the public outside realize that this Government does not have a social security policy. The only thing they have got is the remnants they took over from the United Party. They have done nothing. Mention was made of medical care and hospitalization. The poor man to-day cannot afford to get sick because he cannot afford the time off from work or to pay for his hospitalization. As a result of this Government’s policy of not affording some medical benefits to these people they build up debts and are in a very bad way. Then you get the thousands of white collar workers—there are thousands of them and the Minister of Labour will know this—who are not covered by any pension scheme. When they reach the age of 55, 60 or 65 they retire. And what do they get? They get this miserable old-age pension. This Government seems to think that this old-age pension is a charity and not a right. Of course these people are entitled to it, as they have paid taxes and have been good citizens of this country. The most terrible thing over the years has been that this Government has done absolutely nothing to protect these people. When we have put forward motions in this House for a contributory pension scheme, it has always been rejected. It was said by the Government that they do not want a social welfare state. They are, however, prepared to see these people live just anyhow. We are getting to be a nation of the very poor and the very rich. There are a lot of them sitting over there. The day will come when we will lose the middle class and will only have the poor and the rich. This Government will be to blame. Take the case of the man who is not well enough off to send his son to university. What has this Government done to make that education available to that boy? In what way have they made money available to the family so that they can live? They have done nothing, Mr. Speaker.

With a sound social security policy the people of the country can enjoy the prosperity of this country. The people are not enjoying the prosperity now, however. Year after year the people are over-taxed by the hon. the Minister of Finance and year after year he comes with a surplus. One year Dr. Dӧnges said that he was going to give them back R20 million, but that he did not trust them, because they would spend it and push up inflation. He then put the money in a fund and the following year took it away from them again. There are lots of aged people paying savings levies who will be dead and will never be able to enjoy that money. I think it is time to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that the least he can do is to give them back some of the money that has been taken away from them, and not to tax them out of existence. The people require something from this Government and it is time the Government did something about it. At the present moment people are fed up, they would like to see this Government go, and this Government will go sooner than they think.

In his speech the hon. member for Salt River stated, inter alia, that it was now time for a change in South Africa as far as the Government is concerned, but I want to tell him that every time there is a change it is the National Party which increases in size and not the United Party. In spite of the fact that the Opposition has quite obviously been “zipped” this afternoon by their Whips as far as discussing the Lewis case is concerned. I want to return to that topic. I do not want the Opposition to wash their dirty washing here in Parliament. Nor do I want the hon. member for Yeoville for example to tell us whether the members of the Opposition have all paid their debts to the United Party. All I want to ask them is that they furnish the country with a reply to these two very important charges which the hon. member for Umlazi made against the United Party when he handed in his resignation, two charges relating to matters which have formed the keystone of the political struggle in South Africa all these years, i.e. how to obtain national unity here and how to solve our burning colour question. And they can try as much as they want to ignore the Lewis case, but the country and the voters outside will not ignore it, and they (the United Party) will be called to account for it. It s for that reason that I want to return to this case.

In addition I also want to say that to my mind it is very characteristic of the party on the opposite side, which always has such a great deal to say about national unity, that when English-speaking persons join the National Party and find themselves here in this House, they ignore them when they speak, or otherwise denigrate them. We found that this was the case with the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, and we also experienced it in regard to Senator Trollip, and we found the same thing here this afternoon when the hon. member for Maitland spoke. I can tell you that that era is past; the English-speaking South Africans have found them out, and they will no longer get away with it.

This action of the hon. member for Umlazi in crossing the floor of this House will, as I have said, have repercussions throughout the length and breadth of the country, and it will not avail the United Party to ignore it. This afternoon I briefly want to go into those two charges which he made, and which he dealt with at some considerable length. They are that South Africa’s hope for greater national development and national unity stands a much better chance of succeeding under the National Party, under the dynamic leadership of our present Prime Minister, than under the United Party. That the Opposition cannot ignore or form a conspiracy of silence about. I am sorry the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not present. I know he is not a man who is afraid, and I wanted to ask him this afternoon not to come and wash their dirty washing here, but that he must rise to speak. Covert references are being made to backbenchers, but he need not take any notice of me. But here one of our front-benchers, who crossed over to us, rose and levelled these castigating charges against the United Party and, by implication, against its leadership, but he remained seated there, having been “zipped”, and has no reply. This is what the country wants to know. Why does the United Party not furnish the country with a reply to those charges? These two matters run like an unmistakable thread through our political struggle over all these years. Why does the United Party, in spite of all the disasters which have overtaken them during the past 20 years and even before that, still survive? Why are they still staggering around in the political ring like a punch-drunk boxer? Why have they not thrown in the towel yet? After everything which has happened to the United Party over the past 20 years they should have disintegrated a long time ago, but I shall tell you. Sir, why it has not happened. It is because they have during this time been engaged in pulling the biggest political swindle, a political confidence trick, which South Africa has ever witnessed on their Afrikaans-sneaking and English-speaking followers. They deceived their followers by telling them that it was only the principles of the United Party which would ensure national unity in this country. Because they got away with this poltical sleight-of-hand for a time, they succeeded in deceiving their Afrikaans-speaking followers. Because those Afrikaans-sneaking followers had previously shown great political loyalty towards people such as Generals Botha and Smuts, they succeeded, for sentimental reasons, in keeping them with them. Because they blew hot and cold when they discussed the colour question of the country, one story in the platteland and another story in the cities, they also succeeded in keening their Afrikaans-speaking members with them; and because they have always regarded it as a kind of consolation prize that a person with an Afrikaans surname should be their leader, while Afrikaans did not in fact come into its own within their ranks, they succeeded in keeping their followers with them but outside the intimate inner sanctum of the party. Even now there is talk to the effect that they want to change their leadership, that they want to get rid of their present leader and that they are once again looking for a man with an Afrikaans surname, and I hear that they are mentioning the name of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I remember the days when I sat in the Press gallery during the war years and after, when there were no fewer than three or four English-speaking Ministers sitting on that side of the House, when they were in power, who could not understand a single word of Afrikaans when a National Party member was making a speech in Afrikaans in this House. Each one of them had to get an interpreter to interpret those speeches for them. But the Afrikaners in that party gradually found out about this kind of political swindle. That is why men like Mr. Wolmarans, Senator Brink, Mr. Pieterse, Mr. Blaar Coetzee, Abraham Jonker and Bailey Bekker, quite eminent leaders of the United Party during that time, had bade them farewell a long time ago.

But I now want to come to the English-speaking people, and how the Opposition has, in that case as well, until recently succeeded in deceiving them for a long time in a shameful way and has inculcated racial hatred by the English-speaking people of the Afrikaners, so that the English-speaking people were not prepared to come over to the National Party and grasp the hand of the Afrikaner Nationalist and co-operate with him. Sir, I am speaking from experience. I once had occasion to write a column in an English-language newspaper aimed at conveying information about the Afrikaner and his point of view to the English-speaking people. But as soon as I had done good work, that newspaper published reports in its other columns and destroyed all that good work. It was a hopeless task, for the simple reason that we did not get any support from the United Party, nor from certain sections of the English-language Press, in order to convey a true image of the Afrikaner to the English-speaking people. There have always been cries of “wolf, wolf!” in this country when the National Party and the Afrikaners in the National Party had to do important constitutional construction work. I would just like to remind you of what happened when we introduced our own national anthem and one flag in this country. What antipathy and race hatred were not subtly stirred up against those matters at that time! How did the United Party not try to frighten the English-speaking people in this country when our own South African Citizenship Act was introduced here! Day in and day out it was insinuated that the language and cultural rights of the English-speaking people would not be safe with the National Party. It was of course very easy for that party to make propaganda out of the important constitutional construction work which the National Party had to do and to present our actions as being one-sided and wrong to the English-speaking people; for you know that at that time things had to be done in order to replace the foreign symbolism of the country with a distinctive native South African symbolism. Because it so happened that owing to our historical background many of these symbols had a British-English association, it was the easiest thing for the propagandists on that side of the House to brand these things as anti-English deeds among the unthinking English-speaking South Africans. These were above all our English-speaking friends who could at that time not yet read the English-language national newspapers; thank goodness there are already increasing numbers of them who are to-day able to do so, and I attribute it to that that a man like the hon. member for Umlazi could see his way clear to coming over to the National Party, i.e. because he read the Afrikaans newspapers and could ascertain the true facts about the National Party there. I want to state that this “wolf, wolf!” cry of the Opposition has now caught up with them. I want to remind them of the old Churchillian saying that “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”. The English-speaking people no longer have to listen to this monotonous yapping of the United Party in regard to the National Party and its Afrikaans leaders. That is the reason why we are to-day experiencing an increasing influx of English-speaking people into our party. That is why first the Trollips and the Warings and the Blyth Thompsons and the Odells and the Lewisses and even the Durrants came over, and now in Natal as well an eminent man like Mr. Jackie McGlew. And as a representative of an overwhelmingly English-speaking constituency I can tell you, Sir, that that influx is increasing by the day. First of all the United Party lost almost all their Afrikaans leaders of note, as I indicated, and now they are losing their English-speaking leaders one by one. As Dr. Verwoerd predicted to us when we became a Republic, this fact that we have become a Republic is having an effect on South Africa. It is because the Opposition are not aware of the fact that great changes are taking place in this country as a result of our having become a Republic that they cannot understand why a man like the hon. member for Umlazi could go over to the National Party.

I worked out a little addition sum this morning, and do you know, Sir, how many United Party Parliamentarians have left the United Party since 1948? It is no less than 25. What an unhappy reflection on that party and its leadership, which parades under the fine name of the so-called United Party! It is these facts which I have mentioned briefly here this afternoon which the Opposition must reply to in respect of the Lewis case. It is of no avail their sitting there sulking, or trying to pretend, by maintaining a faҫade, that they are not listening or that they are unaware of these questions which are being addressed to them. The nation is listening, and it will not pay them to sit there like sphinxes. The fact that the hon. member for Umlazi has crossed the floor has very great significance in this country in this sense that he touched upon the two fundamental matters when he did so, i.e. the promotion of national unity and the solution to our colour problem. The attitude of that party puts me very much in mind of President Reitz’ tortoise “in his shell, if you touch him, he pulls his head in”. Why do all these Afrikaans- and English-speaking South African who have crossed over to the National Party during the past 21 years all prefer the road which the National Party is following in respect of national unity, and reject that of the United Party? It is for the simple reason that the National Party does not, as the United Party does, simply lump Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africans together into one party and then hope for the best. The National Party puts into effect, to summarize it briefly, the inspired words of Dr. Malan: “Bring together what belongs together by inner conviction”. That is the secret of the success of the National Party, in contrast to the United Party, which tries to accommodate people of so many divergent standpoints in their party that growing national unity is out of the question. Mr. Speaker, there is no unifying inspiration in that party. It is at most a party which consists of divergent elements, which for political purposes are trying to get rid of the National Party. That is all one can say about them. That is why liberalists and conservatives and opportunists are stable-mates in their party. In the National Party however, according to its principles, Afrikaner and English-speaking South Africans work together because they know that their national identity, their language and their cultural identity will at all times be safe within the National Party, and that is why the hon. member for Umlazi was able here this afternoon to present this great testimonial for the National Party, i.e. that he feels extremely happy amongst us. Mr. Speaker, I can go even further to discuss the other matter, i.e. the solution to the colour problem, as well, but I just want to say the following: It is very clear to me that the country is also, as far as this is concerned, rejecting the United Party, in spite of the fact that they are now trying to be more conservative than the National Party. That is why the United Party finds itself in the quandary it is in. The public knows that under the United Party a solution will never be found to our colour problem, a solution which will be equally just and equally satisfactory to all sections of our heterogeneous population. Mr. Speaker, I want to support what I am saying here this afternoon with the words of someone else. In America I also watched television, and I did not only watch Wild West and Cowboy films there, I also had the privilege of seeing the hon. member for Yeoville on television there. I am sorry the hon. member has left the House. He did outstanding work for us in America.

There he was a Nationalist. *

But unfortunately the hon. member for Yeoville did not do such outstanding work for his own Party there, and I shall now indicate to you the reason for this. He appeared on a television programme called “Firing Line” on 22nd December, 1968, in New York, or rather it was a broadcast in New York which I saw, where he appeared with William F. Buckley, the editor of the National Review and also with that great left-wing liberalist, George Houser, the chairman of the American Committee on Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville was asked what the difference between the United Party and the Progressive Party was. Unfortunately I could not get hold of a verbatim transcript of that broadcast, but I made notes, and I have the notes here with me. The hon. member for Yeoville is entitled to try to deny the veracity of my notes if he wants to. I have notes here which I made on the notepaper of a New York hotel. I want to quote what the hon. member said (translation)—

In other words, must one deduce from this that a gradual movement to “one man, one vote” in South Africa would not be so disastrous? But I want to proceed with this revealing train of thought of the hon. member for Yeoville, and I am again quoting what he said (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member for Houghton is not here this afternoon so that she can hear about the new admirer she has acquired. Mr. Speaker, from the mouth of the crown pretender of the United Party we hear this evidence this afternoon as to why people like the hon. member for Umlazi no longer feel at home in the United Party with its integration policy. Sir, this is the type of question the country is asking, and hon. members on that side can ignore these questions as much as they like, but we as National Party and as Government will see to it that these things are held up to the scrutiny of the country, and I am certain that the electorate will give their reply. I want to make the prediction that they will not only give their reply in subsequent elections, but that they will already begin doing so next Wednesday in the by-election at Newcastle.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite who have just made those noises have probably made the only speeches which they are going to make this whole Session, and it is probably also their most intelligent contribution to the debates in this House.

The hon. member who has just sat down is at least one of the consistent members on the Government side. His attitude is consistent with the views that he expressed when he was chairman of a branch of the National Union Party.

What did he say then?

The hon. member made some reference to English-speaking people in his party. I would like to quote to him the following words—

He also said—

Sir, this was said by Professor Thom, and then you have the sort of language that we have just had from the hon. member for Turffontein.

The hon. member for Turffontein also raised the position of the hon. member for Umlazi. If he thinks that I am going to run away from that I want to disillusion him very quickly indeed. I understand that while I was out of the House the hon. member for Umlazi made the statement that I as a constituent of his had not called upon him to resign his seat. Sir, I want to make the position quite clear. I never thought that it was necessary to call upon the hon. member for Umlazi to resign his seat. After all, he signed a declaration that he would do so. But if the hon. member for Umlazi wants me as a constituent formally to ask him to resign his seat, then I do so now.

Sir, we have had members on that side using language which just does not mean a thing. They remind me of two Arabs who were talking. The one said to the other: “I can speak English very well. When I say to a man ‘come here’, he comes.” His friend then said to him: “But what happens when you want him to go there?” His reply was: “That is easy, I go there and I say ‘come here’.” This is the language of hon. members on the other side.

Yesterday we also had the hon. member for Sunnyside saying that we cannot afford to waste a single day. Sir, how true! We certainly cannot afford to waste a single day. We have waited 21 years already. Sir, let us all agree that we must take an objective look at South Africa. Every argument advanced by hon. members on the other side is utterly unreal, it does not apply to South Africa. They are talking of a land which just does not exist. Even my old friend here, the hon. member for Pietersburg, said that in South Africa there was no such thing as economic integration. I have a great deal of regard for the hon. member for Pietersburg. I know he is sincere, but I want to say to him that I hope he is a little more sincere than the Pietersburg Town Council who decided to make their town white by night. They made their town white by night, but half the members on the Government side have brought down Bantu servants to the Cape. All you have to do is to go to Acacia Park to see them.

You said that the other day.

Yes, and I will repeat saying it until it sinks in. Sir, these are the people who claim to be sincere, but I believe that this country will one day pay very dearly for the Government that we have today.

I think this subject is beyond you.

Sir, this is a Government that rules by legislation without consultation; it is a Government that rules by intimidation. Sir, they talk of homelands. Let us examine the position for a moment just to see how unreal the concept of homelands is. The Bantu are to be separated into eight separate ethnic groups. The Coloureds, when the Government finds a homeland for them, are going to be separated as well, but there is more than one ethnic group among the Coloureds, so one assumes that there may be three Coloured homelands; one may also assume from that that there must be at least two Indian homelands as well, because there are two separate Indian groups. Sir, let us take this to its logical conclusion. I submit that a Zulu and a Xhosa have more in common than an Afrikaner and an English-speaking South African. To put it another way, they have as much in common or as little in common, and if it is logical to say that there must be a separate Bantustan for the Zulus and separate ones for the other seven ethnic groups, then I believe it is just as logical to say that there should be a separate homeland for the English-speaking South African and one for the Afrikaner. [Laughter.] Sir, hon. members opposite laugh, but they do not laugh at the proposition that we should have eight separate independent black states and a Colouredstan and an Indianstan; that is no laughing matter, but it is just as illogical as having a separate homeland for the English-speaking South Africans and a separate one for the Afrikaners.

Did you listen to the hon. member for Umlazi?

Let us take this even further. Let us say that we are going to have a separate one for the English-speaking South Africans and a separate one for the Afrikaners. Are we then going to have separate homelands on religious principles as well? That is the logic of the Nationalist Party. They are prepared so to split South Africa that it makes no sense whatsoever, yet these ethnic groups have as much in common with each other as we have with our Afrikaans-speaking fellow South Africans.

What about intermarriages?

Sir, the hon. member for Pietersburg talked about economic separation in South Africa. I have extracted some figures which I am not going to quote at length, but I would like to remind him that in the last year 47,000 more Whites became economically active. In the last four years the total was 110,000. While we look at this figure it may be as well to remember that the number of apprentices in the building trade in 1960 was 725 and in 1968 534, nearly 200 fewer despite the increase in the population. Somebody is doing that work but obviously the hon. member for Pietersburg does not seem to know by whom it is being done. While the white economically active group increased by 47,000 last year, the number of non-Whites who are economically active increased by 190,000. In the last four years they have increased by no fewer than 439,000. Of course, it is very interesting to know too that the State employed no fewer than 100,000 more non-Whites, and yet the hon. member for Pietersburg says that there is no such thing as economic integration in South Africa. I think that we are quite entitled on this side of the House to ask hon. members opposite to cease thinking as members of the Nationalist Party and to start thinking for a change as South Africans, and to start thinking about what is good for South Africa. They must start thinking of what is good for South Africa because in the last 20 years they have moved no less than 1,082,000 people all over South Africa.

Go back to Limehill and see what is being done for them.

I wish the hon. member for Klip River would go and live in Limehill. That may put some sense into his head. This Government has moved over a million people in South Africa and what have they solved by doing this? They have accomplished absolutely nothing at all. In fact, we are even more economically integrated than we were before.

Why do you not talk about something you understand?

If the hon. member for Maitland were to speak only about the things he understands, he would not open his mouth for the next 50 years. Before I turn to certain other matters I should like to say to those hon. members who have used the word Limehill every now and then as though it is some kind of joke that I think it is a joke in very poor taste indeed. If hon. members opposite are proud of what happened at Limehill there is not much point in trying to drum any sense into their heads.

I should like to deal with a few other matters. The first is the railway disaster in Johannesburg. No one attaches any blame for this railway disaster to anybody. I want, however, to ask whether it is necessary for the dependants of those who died and those who are injured to be sustained by charitable donations from the public. I know that in due course these people will receive compensation from the State but the wheels of the State turn very slowly. As we have had these disasters before I wonder whether the time has not arrived for the State to be in the position to grant immediate alleviation of some of these hurts that people have suffered in disasters such as these. I do not believe that it is the function of private people to donate money to a charity of this kind though I am very pleased that they do. I think that this is a function that the State may well take over.

While we are considering that railway disaster I should like to raise another point. A report appeared in one of our newspapers to the effect that the Johannesburg City Council would not endorse out of Johannesburg the widows of those people killed in the accident. I think that this is a wonderful gesture. Perhaps South Africans should pat themselves on the back for it. But I should like to know why we here in South Africa should have to make such a statement at all. I think that the fact that this idea should have to occur to anybody is a disgrace to all of us. The hon. member for Karoo mentioned yesterday that Native pensioners receive R51 a year which he pointed out came to, I think, 14 cents a day. Most of us spend a good deal more than 14 cents a day on our dogs and cats. I should like to join with the hon. member for Karoo in his plea to the hon. the Minister. This is a matter which should receive very serious consideration, particularly in view of the fact that over 70 per cent of our non-Whites live below the poverty datum line.

I should also like to draw the question of municipal rates payable on property owned by the Government to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Since its inception the Department of Community Development has grown continually.

Unlike the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, one can ignore such inane remarks from such an inane member. The property owned by the Department of Community Development in the three major cities of South Africa is now worth almost R14 million. In Johannesburg the Department pays rates amounting to R232,000. In Cape Town it pays R80,000 in rates and in Durban R144,000. I shall take the example of Durban only. The property owned in Durban by the Department amounts to no less than R3,900,000. Is it therefore any wonder that the people of Durban are at their wit’s end in trying to meet the high rates that are now imposed upon them? They are forced to pay municipal rates because the Department is able to escape paying rates on property valued at almost R4 million. I believe that the time has come for serious consideration to be given to this matter. What of course happens is that the rates of the property owners themselves are increased. In many areas in Durban property rates have increased by five times over the last 10 years. It is held that this is to a large extent due to the fact that the Government owns such vast blocks of property on which it has to pay no rates at all.

I should also like to raise the question of our civil servants. I raised this matter last year and I will raise it next year and continue to raise it until it sinks into hon. members opposite.

That will not be necessary after 1971 because after 1971 we will look after this matter ourselves.

372,000 White State employees, that is one in four of our economically active White population, are affected by the rise in the cost of living, but have fixed incomes. Occasionally the Government pays out increases to them particularly if an election is drawing near. The Government has continued to use our State employees as mere tools at election time. I believe that the time has come that they should get their full reward for the amount of work they do. The Minister of Transport has told us that some of them work an average of 12 to 16 hours overtime per week. I believe that this aspect of the matter must be examined very carefully because if you were to look at the number of working wives in South Africa, I think that you would find that every one out of two is the wife of a civil servant or a State employee. I think that when the Government can ignore a section of our population to this extent and use them only at election times to its own advantage, the time must come when the civil servants of South Africa will wake up to the fact that they have been exploited by this Government for so long that it is about time that they did something about it. How many civil servants allow their children to follow in their footsteps and join the Civil Service? Those days have gone and they will never return.

Then I should also like to make a plea for those people who are over the age of 40. They have difficulty in finding employment. We have this problem all over the country. They are not easy to place in jobs. I do think that the Government which is the biggest employer in the State could consider this matter from a new angle. I believe that positions could be created for these people without jeopardizing the positions of those who have had long service.

In conclusion I should like to remind hon. members that we have been told that the late Dr. Verwoerd was wrong by 40 per cent in his calculations of the population figures for South Africa. He was wrong by 40 per cent in his estimate of the population figures for South Africa. I should like to suggest that the Nationalist Party is wrong by 100 per cent with its apartheid policy.

Why do you not reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Umlazi?

I have asked the hon. member for Umlazi to honour his undertaking to resign his seat and that is all that is necessary as a reply. This Government has acted too consistently on behalf of the Nationalist Party and has not put the interests of South Africa before anything else. I believe that unless it does so very soon, common sense will return to people and we will see the last of this Government for all time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Natal reminded me of a tractor with a very small and light harrow attached, swinging to and fro over the farmlands but unable to get the harrow to dig in. The hon. member for Umlazi, followed up by the hon. member for Turffontein, put very pertinent questions to the members of the United Party. The hon. member for Port Natal wanted to deflect the lightning stoke with references to public servants and the cost of living in general and wanted to get away from these fundamental questions. Let us now pause for a moment and see what things are like in the ranks of that party, apart from the Umlazi instance. I should like to quote from the Rand Daily Mail of 22.7.1968. The caption states: “United Party Needs Transplant.” Let us hear what the hon. member for Walmer in Port Elizabeth had to say. I quote—

instead of 21 years in which the National Party has been in power—

Well, his first has already been “launched” here. The report continues—

Times must indeed be difficult for a Party if one of its back-benchers makes such statements about party leadership, because not only is it a reflection on the leadership of that Party, it is also a reflection upon its older members. The hon. member spoke about “no room for dead wood” and I do not think that the hon. member thereby meant any reflection upon the hon. member for Berea. Up to now I have not read in the Rand Daily Mail that the hon. member denies the use of those words or that he has been repudiated by the chief leaders of his party. In this “heart transplant” speech of the hon. member for Walmer there lies for me the implication of a clear admission of that party’s inefficiency as an Opposition. Well, we on this side agree wholeheartedly, and we need not make any further comment. He said that there was no place for dead wood in that party. I repeat: we do not believe that it is a reflection on the hon. member for Berea, but indeed a reflection upon all his colleagues, which does not surprise me either. The hon. member spoke of “a young man’s job”. What does Uncle Flippie say—the hon. member for Kensington—about that, or what is the opinion of the hon. member for East London (City)? I want to ask the hon. member to take a good look at the backbenchers of this side if he wants to see young men at work. Let the hon. member for Walmer take a good look at the Cabinet benches, at the Deputy Ministers, and then also there next to him at the National Party’s youthful back-benchers. What he will see are inspired young men, in contrast to the upholsterers of the hon. Opposition benches. They are inspired young men who support an inspired Cabinet and an inspired Prime Minister. In the National Party it is not necessary to push the more elderly men with mature experience aside with so much disdain. The hon. member also said: “The Party also needed a new image and a new slogan.” He therefore says that the party’s image is weak and the slogans antiquated—what an admission!

The hon. member for Walmer is a wool farmer and he knows how many miles upon miles of jackal-proof fencing must be put up to keep the jackals out. The hon. member and all of us here surely know of the old adage that “a leopard cannot change its spots”. Even if one were to put a sheep’s face-mask onto a jackal, the greyhounds would still smell it out and the sheep would still remain wary of it. We know the hon. member for Walmer as someone of good integrity, as someone who has the courage of his convictions when he begins to speak about the dead wood in his party’s ranks. He displayed the courage to indicate the bad spots, and we on this side can only congratulate him because he has the courage of his convictions. We have here the image of a splintered party, and this image is supported by argument and not by stray accusations and assertions such as the hon. member for Port Natal has just come to light with.

I now come to a report which appeared in the Sunday Times of the 26th January of this year which deals with an interview which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout granted to that newspaper, and this report formed the precedent for the crossing-over of the hon. member for Umlazi. The hon. member was, inter alia, asked this question, after he said that according to their policy there would be different nations in South Africa—

To this he answered—

According to the hon. member for Turffontein he also heard and saw this opinion depicted on television in New York. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also had the following to say—

Earlier in the report one reads that “Mr. Basson detects a shift in political thinking”. That was in January of this year. The report continues, “… but he warns that if the United Party is to use this opportunity it must state its own policy with greater clarity and emphasis”. What a beautiful precedent for what happened here this month! We could not have desired such a prediction in clearer terms. This is all a beautiful example of a bankrupt Opposition which is still regressing, and this same Opposition wants to lay down the law to the Government side about all kinds of matters such as rising living costs, old age pensions, and so on, while they do not want to face up to the actual bottle-necks.

The hon. member for Port Natal spoke about Pretoria and its public servants who are ostensibly treated so badly. I now want to ask the hon. member this: What happened in connection with the public servants in the latest election in Pretoria in 1966? I will tell him: a clean sweep was made of the United Party and there is no longer a single United Party member here from that city’s constituencies; there is not a single one left. Since the hon. member has spoken about living costs, I want to read from a few newspaper reports. We read that “The sale of tractors is heading for a new record … Motor cars are selling like hot cakes … More motor cars in Pretoria … More motor cars, more problems, says Mr. Dorfman, the chief traffic inspector of Johannesburg … Motor vehicle market in 1970 estimated at 230.000.” Are these, then, people living under the breadline? I want to refer to the January 1969 issue of New Day, the official newspaper of the “Shop and Office Employees’ Association”. It is an association which made representations to the Department of Commerce. One report reads as follows—

Now I want to ask the hon. member where he came by the nonsense that he spoke. I want to go further and quote to him from Georganiseerde Landbou of August, 1968, the mouthpiece of the South African Agricultural Union, where the director refutes the allegation the hon. member made against the public servants and the farmers. Mr. Cilliers, director of the South African Agricultural Union, writes that, in spite of this oppressive drought under which the country is periodically bowed and the problems that the farmers are struggling with, 68,000 farmers farmed at a profit during 1964, while only 12,000 suffered a loss. That is the position, in spite of the black picture which hon. members on that side are always trying to sketch with a view to catching a few votes in that way. The report continues:

With which I agree heartily—

Hon. members of the Opposition suppress these arguments when they attack the Government. As I said at the beginning, it is like a harrow behind a large farm tractor that it only touches the ground here and there and shoots up a few clods. The report goes further—

the certain bodies do not include the State—they are profit-making bodies—

I mention these examples on the part of the public servants and the farmers to indicate why this side of the House is still sending more and more members to this House while the United Party sends less and less.

While agriculture is under discussion, I should like to point out a few aspects for the hon. the Minister of Finance. In this grave time of drought, where we can already observe how the margins of the blueprint, already drawn up in 1965, are coming to the fore in respect of veld reclamation, agricultural financing and greater stability in agriculture, and where our farmers are ever-more prepared to ward off drought onslaughts, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, through the Minister of Finance, to listen carefully. I want to make a request in respect of the category (2) farmer. It is that farmer who is not so worthy of credit that he can be assisted by the commercial banks. But he is also not so unworthy of credit that he cannot be helped by the Department of Agricultural Credit or by the Land Bank. Can we not devise some or other method or formula to help this specific group of farmers? We cannot afford to lose them to agriculture. They account for part of the 12,000 which I quoted just now. These are good farmers, meritorious farmers, and we must retain them in agriculture. I am thinking in this connection whether the State could not perhaps consider the possibility of providing the initial capital for a Co-operative Agricultural Bank. The South African Agricultural Union also made this plea and the idea has already been approved by prominent agricultural economists. The money must be placed in the farmers’ own hands to undertake the financing of the agricultural sector in the same way as he administers his corporations. The request is therefore whether the State cannot merely supply the nest-egg for that purpose.

Then there is a second problem, namely the exceptional position which develops where the wife of a person who works in the city and has a profession attends to the farming. In the present circumstances that farmer’s wife, who is actually farming, cannot find help anywhere, especially if they are newly-married and her husband cannot yet supply her with the necessary funds. There are several such women farmers and we must also look after their interests. Our legislation and our aid facilities do not make provision for that yet.

Lastly I should like to make a request to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture in respect of these category (2) farmers in respect of problems they experience as a result of the fact that we are still having growing pains in bridging our agricultural financing problems. Those farmers are not yet completely free of agricultural credit aid, and there are ever-fewer farmers who are completely independent of state aid. Those category (2) farmers are not eligible for election to agricultural credit committees and there is a real need, since some of the best farmers are found among them, for us also to make use of their insight in these agricultural credit committees. We can perhaps consider an amendment, for example to the effect that, when such a farmer has paid off 50 per cent of his debt to the State, he is qualified to serve on an agricultural credit committee. I want to content myself with these few thoughts in respect of agriculture because I should like to ask that the hon. member for Port Natal, or his party associates, try to prove the accusations which he drew out of thin air.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria (District) has said that if one really wants to seek inspiration, one should look at that side of the House, and particularly at their back-benchers. But if that hon. member is an example of the activity and the inspiration which one should seek in the back-benchers of the National Party, I am afraid that we will not get very far. That hon. member is so inspired by his fellow-members on that side that he cannot hear very well what they have to say from time to time. In order to hear better what they are saying, he has to take it down on a tape-recorder. They are so inspired by one another and share such solidarity that they actually take down one another’s conversations on a tape-recorder and play them back to the Prime Minister.

This is the best speech you have ever made. *

I am going to make many more like it. When the hon. member tells us how well things are going on that side of the House, and that all is unity from top to bottom, I find it just a bit strange that the difficulties they are experiencing in Pretoria should occur in that very hon. member’s constituency, and in that of the hon. member for Wonderboom and that of the hon. member for Innesdal. If there is so much satisfaction in South Africa with the National party, why is it that there should be difficulty in the constituencies of those particular three members? I think that if there is an hon. member who is not in the least inspired by this Cabinet, it is that very hon. member. If he was satisfied, he would not have caused all this trouble. Then he would not carry a tape-recorder around with him when he drinks a cup of tea or coffee with one of his colleagues. The hon. member had a little something to say to us about agriculture. He asked why this side of the House was never prepared to say that of the many farmers in South Africa there are only 12,000 who show a loss on their undertakings.

Chris Cilliers said so

Yes. The hon. member is quoting Mr. Chris Cilliers, as director of the S.A. Agricultural Union, but in the same speech from which the hon. member quoted, Mr. Chris Cilliers also said the following. Why did he not quote this?

He did not have a tape-recorder.

Precisely. But one can now buy tape-recorders which are so small that you can carry them around with you. I want to recommend that the hon. member carries one in his pocket. In the Farmers’ Weekly of 3rd July, 1968, Mr. Chris Cilliers said—

The hon. member then quoted—

The first part he ignored completely. I want to mention another example of information which the hon. member used in order to show us how well things were going with the farmers in South Africa. Mr. Chris Cilliers stated—

That is the situation in agriculture. That hon. member, who was the secretary of a provincial agricultural union …

Whom they were glad to get rid of.

Judging by the way in which the hon. member handled his case here, that is apparently true, Mr. Speaker. I should like to return later to the question of agriculture, but first I have a little something to say to the hon. member for Kempton Park. What the hon. member for Kempton Park said also has a bearing on what the hon. member for Maitland and the new National Party member for Umlazi said. Yesterday the hon. member for Kempton Park told us here in this debate, and I want to quote his exact words so that there cannot be any mistake—

What are you reading from now?

From the hon. member for Kempton Park’s Hansard speech of yesterday. I find it strange that the hon. member for Umlazi, as well as the hon. member for Maitland, could get up in the House and tell us that they have confidence in the colour policy of the Government, because what did the hon. the Prime Minister tell us? On 7th February the hon. the Prime Minister spoke about a White nation, and then stated very clearly—

Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kempton Park spent the whole of yesterday afternoon talking about a people, but the hon. the Prime Minister spoke about a nation.

What are you talking about now?

The Prime Minister went on to say—

That is the reply furnished to us by the hon. the Prime Minister. That is the policy which impressed the hon. member for Maitland and the new hon. National member for Umlazi so much. The hon. member for Kempton Park came along and told us in so many words that they were still engaged in creating this state for the Coloureds. We on this side of the House want to ask again: How can such a political party instill confidence in South Africa? One moment they are saying that people can think about Colouredstan, but that it is not practical politics. The next moment they are saying that our children will have to think about it, and that our children will in future have to find the solution. Then the hon. member for Kempton Park comes along and states: No (apart from what the hon. the Prime Minister said) we are working on this plan. Do you know what it puts me in mind of? The very thing it puts me in mind of is what we had here a year or two ago, i.e. when there were hon. members and Ministers who alleged that in spite of the attitude of the former Prime Minister, which was that Coloured representation in Parliament should be maintained, there was always the thought at the back of his mind that those people would in due course be eliminated. We want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether these gentlemen were speaking on behalf of the National Party, or whether they were speaking out of turn. For there is also the Minister of Coloured Affairs, Mr. Marais Viljoen, who stated in this House last year—

The hon. member for Kempton Park does not exactly hail from the Cape—

I think it is high time hon. members opposite took the people of South Africa quite explicitly into their confidence in this matter. Are they or are they not creating a Coloured state in South Africa? I feel that it is time someone gave a reply. But if they do not give a reply they have absolutely no policy.

I should like to return to the other subject, agriculture. It is not inappropriate that we should once again bring the subject of the serious state of affairs in agriculture to the attention of the Ministers in this debate. Last week we had a discussion here, but we were unable to get any satisfactory replies. I am particularly glad that the hon. the Minister of Finance is here to-day. I want to address the pleas, which are repeatedly being made by farmers’ organizations and by individuals outside to the effect that the interest rates are altogether too high for the average farmer, to him in particular. The hon. the Minister has heard the figures I have quoted, and he has listened to the pleas which have been made for the past two to three years. I can quote to him what one respected member of the Wool Board said as recently as September 1967—

This was said by none other than the new member for Graaff-Reinet, who is a member of the Wool Board. Last week we addressed this plea to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, and I am certain that they have addressed this plea to the hon. the Minister of Finance as well, i.e. that the high rates of interest are breaking more than one farmer in South Africa. We know that the high rates of interest were introduced to combat inflation, and that they have to a certain extent succeeded in doing so. But the big businessman or the industrialist who wants to undertake expansion at a high rate of interest obtains that money just as easily if he wants it, and what is more, he earns the money to pay for that high rate of interest just as easily. But the farmer is simply not in a position to do so, and we want to address the plea to the Minister to-day that if they do not see their way clear, as we have said before, to subsidizing rates of interest—another proposal which has been made by various agricultural organizations—then those rates of interest should at least be decreased, for the simple reason that the state of affairs prevailing in agriculture makes it simply impossible for the farmers to pay them. That is the tragedy of the fight against inflation. There are some people who are making a tremendous amount of money out of this combating of inflation, because they can invest their money at tremendously high rates of interest, whereas there are others again who have to pay these high rates of interest. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to the effect that we should hear more about this when the Budget is introduced, and that that rebate will be granted, that the rates of interest for the average farmer will be reduced. We cannot argue away the fact that the depopulation of the platteland is to-day one of the gravest problems facing South Africa. Nor is there any doubt that the fact that this is what is happening in agriculture is the principle factor giving rise to that. Hon. members need not listen to us; they can ignore us, but here I once more have an article which appeared in Die Byvoegsel of Die Burger, written by a Mr. Hannes Malan, a son of the late Dr. Malan, on the depopulation of the platteland. He quotes Mr. Theo Gerdiner, as well as Mr. Frans Conradie, M.E.C. of the Cape, and he also quotes Dr. Hupkes. He says the following—

It is in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Finance to change this situation. He can offer these people a future. He can give them more confidence in the future of agriculture; he can give them a little hope for the future, in spite of the fact that it is so tremendously dry, but then it must be done now; and unless he does so now, I am afraid that the difficulties will continue to increase. I am also convinced that South Africa cannot afford to lose these people from the platteland in increasing numbers. Hon. members must not tell me that absolutely nothing can be done and that it is a world-wide phenomenon. Mr. Frans Conradie, M.E.C. of the Cape, said as recently as last year that something must be done about it, and that we can reverse the situation. But it cannot be reversed unless the basic industry being practised in the platteland, agriculture, can afford those people a means of subsistence.

We said these things to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture last week, but he ignored them completely. He did not even reply to the hon. member for Colesberg, whom I honestly believe was speaking on behalf of the farmers of South Africa. The only matter to which the Minister of Agriculture gave attention last week, was the veld reclamation scheme in regard to which he said that he was going to expand it on a broader scale and that he was going to include more districts. That is precisely what the United Party has been saying for three years already. But now I want to say to the hon. the Minister and to his Deputy that that scheme will not work either unless it is made more profitable for the farmer to participate in it. Remember my words, because in two years’ time you will come forward again and state that you offered this to the farmers of the country, but they had withdrawn. Sir, I do not blame them for withdrawing, because as it is being applied at present, it is simply not profitable for the most farmers to participate in it. The Minister of Agriculture told us last week that he could not guarantee the price of agricultural products on a basis of production costs plus, because as soon as one gave that guarantee a farmer could simply produce anything and the State would be responsible for seeing to it that the farmer received a decent price. What member on this side of the House made such a ridiculous statement? Surely the hon. members know that there are only certain products which fall under the Marketing Act, and hon. members ought to know that there are only certain products which are known as staple foods. Any farmer who tries to cultivate a new product does so at his own risk. But we were not pleading here for those farmers who were still going to produce a new product; we were only pleading for those people who were busy producing at the moment. I want to repeat that statement: Unless we are able to do this, we can forget about it, because there is no reason to think that this Government is doing something to reduce production costs. But, the hon. the Minister adds, we are going to help the people who are in difficulties. That is precisely what the United Party said. We did not ask him to help anyone. Have we not previously pleaded to the effect that if there are certain sectors who are in difficulties, he must support them? Have we not previously told him that if it is necessary to apply food subsidies to more products in order to bolster those prices, he should do so? And in his speech the Minister said just that. But why are the hon. members on the opposite side disregarding the situation which is developing as a result of the increasing production costs and decreasing prices? They do not say a single word about it, but the Deputy Minister attended the Transvaal congress of the S.A. Agricultural Union last year, and said the following—

So concerned was he about the situation. And then he said the following were the problems being experienced by farmers—

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister right now what they have done about it up to the present. There is nothing tangible. He said that one of the problems was the high rates of interest, and the next was the high land prices and also the high production costs. What have they done about them? He also mentioned the low prices for their products, but what have they done about it? But if the United Party mentions the same problems, as we have been doing for the past four or five years and more, it is said that we are asking for manna from heaven. But when the Deputy stands up at a congress, and he knows that he must at least be straightforward and honest with the farmers, then he is prepared to say to them what their problems are. Last Friday in this debate, when we mentioned the increasing production costs, there was a feeling of disregard for that problem on the part of those hon. members. The hon. the Minister came forward with non-essentials, yes, such as asking us whether we were prepared to compel the farmers to apply soil conservation. He asked whether the Opposition would support him when they compel the farmers to do so. But the Minister wants to make it compulsory in a time when he is aware that the soil is not deteriorating as a result of poor farming methods. It has in fact deteriorated, but as a result of poor climatic conditions and low producer’s prices. Our attitude on this side is that when farmers receive a reasonable price for their produce, they will not deliberately allow the soil to deteriorate. We realize that first things must come first. Secondly, we realize on this side of the House that the backlog as far as erosion prevention is concerned, is so great that the individual farmer is not financially able to make up that backlog. Only when the State is prepared to make larger contributions, and help the farmer by means of decreased production costs or better prices, will the farmer be able to apply better conservation methods, and then only can he be compelled to do so. We do not want the soil to deteriorate any further. As soon as the soil has been rehabilitated once and for all, then sound soil conservation principles can be applied. There is undoubtedly great advantage attached to the application of the correct soil conservation methods, but it also costs a great deal of money, particularly where the veld has been trampled and where washaways have taken place, in order to rehabilitate it. The State must realize this, and if the legislation which the Government has in mind takes into account the practical conditions outside and the duty of the State, then we can support that legislation. But we shall wait until that legislation appears, and then we will ourselves decide what attitude we ought to adopt. Sir, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance, and particularly his Deputy, to support me in the plea which I am making here this afternoon for the reduction of rates of interest and, what is even better, for the granting of a subsidy of at least 2 per cent on their mortgage liabilities, with retrospective effect from the beginning of 1966. If the hon. the Deputy Minister supports me in this matter, then I think we will be able to get somewhere because we will then not only be doing what is correct but I feel that we will also be doing something which would be appreciated by the farmers of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I just want to straighten out one point that was mentioned by the hon. member for Newton Park in regard to the congress last year. At the congress I said that there were several factors which were responsible for the farmers’ margin of profit becoming smaller, i.e. rates of interest that had become higher—this is no secret; everybody knows it—and production costs which had increased. On that occasion I mentioned what the Government was doing in order to keep production costs low in certain departments. For instance, I can mention a subsidy of R15 million on fertilizer, fence posts, corrugated iron, cement, building material, etc.; there is price control over the things farmers use, but the rising cost of labour is beyond the control of the Government. The solution I suggested, was this (and these are the words I used): Where a farmer was satisfied with 15 bags per morgen, he should now aim at 20 bags per morgen. Mr. Speaker, let us admit that the position of our agriculturists to-day is such that they are fighting with their backs to the wall. They are finding themselves in financial difficulties, not because the Government is to blame. Hon. members should kindly refrain from trying to make political capital out of this disaster which has hit our country. Owing to weather conditions our agriculturists have been forced to their knees, and hon. members must not try to derive personal gain from this situation. The farmers are no longer falling for this type of thing.

See how the United Party looks after the drought hit them.

I believe that the hon. member for Newton Park is sincere. It was disappointing to me to see that five days were devoted to a discussion on Bantu affairs in a no-confidence debate, and that up to now this debate has not really got under way. An amendment was introduced here yesterday and it was only after sunset that agriculture was dragged into this debate, but look at what has happened? We are dealing here with a grave matter, but an hon. member on that side is making jokes about tape-recorders and is making all sorts of negative proposals while our farmers are finding themselves in difficulties as a result of the drought. Do hon. members on that side not understand what is happening in our country? Why are they making jokes about these things? It is unnecessary to make references here to something that happened three to four months ago in connection with the hon. members for Kempton Park and Pretoria (District). This was done by the hon. member for Newton Park, who is the chairman of the United Party’s agriculture group, a person to whom I should like to have said: Let us tackle this problem. This is not a political matter; we are dealing here with the bread and butter of the person who has to make his living out of agriculture. But the hon. member would chip in with such nonsense. I do not want to make any further reference to it. Surely, I am not unreasonable in saying that we have a large number of agriculturists here who are yearning for the opportunity to state their views as far as agriculture is concerned. They are not getting that opportunity in this House. For five days on end Bantu affairs are discussed here, time and again and year after year. The nation has decided that it wants separate development, and why should our time be wasted on that? When his motion was being discussed here last week, the hon. member for Newton Park said that he believed that demand and supply had nothing to do with each other. In other words, we might as well produce to our heart’s content; it is the Government’s responsibility to sell the surplusses. Today he said “certain products”. Let us take products in regard to which we are in difficulties at present. Take butter. Butter comes under the Dairy Board. We are saddled with a surplus of two million pounds of butter. What must we do with it? That butter is in cold storage; the world does not want to buy it; every country has enough for itself. New Zealand can sell butter at a much lower price than our producers are getting for it. What are we to do? Must we tell the farmers: “Go on producing; we shall see to it that you get a market for your butter?” When I addressed that congress, we were experiencing a surplus. That was in August. Every farmer always hopes that things will be better in the next year, just as the diamond-digger believes that he will pick up a large diamond next year. At that stage I believed that our country would be blessed with good rains this year and that we would produce more than 100 million bags of mealies, and it was in that spirit that I sounded a warning and said: “Do not expect us to be able to do what the hon. member for Newton Park said, i.e. that we need not relate demand and supply to each other.” The past year’s mealie crop was subsidized out of the taxpayers’ pocket to an amount of R32 million. The hon. member says that he assumes that I was honest when I addressed the congress. It pleases me to think that at some stage or other of my life I have been honest! At that moment I felt that we should not deceive the farmers; that we should tell them that we could not allow them to produce freely. Sir, our techniques have changed. The hon. member says that we are doing nothing. The Vote of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services alone was R31 million. This is not State aid; this is technical aid for the purpose of providing farmers with the best methods; to teach them how to use fertilizer, how to plant, how to plough and how to combat reeds. All these things must be done in accordance with the most modern methods. Sir, year before last we had a mealie crop of 109 million bags. What can we expect in the future? I must be optimistic since I am a farmer, and I am telling you, Sir, that the day will come when this country will quite easily produce 200 million bags of mealies.

By that time you and I will be centenarians.

We can argue as much as we please, but if it does not rain one will achieve nothing, no matter what methods one employs. But I am asking the hon. member whether he has a practical solution for the problems he mentioned here? He says that we are doing too little, that we are virtually doing nothing. I shall touch upon a few other points presently, but before I come to them, I wish to put this question to the hon. member: In view of the fact that these unpleasant conditions prevail in the agricultural industry in view of the fact that he knows that the agricultural industry is struggling—what is more, it is not pleasant to-day to be Deputy Minister of Agriculture when it does not rain, for then it is always an uphill struggle—is it necessary to rub salt into the wounds once again and in addition to chase away the young man who is prepared to make agriculture his career? The agricultural industry offers wonderful opportunities. Within the next 32 years we shall have to feed 40 million people in this country, and by that time the hon. member and I will still be alive, I hope. We cannot afford to chase away from the farms those persons whose ideal it is to till the soil. After all, hon. members should also give a little thought, every now and then, to the achievements of our farmers. In 1960 we were the seventh greatest producer of mealies; in 1967 we were the third greatest producer in the world. As regards sheep, we were the fifth greatest producer in 1966, and we were the fifth greatest producer of wool, and so I could continue to tell you, Sir, what position we occupy in other spheres. We occupy a prominent position amongst the foremost nations of the world. I want to read out to you, Sir, what the Americans have to say about us in the American Commodity Year Book—

This is what the Americans are saying about our agriculturists. The United Party should at least begin to admit at some time or other that we have a fine group of farmers in this country. In spite of all these problems they still succeed in doing well.

It is the Government which is rotten.

Mr. Speaker, since the United Party’s amendment states that we are doing nothing for agriculture, I should like to make a statement on behalf of the hon. the Minister who, unfortunately, cannot be here to-day. Owing to the drought he has to appear somewhere else to-day. The statement reads as follows (translation)—

It is a pleasure to me to be able to read such a statement and also to be able to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance. However, if I had to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance for everything he has done, it would take me a very long time, and besides, I am not in the habit of praising a person in his presence. However, I want to mention to you a few instances in regard to which I take off my hat to his Department. Firstly, I am thinking of the assistance farmers were granted in regard to exports under devaluation conditions. Sir, you have probably read about the extensive assistance and financial aid those farmers are receiving. I agree with the hon. member for Newton Park that a person who has to pay a commercial bank rate of interest is paying a very high rate of interest. However, these are things the hon. the Minister will deal with. You should not forget, however, that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure charges 5 per cent interest. Where does it come from? It is a subsidized rate of interest. How much money has been paid over to that Department over the past 16 months? An amount of R14.1 million has been paid over to the Department for the purchase of land—remember that this is at 5 per cent interest. You will now say that very few farmers are being assisted. 1,300 applications were refused, but 693 persons were granted assistance. Many of the applications submitted to the Department, are cases of farmers who are creditworthy at the Land Bank or the commercial bank, but who go for the 5 per cent rate of interest.

An amount of R1 million has been allocated in respect of soil conservation works. 550 farmers were assisted, whereas 30 were not assisted.

Five per cent.

No, it is not even five. It is less than that. In regard to water works 403 farmers received assistance to the value of R1.4 million, whereas 107 were not assisted. That was at 5 per cent interest. In respect of the purchase of implements, farmers were assisted to an amount of R291,000. In respect of stock the assistance amounted to R276,000, and in respect of the payment of debts—I want the hon. member for Newton Park to listen attentively—farmers received assistance to the value of R8.6 million at 5 per cent interest.

I should like to return to the question of producing without having regard to the marketing aspect. The hon. member for Newton Park says that the demand and the supply have nothing to do with each other. [Interjections.] Surely, you did say so in your private motion.

No. Why did you not get hold of the speech?

Order! Both members must address the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, certain Opposition members have referred to a quota system before. On 4th February, the hottest day in Johannesburg, Pretoria and the Witwatersrand for the past 50 years, a surplus of 24,000 gallons of milk was produced in Johannesburg alone, in the midst of the heat-wave and the terrible drought. But no Opposition member has come forward with a suggestion as to what would constitute a good scheme. They merely criticize and then resume their seats. What does this lead to? With higher production costs—and I admit that the production cost is rising—we have more products that have to be sold. Do you want a quota system? If you could give us an affirmative or negative reply to that, we could discuss this question. For the time being I just want to say that there are many commodities in respect of which we cannot introduce a quota system. Must we tell the farmer that, because his production has on an average been 5,000 bags per year over the past five years, his quota must now be 5,000 bags? Should it be the case that his total crop during a year of drought amounted to 500 bags, he would only be left with one way of rehabilitating himself, and that would be to have a crop of 10,000 bags the next year. He must pay his own debts, but now he has a quota system.

Are you forgetting about world prices, or are you taking them into account? Take our citrus crop as an example. Sixteen million boxes must be exported. However, we are experiencing stiff competition from America, Israel and all other countries that are exporters of citrus fruit. Must we say that the citrus farmers are going bankrupt because they exported citrus this year at a price which almost amounted to a loss? One cannot forget about demand and supply. It is extremely important.

I admit that R80,000 is only sufficient to enable a farmer to start his farming operations to-day. It is not even possible for him to acquire all the aids he needs. Land prices have increased, but has any Opposition member ever suggested that land prices should be pegged, or ever asked himself what could be done about it? Should a farmer now be told that he may not sell his farm at more than R100 per morgen? Are members of the Opposition prepared to do that? Surely, this is free economy? If a farmer can obtain such a good price for his land, let us not begrudge him that. However, it is useless to rise here and to say that land prices are very high and then to sit down again. Hon. members of the Opposition must come forward with proposals. We are always giving thought to these problems, but in spite of that there is not one Opposition member who is assisting us in trying to find a solution.

Nor is there anybody on the other side who is of any assistance.

No, we do not criticize. Many farmers are staying on their farms to-day because the value of the land has increased and so has their creditworthiness. This is the case all over the world. If we have regard to land prices, R80,000 is little to start with. That is why an attempt is being made, with the aid of agricultural credit and generous assistance on the part of the Land Bank, to establish people in the agricultural industry and, as far as possible, to keep in that industry those who are already established. However, it is impossible to keep everybody in the agricultural industry. This is in conflict with world economy. The other day the hon. member for Newton Park said in his motion that we should kindly refrain from referring to efficiency. If we had to forget about efficiency and tell a farmer that he could produce as much as he pleased, the one neighbour would buy out the other, for one farmer farms more efficiently than the other. Our aim is to produce food, but we should also like to keep on the land the person who is making a success of agriculture.

Since you referred last week, and may perhaps do so once again in the course of this Session, to soil conservation and what we were doing about it, I want you to listen to what the Soil and Water Conservation Journal of America has to say about their own conditions. Then we must analyse our own conditions. The person in question wrote as follows—

The same applies to us. We are also going to have a duplication.

This person illustrated his point further by saying that they were applying wasteful exploitation. He has a different approach and asks where they are heading. What connection does this have with our own conditions in view of the fact that we have regions, particularly in the Karoo, where over the past five or six years they have had no rains at all or perhaps an inch or three? Now the Government is introducing assistance schemes for specific areas. The other day the hon. the Minister mentioned to you, Sir, that the withdrawal of stock in certain areas would be subsidized by a third. This is going to cost the State millions of rands. We cannot allow the Orange River with its silt to silt up the new dam project we have there. All these things are being done. Despite this you say that the Government is doing very little as regards the maintenance and the conservation of our soil. If you read through those reports you have received, you will have to rise at some stage or other during this Session and say that a great deal is being done towards protecting our soil.

But we are farming to-day with the idea that we must have the optimum. Where a morgen can support so many head of cattle, we keep the full number there. When we are farming we are not mindful of a possible drought; we simply want to take out the maximum. I grant those who live in the rural areas the same privileges as I do those who live in cities. If a person in Newton Park can switch on a light or an electric broom or an electric kettle, then I want the person in the rural areas to be able to do so as well. Uniformity must be brought about in this regard. Now it is being said that we should not have regard to efficiency.

You misunderstood me completely.

Well, then I suppose I did misunderstand you, and I am glad to hear it. Afford those who live in the rural areas the opportunity to live like that as well. I am now referring to ordinary farming business. Let us do a few calculations to see whether we can effect uniformity. I am not referring to drought conditions now. There are parts of our country where for the past 30 years there has never been less than half a crop, always more, and in those parts, with which I am conversant, some farmers have not even been able to recover their fertilizer costs this year. This is not the time, i.e. when farmers find themselves in financial difficulties, to discuss these things, but when conditions are normal once again, we must view these matters in this light, then we must take this into account. But when hon. members opposite jump up and say that the Government is doing nothing, I feel that it is my duty to say that we are doing all these things I mentioned here, but in addition to that there are certain things which the farmers themselves must do. Soil conservation is not the duty of the State alone, and more and more farmers are beginning to realize this, people who are saying, “I shall roll up my sleeves and undertake my own conservation works, for I want my child to farm on this farm just as I have done.” This attitude is becoming more and more prevalent. We must not merely look to the State; all of us must co-operate in order to attain these things.

We are all prepared to view these matters in this light. Hon. members must bear in mind that it is the policy of the National Government to bring about prosperity and calm in the agricultural industry, to grant the person who is prepared to work hard a living. At present the industrial sector, the share market, I can almost say the rest of the country, is making money and money is flowing freely, but the agriculturist is not making money. This Government is thoroughly aware of that. This is one sector of our population which, owing to drought conditions and other circumstances beyond our control, does not participate in that prosperity.

A moment ago the hon. member for Newton Park referred here to the depopulation of the rural areas. That is the case. But on the other hand I can refer to speeches made by those hon. members about consolidation, the enlarging of small units. Well, if we do enlarge small units, somebody has to make way.

To me that appears to be the only solution.

The depopulation of our rural areas is one of the phenomena which I personally find tremendously alarming, and I have said so in this hon. House before. As a nation or a people—call it what you please—we have close ties with the soil. We want to keep our feet on the ground, and that is where all this subdivision of land and plots had its origin. People do not want to bring up their children on the sixth or seventh floor of a block of flats; they want to have close ties with the soil, and that is why we feel so alarmed about this matter. But if we analyse everything we see and we accept that this is the way our nation wants to be. But circumstances are different; economic laws are different. The Government itself will do as much as it possibly can in order to keep that person on his land if he can make a success of his undertaking—sometimes under difficult circumstances, as is the case now, i.e. in 1969. Our policy is to effect stability, the orderly marketing of products, and also to give to the person who practises agriculture in a year when it rains and everything goes well, a share in the prosperity of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity of publicly congratulating the new hon. the Deputy Minister on his meteoric rise to this position of Deputy Minister after having sat in this House for such a short time. I want to do so now because we on this side believe the Deputy Minister’s heart is in the right place. If he is sincere, and I believe he is, when he says his aim is the stability of the country’s agriculture then I want to tell him he is going to have a very hard job indeed, because if there is one thing the farmers of this country have not had under this Nationalist Government, which has been in power for 21 years, it is stability in agriculture. Nonetheless, one detects a certain note of hope in what the Deputy Minister has said because at least we did not have the parrot cry from him this afternoon that we have had from other hon. members opposite for so many years, and that is: “Dit gaan goed met die landbou.” At least the Deputy Minister has admitted this afternoon that agriculture is in a very sorry plight indeed. Unfortunately I am disappointed in him from this point of view—he has not sought the true reasons but instead has fallen back on this old excuse of the drought.

I am going to deal this afternoon first with a particular subject and a particular section of agriculture which the Deputy Minister knows very well indeed. The present difficulties of that sector of agriculture are not due to drought and the Deputy Minister will know as well as I do that they are not due to drought. I am referring to the pineapple industry. I want to deal with it particularly because the Deputy Minister has cited here this afternoon that one of the things the Government has done for the farmers has been the assistance given to them under devaluation. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is not here …

No, I am here.

Oh, I am very glad the Minister is here. This question of assistance to the pineapple industry falls under two heads. Firstly, that of assistance to the industry to compensate for losses suffered because of British devaluation, a matter which falls under the control of the Minister of Economic Affairs, and secondly, general assistance to the industry, apart from the devaluation losses, which falls under the Minister of Agriculture.

Ever since the British devaluation towards the end of 1967, we have had a series of assurances from Ministers, we have had a series of soothing statements made by various Ministers that assistance will be given to exporters hit by devaluation. Among those has been the hon. the Minister of Finance himself, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, and even the previous Deputy Minister of Agriculture who now has been shunted sideways and made Deputy Minister of Transport.

It is not necessary for me to quote all that those various Ministers have said in this connection, I need make only one quotation and that is what the hon. the Minister of Agriculture said here on 20th May last year, as reported in Hansard (Vol. 24), Col. 5665—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked once again what the position is in regard to compensation for our exporters of produce, particularly canned fruit, which is being sold on overseas markets, particularly the British market. But statements in regard to this matter have been made on previous occasions. When the hon. the Minister of Finance announced some time ago that we were not going to devalue, he stated that those industries which could be prejudiced by devaluation would be assisted by the Government. This was subsequently repeated by the Minister of Economic Affairs, and I said the same thing.

That was the Minister of Agriculture. A little bit further on in the next column he said the following—

On 11th February, just a week or so ago, I put a question in this House to the Minister of Economic Affairs and I asked him if the producers of fresh pineapples for export were going to receive compensation for losses they had suffered as a result of devaluation, and I got the following reply—

I wonder if the hon. the Minister realizes what a callous reply he has given to that question? He said in effect to the producers of fresh pineapples for export: “You are too insignificant to worry about and therefore compensation for you is not justified.”

They got a higher price for the pineapples they delivered for canning.

I am talking about the producers of fresh pineapples who have been hit by devaluation, and the Minister said he was not going to compensate them.

What percentage do they export?

This has happened despite the promises given by various Ministers in the past.

The canners gave them a higher price because they received assistance from the Government.

I will come to the question of whether the canners have given them a higher price. I am now dealing with the question of fresh pineapples for export and the Minister said in reply to a question that, despite all its previous promises, the Government is not going to give the producers concerned any compensation at all, and the reason is that their production is too small.

No, you are wrong.

No, I am sorry, here it is. If the Minister says I am wrong then I will read the reply again.

What percentage of their pineapples do they export?

I will give the percentages later on, as well as the tonnage last year and how much it brought in in foreign exchange. It comes down to this. If one belongs to a big, powerful organization then under these rules one gets compensation. This is what it amounts to. We have the canners highly organized under their Canners Council who have got compensation, quite fairly and quite rightly; they should have got it. There is a body like the Deciduous Fruit Board, which is a large and powerful organization, and they too have received compensation.

Which they pay over to their farmers. That is the whole point.

This Minister was a Minister of Information and he now says they paid it over to their farmers. Well, I believe he has not kept up with the times because this matter is still under discussion. If the hon. gentleman wants to interject here then he should not expose his ignorance in such a way. As I say, the big organizations got compensation, but these people simply because their production is small, are told by the Minister of Economic Affairs that they are not going to get anything.

The hon. the Minister asked me about the percentage. Well, I am not interested in percentages. I am interested in human beings who are producing goods for export and they were promised by the Government that they would be paid compensation for devaluation losses. I do not care whether it is 0.5 per cent. They are still primary producers who were led to believe that they were going to get compensation, and yet this hon. gentleman tells this House that they are not going to get compensation. But their production is not so small either. Last year the export of fresh pineapples amounted to something like 4,000 cases which is about R400,000 for the grower, and if you have a R100,000 cost paid in South African currency—I am not talking about what is paid in sterling—then it is round about R½ million foreign exchange earned from that export. I say this is a direct violation of all the assurances given by the various Ministers in the past. I say further this is a shocking situation.

I hope very sincerely the Minister is going to pay heed to what I have had to say on this matter and that he will compensate these people. I hope the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, who knows the pineapple industry very well indeed, is going to use his influence and put right an injustice which will be done if these people do not receive compensation.

I think this is indicative of something else, it is indicative of how the outlook and the attitude of the party opposite have changed over the past 21 years since they first came into power. In 1948 this Government was put into power by the farmers, the little businessman and the workers of the country. In other words, they were the party of the small man. But to-day this is a big businessman’s Government. This is the Government of the rich man.

Yes, of Harry Oppenheimer as well.

Yes, that hon. member has just said: “Harry Oppenheimer is nou by ons”. That hon. member is quite right. We therefore have here a glaring example of a rich man’s government helping the big organizations while refusing to help the small ones. When I started my speech I said that there were two aspects to this problem of assistance to the pineapple producers. The second aspect of this problem concerns the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. The responsibility for compensation for devaluation losses in this regard falls under the Minister of Economic Affairs but other assistance to pinepapple growers, if there is to be any, falls directly under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said a little while ago by way of an interjection that the canners were being very well compensated for devaluation losses and that the producers were going to reap the benefit of this. At this stage I just want to recapitulate to refresh hon. members’ memories about what has happened so far. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has said that he is not going to pay compensation for devaluation losses. In replying to a question put by me he said that he was also not going to pay compensation to producers of pineapples intended for canning. I want to quote from his reply to my question—

They could not be paid compensation because the canners were receiving compensation.

But the canners paid a higher price because of the assistance given them.

I shall come to the question of whether the canners pay the higher price shortly. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has said that he is not going to compensate the producers of pineapples intended for canning. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture has said that it was not his function to compensate the producers of pineapples destined for the cannery. Now the canners are saying that they are not going to pass on the benefits of the compensation for devaluation received by them directly to the producers.

They pass on these benefits to the producers according to their negotiated price.

I shall come to negotiations in respect of prices shortly. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs will not pay these people compensation while the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has said that it is not his function to do so. At the same time the canners are saying that they are not going to pass on to the producer any compensation they have received for devaluation.

Yes, that is correct.

I hope the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is listening. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture has said that I am right when I say that the canners are refusing to pass on some of the compensation they received to the pineapple producers. Now where do the pineapple growers come into the picture? In February of last year the newly-formed Pineapple Growers Association sent a deputation to Cape Town to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I know of this because they invited me to attend their inaugural meeting in Peddie. They asked for three things. I know of this because I know that they were sent down to do this in the first place. They asked for compensation for the growers of fresh pineapples who were going to suffer devaluation losses. In the second place they asked for compensation to be paid to the grower of pineapples intended for canning in those cases where the devaluation losses were not absorbed by the canners. But over and above this, and this is the question I want to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, they asked for general assistance to the growers, retrospective for approximately a year, because the growers were making no profits or were in fact making losses. As far as I am aware the growers have had no assistance whatever in terms of any of these three requests they put to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has been making interjections about prices. My information is that two of the biggest canners are going to Day R20 per ton for grade I pineapples for the coming season—that is, delivered at the factory. Let us compare this figure of R20 per ton in relation to the growers’ cost. In September, 1968, the estimated cost of production in the pineapple lands was estimated at between R16 and R17 per ton by the growers themselves. Added to this were other items which would not fall under cost of production estimates of perhaps all growers. They might have had managers on their farms; there might have been building repairs and so on which would not have fallen under the cost estimates. This must be added to the price of R16 to R17 per ton in the field. At just about the same time the marketing council made a survey of the whole of the Eastern Cape pineapple production. It is interesting to see that they arrived at a figure which was remarkably similar to that arrived at by the growers themselves, namely a figure of R16.17 per ton in the field. So there we have a figure of between R16 and R17 but at this stage we must still add on the other costs involved before it gets to the factory. First of all, we must add R2 per ton for transport, which has to be met by the farmer. In the case of one factory, I do not want to name the company, a levy is imposed which is, it is true, recoverable, but only over a period of years. If you add all this, the figure of the production cost comes very close indeed to the figures which the canners are offering the growers, namely R20 per ton.

That applies to first grade pineapples.

Yes, for first grade, as the hon. member for East London (City) has just said. Now I am coming to this aspect. Then the factory can also start docking hard. There might be bruising and they might dock for size if there is drought, and here is one instance where the drought might be affecting them. The factory might dock for diseases like black spots. They might dock for sunburn and if the grower is lucky part of it may be graded down to grade II where R2 to R3 less per ton is paid than for grade I. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that these growers are either making no money at all or are losing money. The result of this has been exactly the same as the growers warned the Government it would be, namely that the local production is going to decrease. It is decreasing due to this uncertainty which has arisen because of the long delay of the Government’s announcement of their plans for assistance to offset the devaluation losses of the industry.

What about export markets in other countries?

I am dealing with our own country. I am dealing with our own country and with the fact that the Government promised to help the growers out of their difficulties. A very large number of growers have not planted this spring and now it is too late for them to plant. The result of this is that, because of the fact that plants only begin to come into full bearing in about three years, these canneries will not be able to operate at full capacity due probably to a shortage of fruit. In this connection it is interesting to see—I understand, although I am not sure, with the exception of one cannery for certain reasons which I cannot mention at the moment—that most of them have border industry benefits because they are situated in the East London area. Here you have an example where the Government on the one hand encourages industries by means of border industry benefits, but on the other hand there is a lack of assistance to the industries which supply the factories. Thereby they are going to hamstring these factories because their output is going to be lower. Therefore their cost is going to be higher and they will be less able to compete on the overseas market. I may also mention, as we have had a long debate on Bantu Affairs last week, the Bantu employment factor in this industry. If you take the employees in the canning industry and the employees in the growing industry, and you add their dependants—the hon. gentlemen on that side are, after all, very keen on adding dependants when it comes to the working out of benefits of their Bantustan policy—then we arrive at a number of 50,000 Bantu who are dependent for their living on this industry. It goes even further than just the shortage due to the growers not planting pineapples, because these people are not fertilizing properly either. I can remember that the hon. the Deputy Minister said in a speech in this House last year that they could achieve magnificent results by proper fertilization practices. I agree with the hon. the Minister, but the farmers are not fertilizing properly because their financial position is such that they simply cannot afford to buy the fertilizer, not even at the present controlled prices. I want to illustrate by saying that there is one very large fertilizer firm, one of the big firms in the country, which reports that the sales of fertilizers have dropped by some R24,000 in the past 12 months. Hon. members opposite must not tell me that they can get loans for fertilizers; of course they can get it, but what these people need is medium term credit over a three-year period—that is, the period it takes for the new pineapple plants to come into production. This is one of the things which I understand their local agricultural union had asked for when they gave evidence before the Marais Commission. Over and above all this, when it comes to marketing, the pineapple industry has to compete with imports coming in from Swaziland, which particularly affect the Zululand zone. I say this is a very sorry state of affairs indeed in an industry which can be put back onto its feet—particularly taking into account the indications that the production in Hawaii, which is one of the main competitors of this country, may tail off some stage in the future. I hope the hon. Minister of Agriculture is going to take the first opportunity to give this industry assistance on its own merits, as is done to many other sectors of the agriculture. Before I leave the question of pineapples, I want to appeal once again to the hon. the Minister for Economic Affairs to review his refusal to offset the losses due to devaluation, which were suffered by the producers of fresh fruit.

I just want to draw the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention to the extremely serious position of the whole of the Eastern Cape, from a drought point of view. I welcome the statement he has made this afternoon. Although I sit on this side of the House, I want to say to him that that will be of great value in assisting the co-operatives to be able to finance the purchase of feed by their members. It is necessary that this should be done, because speculation is taking place in this country in the buying up of feed which could be used in a time of drought. I want to bring to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention that we welcome the extension of the veld reclamation scheme in the Karoo. Heaven knows, those people who were caught by rising production costs and low wool prices have had enough troubles. The whole of the Eastern Cape is caught by drought. If it rains now, the people in the sweet veld areas and the people in the Karoo at least have some hope for the winter. If it rains now in the high-lying areas of the Eastern Cape—there are many of these mountainous areas where the altitude differs from 5,000 feet to 7,000 feet—these people are only going to get water, which they need desperately, for their stock. At this stage of the year it is not going to bring them grazing to see them through the winter. The growing season is short. It is a season of about four months duration, namely from October to January. There will be a little bit of growth now, but this is the sixth year that those high-lying areas of the Eastern Cape have not had their normal spring rains, which are necessary for a growth flush. I want to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture through the hon. the Deputy Minister to give very serious attention to the plight of these people. For their breeding stock, their ewes and lambs, their cows and calves and their other breeding stock, they rely normally on winter feeding to see them through. This year, in cases where they have been able to plough, they have not been able to sow any winter feeding at all. I am not exaggerating. The hon. the Deputy Minister can go and get reports from his officials in Queenstown, for example the head of the Region and he will see that that is the position. They deserve very special treatment indeed from the Government.

There is just one further point I want to raise in connection with this veld reclamation scheme and in connection with subsidies. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why it is that no provision is made for the goat farmers of the country when it comes to subsidies and loans. The mohair industry in this country brings in considerable amounts of foreign exchange. You know too, Sir, that in recent years the Boer goats have gained standing in this country. It seems to me a complete anomaly that goats should be excluded and that these various provisions for loans and subsidies should only be applicable in the case of sheep and cattle. This is another thing which I think deserves the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Sir, there is one other matter in relation to the drought in the Eastern Cape that I want to touch on. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that there is considerable confusion in this regard. I have a letter here which I am quite prepared to show him. There is considerable confusion as regards the application of the loan and subsidy schemes. There is confusion amongst the local committees. As a result, Sir, there are people who will not be able to get any further loans until the latter part of 1969 or 1970. I hope that this too is a matter to which the hon. the Deputy Minister will give his personal attention. I am quite prepared to make this letter available to him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture on the performance he put up when he spoke this afternoon. It is a long time ago in my parliamentary career that I last heard a speech that testified to so much honesty and dedication as radiated from the speech made by the Deputy Minister. I think that the farmers will find him an agricultural leader of stature as he develops in this Department. I find it a pity, however, that I cannot say the same of the shadow Minister of Agriculture. I am afraid that the hon. member for Newton Park tried to make too much political capital out of a difficult situation, as the hon. the Deputy Minister rightly pointed out. He made too few positive suggestions. The central idea expressed by both members on that side of the House who spoke about agriculture, namely the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for Albany, was that agriculture was experiencing difficulties because we have a bad government in charge of agriculture at present. Let us assume that both statements are true, namely that agriculture is experiencing difficulties and that we have a bad government in charge of agriculture. If that is the case then I want to say that the whole of the Western world is going to rack and ruin, because then every modern country in the world has a rotten government. I want to quote to you what S. J. du Plessis said in Agrekon of October, 1968. Among others he quoted the writer Sundquist, who said that in 1964 there were 40 per cent fewer farms in the United States than there had been in 1949. Du Plessis also quotes a certain R. G. Lewis, who had the following to say in regard to the United States:

Du Plessis further quotes a Canadian report, which states in regard to that country:

In the same article Du Plessis quotes similar alarming figures in regard to Great Britain, Holland and France. I want to suggest that if we accept that there is a rotten government in every Western country in which agriculture is experiencing difficulties at present, then there is not one good Government in the whole of the Western world. That makes the supposition of hon. members on that side look very ridiculous.

I want to go further. The hon. member for Newton Park said that we were living in times of increasing production costs and decreasing prices. But this Government is not doing badly at all as far as this matter is concerned. If we take the basic figure for the years 1947-’48 and 1949-’50 as 100, the figure for all agricultural products for 1958-’59 is 142, and the figure increased to 174 in 1967-’68. The figure for all agricultural requirements over the same period was excellent. In 1958-’59 the figure was 148, and in 1967-’68 it was 172. The increase was therefore a smaller one than the increase in agricultural products.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.

When addressing a few complimentary words to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture just before the debate was adjourned yesterday, I heard cutting remarks from the Opposition front benches to the effect that I could not address the same compliments to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I now want to add another dissillusionment to all the disillusionments suffered by the Opposition in recent times, and that is the following: When we had a record maize crop the year before last and the price of maize was a very contentious matter, a very large meeting was convened at Kroonstad under the auspices of the Free State Agricultural Union in order to discuss this matter with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Literally hundreds of maize farmers turned up and attended the meeting, at which there was a highly emotional atmosphere. After the Minister of Agriculture had made a very frank statement on the whole matter, those maize farmers who were present and who had come to agitate for a higher price for maize adopted a unanimous motion of confidence in the present Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, just before the debate was adjourned last night I showed how most of the Western countries are experiencing enormous problems with their agriculture, also the two richest agricultural countries in the world, i.e. the United States of America and Canada. The authority I quoted yesterday evening, came to the conclusion that one of the main causes of their problems was the injudicious subdivision of land. I want to suggest that it is one of the major causes of the agricultural problems in this country as well, and I trust that we shall as soon as possible get a comprehensive act dealing with this matter in the right way, and I want to express my thanks for the interim measures which have been taken in the Transvaal.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the Opposition painted a sombre picture of our agriculture. I concede that there are many serious problems. I have already done so, but there are also splendid rays of light. Take for example the figure in respect of our net agricultural revenue. In the year 1959-’60 it was only R310 million; in the year 1967-’68 it was R666.2 million. I want to mention another figure, that in respect of maize production in the north-western Free State over a period of five years. In the years 1954-’55 to 1958-’59 the average production per morgen was only 9.78 bags. In the years 1963-’64 to 1967-’68 the production increased to 13.98 bags per morgen. This is certainly the result of improved agricultural methods being applied by the farmers, but it is most definitely also attributable to the excellent information and research services provided by our agricultural Departments.

The real reason why I got up to-day was to say a few words to this House in connection with the maize industry, which is experiencing a major crisis at the moment.

But the farmers are satisfied with the Minister!

I think I have already dealt with that effectively. Especially in the north-western Free State and in the northern Free State, the parts that I know well, the situation is extremely poor this year, solely as a result of the fact that in spite of a good Government and a good Minister of Agriculture the last two maize seasons have been ruinous. The point has now been reached where even strongly-placed crop farmers are finding themselves in serious financial difficulties. With respect, I want to say that ordinary Government financing and the existing ceilings are inadequate for this area. A strong farmer who has reached his limit at the commercial bank and who then has to turn to the Government for assistance cannot manage on the present ceiling of R4,000 for a production loan. On behalf of my constituents I am very grateful for the statement made here by the hon. the Deputy Minister, but my interpretation of this statement is that it does not go far enough, because it does not cover the cases of cooperatives having to grant new advances for production, especially to the category of farmer I mentioned a moment ago. I want to plead for the extension of this aid so that co-operatives may be able to obtain ample funds to provide production credit to crop farmers for the new season. I would appreciate it if my request could be considered and if a decision could be given soon, because many farmers will be in need of credit with the new wheat season being at hand.

Then I want to plead with the hon. the Minister of Finance that extensive relaxation of credit control at the commercial banks for agriculture should also be considered. In addition I want to plead for the abolition, within reasonable limits, of restrictive legislation in respect of participation bonds. This type of financing is a very important form of financing of small farmers in many parts of the country, and the existing legislation has a crippling effect in this regard.

Then I want to ask that the periodic large maize surpluses should carry much less weight in the determination of the price of maize in the future.

In other words, supply and demand does not count.

The hon. member must just listen, then he will find out what my standpoint is. It is of course easy to be wise after the event, but the past four years have taught us a lesson in this regard. In 1966 we had to import maize on a small scale. In 1967 we had a record year; in 1968 we had a mediocre year, and in 1969 we had an extremely poor year. I am speaking under correction, but I think in the 21 years this Government has been in power, we have only had one record maize crop which really created export problems. Furthermore there is the additional argument that experts calculate that we shall have 6.000 million mouths to feed in the world by the year 2000, and in order to feed them we will have to increase wheat production by 100 per cent and animal production by 200 per cent. In other words, very soon the accent will no longer fall on surpluses in this country and in the world. I want to plead that the Government should absorb and spread out the shock of the odd surpluses which there may still be, by making advances to the Stabilization Fund from time to time at a reasonable rate of interest.

Then I want to be so bold to-day as to ask, very respectfully, for a reasonable increase in the price of maize this year. I am asking for this in the knowledge that the Government also has to do justice to the consumer. Of course, this problem can be solved by means of larger consumer subsidization. Sir, I have also obtained the opinion of an economist; I do not know whether he is right; I give his opinion in good faith as I received it from him. His opinion is that if maize carries a weight of two in the determination of the cost-of-living index, the consumer price index will rise by only 0.2 if a 10 per cent increase is granted in the price of maize. He also concedes that a small indirect increase may follow. I want to express the opinion that this will not be too heavy a burden on the consumers.

In conclusion I respectfully and urgently want to ask that the Marais Commission bring out an urgent interim report on crop farming and make a specific finding on the evidence submitted to them in regard to the provision of short-term credit for agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for entering the debate on agricultural matters. I want to speak particularly about the citrus industry. I do this, despite the fact that I am an urban representative, because I have been a citrus farmer for some 23 years. I am also a member of the local co-operative pack house. I can therefore claim some knowledge of the citrus industry.

Let us examine the industry to-day. We find that this industry earns between R25 and R30 million per annum. It is significant to note that over a three-year period, earning R26 million per annum, the amount that eventually goes to the grower is only R1,621,000. Out of that he has to cover his agricultural costs and other expenses. This industry has had a proud record. It has been self-supporting, and more self-supporting than many of our agricultural industries, except in 1931 and during the war years. It has the proud record of climbing by way of production from the tenth largest citrus industry in the world in 1960 to approximately the ninth in the world to-day. There has, therefore, been progress, but it is somewhat questionable whether this sort of progress is worth-while considering the position the industry finds itself in to-day. The first question I want to pose is this: What has the industry done for itself? I think it is acknowledged on all sides that it is an efficient industry. It is well-managed and when the industry ran into trouble in 1960 it employed world-renowned consultants and the whole industry was overhauled after an inquiry lasting for a full year. The result was the admiration of all the other citrus industries in the world. They tried to find out what the policy was and what had been done.

It is also said that the industry should get a better price for its products and I think it can be said that there has been a very aggressive sales policy and that the best price that can be obtained has been obtained, particularly overseas. The criticism is sometimes made, and it has been made by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, and the question why the citrus farmers do not increase their market is asked. It can be said that the market has almost reached saturation point. Let us look at the figures for a moment. In 1951 there were 6,210,000 half-cases of citrus fruit sent overseas to five countries. By 1966 there were 18,211,000 half-cases sent to 16 countries. I think that is a magnificent achievement in opening up new markets and obtaining outlets for the products. It is also said that too high a price is being paid for farms, but when you examine the position in the citrus industry, you find that these farms have been well held. Most of them have been held for years. I am the fourth owner of the farm on which I farm, including the Voortrekker. The farms, therefore, do not change hands quickly and readily, but they are well held. I make this point to show that these farms, in the main, were not acquired at expensive prices. If you talk to a citrus farmer to-day, he will tell you that he could not make citrus pay, even if he had inherited the farm free of debt. This brings the industry to the cross roads.

I particularize by referring to the area of which I have a knowledge. The pack house there has 180 members who farm with citrus. Obviously it is not all the citrus farmers in the area, but I would say that 80 per cent of these citrus farmers in the area belong to the pack house. At the moment only six of that 180 members can be said to be full-time citrus farmers. Where have the others gone? The others have gone to take employment in the towns and on the platinum mines which are nearby. Fortunately the mines are booming and they have been absorbed into the platinum industry, placing their farms on a caretaker basis. When we inquire at the Land Bank about loans made to citrus farmers—obviously I cannot get absolute details of individuals, because that would not be right—we find that, by and large, the farms are bonded beyond their true value. I must say that I give full credit to the Land Bank and the manner in which they have dealt with the farmers and their difficulties. The point I want to make, to emphasize the seriousness of the situation, is that many of these properties with Land Bank and other loans are bonded beyond their true value. Let us look at the trading results. In 1950, if you disposed of 30 lbs. of fruit, taking the overseas and local market, you would expect to get 28.17 cents back. By 1960 you were losing 1.6 cents on the same amount of fruit. It is, therefore, almost not worth while. People hang on, spending the same amount of money and hoping that this is going to come right. One has to realize what the citrus industry is up against. Other countries subsidize their citrus industries very heavily. In Israel, during the 1966-’67 season assistance was given to the citrus industry to the extent of R4 million. In February, 1967, there was a devaluation of 18.7 per cent in Brazil and later a further devaluation of 15.7 per cent. In America, half the cost of Florida’s citrus industry’s advertising overseas is paid by the Department of Agriculture. In Australia the citrus industry is subsidized and in Italy the industry is subsidized to the extent of R400,000 for advertising. In a little country like Sicily half a million rand was allocated towards promotion and finding new markets. We then have the added difficulty of the possible disappearance of the British market if she should join the Common Market. You therefore have to look to see what the remedy is. You cannot extend your markets to any great extent, although there is a possibility of exporting to America in the off-season and also the possibility of exporting to Japan. There is some hope for this, but that will not put the citrus industry right.

We have got to examine where the trouble lies, and the trouble really lies in rising costs. Most of the costs in the citrus industry are controlled by the state. The state controls a large percentage of the oncosts in the distribution and marketing of fruit, namely the railage to ports, pre-cooling and handling, the charges at ports, the wharfage and ocean freight. I wish to give some figures now, comparing what it cost per half-case in 1947 with what it cost in 1966. In 1947 these charges absorbed 28.435 cents per half-case, and by 1966 the same items absorbed 84.6 cents per half-case, which is an increase over that period of 197.5 per cent. If one takes specific items one finds the position is far worse. For instance, for pre-cooling in 1947 it was .098 cents per half-case and in 1966 it was 5.37 cents, a percentage increase that amounts to thousands. Handling is the same. In 1947 it was .088 cents and in 1966 it was 5.89 cents. These seem small items but when they are added up with the thousands and millions of cases that go away of course they amount to globular sums. That is the part of the oncost charges which the state controls. If we look at the overseas distribution we find in 1947 it was 15.175 cents per half-case and in 1966 it was 36.65 cents, an increase of 141 per cent, 50 per cent less than the increase of the Government charges. Within the organization itself the expenses it was responsible for and which it could control entirely increased only by 114 per cent.

When we go to the other section of the costs, namely the grower’s costs, we find in 1947 his cost was 50.3 cents per unit whilst in 1966 it had risen to 85 cents, an increase of 68.9 per cent. It is not a great deal when you consider the position, and I think it can be said quite rightly that the industry itself has controlled its cost far better than the Government has controlled the cost as affecting the industry. The Government has been warned from time to time; they have been warned that if it increased these costs it would bring disaster to the citrus industry, particularly in regard to the freight rate, which, of course, is a matter of agreement which the Government negotiates and is one of the biggest items as far as citrus is concerned which is sent overseas. What happens is this. There is a general rate applying to fruit, and although citrus is shipped in the “cheap” season, in the winter months, it pays a general rate and is actually subsidizing the freight for other fruit growers. I have no complaint because other fruit growers might get a lower rate, but why should the citrus grower be penalized? It has been shown they can get freight outside of the conference lines very much cheaper than the conference lines can give you to-day. It is an established fact, and I see the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with me, that they can get it cheaper outside of the conference lines. I believe the agreement can be altered if circumstances which were not foreseen at the time of making the agreement, arise. Well, I believe such circumstances have arisen because the position is so parlous in this industry that the Government could easily go to the conference lines and say, “In this respect we must have a review”. But nothing is done.

These representations that I am making now have been made to the Government two years ago, and except for giving R½ million for an advertising campaign and another small matter, that industry has not been helped. We are almost at the commencement of another citrus season and the people concerned see disaster waiting for them. On a previous occasion when this industry was in trouble, the Government of the day came to its assistance and gave assistance to the extent of nearly seven cents per unit by reducing the charges which I referred to under the control of the Government.

The assistance asked is almost 20 cents per carton of which nearly 13 cents would be a reduction in freight rates. It is urgent, it should be done, unless the Government wants the citrus industry to go to the wall in this country. If that is its desire, then it must continue what it is doing now, namely just sit and take no action at all. The growers themselves are doing something, they are using their imagination and their initiative, but in contrast the Government’s attitude appears to be the very reverse.

The Budget is not too far away and I hope these representations will not fall on deaf ears as they have fallen for the last two years. I cannot press this matter too strongly; these people face disaster, they face bankruptcy.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He devoted his entire speech to the citrus industry, I must admit that I do not have the knowledge of the industry at my disposal to enable me to furnish him with a full reply here, and that is why I am not going to try to do so. Nor is it my intention to state that the matter he presented here has no merit. I think the Government is aware of the problem and that it is sympathetic towards the problems being experienced by the citrus industry.

We want more than sympathy.

I am also under the impression that the conference shipping lines gave the Citrus Board a concession of R400,000 and that the Department of Finance approved a reasonably large amount in the form of devaluation assistance to the industry. I also understand that further discussions are still to be held next week. I do not want to argue with the hon. member. I want to say to him that in so far as he was putting a matter here which can still receive consideration I have no doubt whatsoever that it will in fact receive the necessary consideration in the right places. I can only discuss these matters in so far as they affect my Department. As far as the aspect of the discussions with the conference shipping lines is concerned, which are arranged from time to time for a period, we will certainly bear his remarks in this connection in mind.

I want to inform members on this side of the House that I am sorry I have to take up their time because I am aware of the fact that there are members who very much wanted to discuss further matters in regard to agriculture. However, I feel that I must rise to break a lance with the hon. member for Albany in regard to the speech he made yesterday afternoon. After I had listened to the hon. member I sat alone last night thinking: “Did the Government keep its word to the pineapple farmers? Did the Government act correctly and fairly towards them? Or did we act as the hon. member tried to prove we had acted yesterday afternoon? The hon. member stated that the Government only has time and only has assistance for large groups and that it does not take the needs of the smaller farmer into consideration. I want to say to the hon. member that I differ from him completely. I shall try to prove this. Yesterday afternoon the hon. member did not prove that statement or allegation—I almost wanted to call it that insinuation of his. This morning I shall try to prove that the Government kept its word to the pineapple farmers, and that it did in fact help the pineapple farmers. When devaluation took place the hon. the Minister of Finance made the following statement (I am reading only the part in question)—

That was the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Hon. members said yesterday afternoon—I did not try to verify this—that the Minister of Agriculture had on a specific occasion stated that the Government would accommodate the pineapple farmers in regard to devaluation losses.

No, I was talking about the exporters.

Yes, you stated that as a result of devaluation the exporters would be accommodated. Let us just rectify the basis of the matter. Last year 135,000 tons of pineapples were produced. Of that amount 4,000 tons were exported in the form of fresh produce. Now, in order to bring this background knowledge of ours completely up to date, I just want to read out to the House the prices which were received in respect of the exportation of fresh pineapples. I shall read the free on board prices. In 1964 2,228 tons were exported, and the price per ton, free on board was R112.37. In 1965, 1,829 tons were exported, and the price was R118.15. I would very much like the House to take note of the competitive prices which the pineapple farmers received for their fresh produce, which was sold in the nine principal urban areas of our country. In 1965 the price of this internally marketed produce was R66.78 per ton. In 1966 the free on board price for fresh export pineapples was R130.95. The internal price was R79.45. In 1967 the export price increased even further, and stood at R134.07. The internal price increased by a small amount. It was then R79.83. In 1968 there was a slight decrease in the export price. It decreased from R134 07 to R128.33 per ton. The internal price, expressed as a percentage, decreased to a far greater extent. It decreased from R79.83 to R67.97. Thus, for the pineapple farmer selling fresh pineapples, or who only sold a portion of his crop in that way—which is a very small portion, according to what I have just read—there was an even greater decrease in price in respect of his internally marketed pineapples than there was in respect of his overseas marketed pineapples.

What percentage of the drop in the internal market was due to exports from Swaziland? *

The hon. member is now mentioning factors which influenced marketing. Let us accept this now. Let us accept this for argument’s sake. I am not an expert in that field, but let us accept for argument’s sake that the internal price, which dropped considerably, was partly attributable to this factor, i.e. that pineapples were imported from Swaziland. But what was the position on the overseas market? The hon. member, who represents pineapple farmers, knows that pineapple prices in the world today are extremely competitive. The hon. member knows that they are planting pineapples in many of the developing countries, and that the quantity of pineapples offered on the overseas markets are increasing on a large scale. The competition being experienced by pineapple farmers from farmers in Malaya is very keen. If the hon. member wants to take market factors, demand factors and other supply factors into consideration. I must point out to him that half of this produce is being sent to the United Kingdom. The hon. member is also aware of the fact that in the United Kingdom there are stricter control measures in respect of their economy and in respect of the finances of the ordinary citizens of that country. There the decrease was only from R134 to R128.5. This decrease over there one can attribute almost exclusively to keener competition from the other producing countries.

Now I want to ask the following: Did the Government keep its word to the pineapple industry? I have read out what the hon. the Minister of Finance said. The pineapple prices are determined each year, as the hon. member knows, by negotiations between the canners and the producers. The Government approached the canners and said to them: “We ask you, if it is in any way possible, not to decrease your price to the producer, and we undertake to compensate you for all your losses which should arise as a result of devaluation.” Now who has received that money? I am now putting this question to the hon. member.

What did Langeberg do?

No, wait a minute.

They reduced the price by R2 per ton.

I am talking about the Government now. You are now accusing Langeberg, but yesterday you were accusing the Government.

The farmers received nothing.

Order! I cannot allow another speech from the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I am now addressing the hon. member, and in all earnest to the pineapple farmers. I want to point out that the Government gave an assurance, and that the Government honoured that assurance. R782,000 was paid out to the canners on the basis of this assurance which was given, namely: “Keep your prices to the producer as high as possible. We will compensate you”. According to what the hon. member quoted yesterday, and what I furnished to him in the House R6.86 per ton was paid. The canners had to submit accounts in respect of their sales schedules overseas, in respect of their payments to the producers, in respect of their actual costs, and in respect of their interest costs, i.e. what they had in fact paid. Not one single cent was calculated as a return for them on their capital. There was no profit whatsoever. The benefit of this payment was transferred to the producers. The compensation paid to the canners was fully and exclusively on the basis of the assurance which the Government gave them. They were asked to keep the pineapple farmers prices as high as possible, and they were given the assurance that the Government would compensate them for that. The hon. member can raise this matter again in the Budget debate, but it is my firm conviction this morning that the Government kept its word to the pineapple farmers, and that the Government honoured the undertaking it gave. The fact of the matter is that the pineapple farmer would have been worse off to the tune of R6.86 per ton if the Government had not rendered this assistance to them. The hon. member cannot deny this, and this, therefore, is my reply to him and to the pineapple farmers. I want to express the hope that the newspapers circulating in those areas will also state the matter in this way. I can just give the hon. member this additional piece of information, i.e. that a deputation of pineapple producers is coming to interview the Minister of Agriculture next week in order to discuss the problems of the pineapple industry further. There is not much more I can say about the canning industry. I do not think the hon. member succeeded in proving his case. In fact, I think he wanted to bring this House under the impression, an erroneous impression, that the Government was allegedly sympathetic towards the big industrial groups and not the farmers. I believe that I have given abundant proof to the effect that the Government has kept its word to the farmer as well, and that the farmer did in fact derive financial benefit in that the Government kept this promise it gave.

The farmers do not think so.

Now I just want to make a brief statement on bioscope prices, a matter which was raised by a number of hon. members here. Bioscope prices were put under control a number of years ago. Now it is easy to understand that bioscope prices can differ from one Province to another, because entertainment tax differs from one Province to another. The calculation of expenses in regard to bioscope prices are based on various things. There is, for example, the cost of imported films; the wages of cinematographic operators and other service staff, rentals for the premises municipal taxes and so on. To my mind therefore it is quite understandable that bioscope prices should differ from one Province to another, and even from one city to another. Hon. members will know why there is a difference between prices during the week and prices over the week-end. In my opinion this difference is aimed at achieving a more balanced capacity attendance. This year I have only been to bioscope once, in Sea Point. To my surprise I only paid 40 cents for the best tickets. Here therefore one has the other side of the picture again. Bioscope owners would like to attract people during the week as well.

You probably saw a Wild West film.

After all, it was an ordinary bioscope and the price I paid was the normal price for a week-day. If week-day prices are now going to be increased and those for the week-ends decreased, it could mean that bioscopes will stand empty during the week, while over the week-ends there will not be sufficient seats for everybody. That, I think, is the reason for the difference between the week-day price as opposed to the week-end price. Unequal attendance at bioscopes of course increases the unit costs, and these must be recovered. In any case, let me put the matter in this way, if bioscope prices were not controlled and prices were not calculated on the basis of actual costs it is possible that the cinemagoer would by this time have had to pay much higher prices than they are in fact paying.

Allow me now to refer briefly to the cost of living. It surprised me that some of the hon. members opposite stated in their speeches that we must not talk to them about percentages. We must not tell them about percentages and index figures because bus fares, for example, alone had increased by 40 per cent. This is an example they quoted. But where will we end up if one person states that he bought a watermelon along the road for so much, and another one said that a bus ticket now cost so much, etc.? Surely there is only one basis on which we can argue, and as far as that is concerned, the hon. member for Parktown and others will probably agree with me. There is only one basis, and that is the basis of a scientific calculation of the cost of living, as we are doing. Let us now form an opinion on the position in the light of this scientific calculation. How should we go to work here? In the first place. I would say we should compare our position with that in other countries. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has already stated that over the past ten years South Africa has occupied second position among all the countries in the world as far as that matter is concerned. Is that not a wonderful achievement? I cannot read out all the figures to you now. I do not have the time to do so. But let us consider the position in November. 1968. Even the cost-of-living index in the U.S.A. increased by 4.5 per cent. In many countries there were increases, greater increases than the increase of 2.7 per cent in South Africa. Where did this increase occur? Let us, in the first place, consider house rents, because if one wants to live, one must have a house. If we were to set the index figure for 1958 at 100, we find that by November, 1968, house rents had increased to 135.4. flat rents to 120.1, electricity and fuel to 125.2. while electrical appliances dropped to 95.5. The total as far as housing is concerned, stands at 130.2 if all components are taken into account. I concede that this increase was a little above normal because we stated that the cost of living over a period of 10 years had increased by 24 per cent. So this increase as far as accommodation is concerned, is a little above normal. For foodstuffs the figure was 128.5. Fresh vegetables is the item which increased by far the most. Fish increased to 139.2, meat to 139.7, fruit to 145, sugar and associated products to 147. But, as I have said, the average for all nutritional components is 128.5 as against 100 for 1958. As far as clothing is concerned, the figure for November, 1968 is 102.2 as against 100 for 1958, an increase therefore of 2.2 over a period of 10 years. All the components were taken into account, for example: women’s clothing, girls’ clothing, men’s clothing, boys’ clothing, babies’ clothing, material, knitting wool, manufacturing wages, etc.

What was the average increase for all these things?

I shall come to that in my summary. In addition there is transport, because people have to make use of transport to get to their work. In November, 1968, the index here stood at 123.6. Let me say something here about public transport. The hon. member opposite has stated that the bus tickets he now buys have now increased in price by 40 per cent. While I do not want to condone this, the fact of the matter remains this, that if fares were to be pegged—something which is not impossible—the question remains whether the public will then have the necessary services. Are buses going to run as the public want them? That is the sort of question we will then be faced with. The hon. member stated that he had to pay 40 per cent more for his bus ticket. But, as I have indicated, public transport in general increased to 121.3, i.e. an increase of little more than 2 per cent per year over this period of 10 years. What has increased a great deal is miscellaneous items. Alcoholic beverages, for example, stand at 145.1, medical services and requirements at 144.9, communication at 169.8 … I do not intend to suppress the figures. In respect of all miscellaneous services the average increase was 135.4. Therefore, if one takes all these things together, I just want to point out again to the House that the most important increase is to be found under these miscellaneous services. Servants wages, I may just add, increased to 150.2. If one adds all these things up, the increase up to November, 1968, was 124.9. I have said that this compares very well with the achievements in the rest of the world in respect of controlling the increase in the cost of living in their countries.

What happened in the case of our earnings? In factories, on a basic figure of 100 in 1958, the figure in 1966 was 147.3. The cost of living figure of 1966 was of course lower than that which I mentioned for 1968. It was 118.3, and we must therefore compare all these figures with 118.3. In factories the income increase in 1966 was to 147.3, in mining 144.3, and in the Central Government 141.2. All compared to the basic figure of 100 in 1958. Since the consumer’s price index, the cost of living, has once again increased by 3.4 per cent, but during this period the average annual wages of workers of the Central Government increased by 16.2 per cent and the salaries and wages of employees in private industry over that period, after 1966, increased by 5.5 per cent. I am not mentioning this so as to imply that we are indifferent to the needs of the man in the street, the man who earns a fixed salary, but in order to point out that comparatively speaking our people are still better off than they were, in spite of the increase in the cost of living. Of course this is also proved by the increase in the real per capita income. Every year this increased by approximately 2½ per cent, as hon. members who have studied the Estimates know.

Now I would like to react to what hon. members said here. I think three hon. members said this, and one hon. member from whom I did not expect a thing like this also said the same thing, i.e. “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer”. Now, is that true? Was there ever a time in the history of South Africa when the ordinary citizen possessed as many goods as he does to-day? I wonder, if I go into the houses of those hon. members and have the right to have a look around myself, how many radios, portable radios, and motor-car radios I will find there—from two to six per family.

But you will not find a T.V. set.

Yes, is this the only good argument the hon. member can produce? Sir, there is an increasing living standard and an increasing participation of the ordinary people in the facilities and the goods of life. Hon. members cannot get away from that; it is so, and I do not think that hon. members have in any way proved this allegation. All our standards of living are going up, including those of the less well-to-do people, including the non-Whites. They too are sharing to an ever increasing extent in the prosperity of the country and in the goods they can purchase from the salaries they are earning for the work they can do. What more can any man desire, any head of a family, than that he can get good work if he is capable? With the progress which we are experiencing in South Africa, every man in the country has this assurance that he can get good work. If he can do his work well then he can earn a good salary, and even if the cost of living should rise, and even if the purchasing power of our money should decrease, then he is still better off this year than he was last year, as can be proved by these undisputable figures and facts. Every young man growing up in South Africa has the opportunity of qualifying himself. There are bursaries. In fact, there are people who are queuing up to make it possible for him to learn, if he wants to learn, and to give him work, and he need not even pay back his study debts. He can progress to the highest level of our economic life. As regards the fact that hon. members now want to arouse suspicion here about people who are becoming richer, they must go to the heart and the soul of our economy, that is where they must concentrate their criticism, and they must then tell us that this system of free enterprise in South Africa must be changed by the Government. We must now prohibit people from progressing in life, from developing this country, from displaying initiative and obtaining a proper remuneration for their spirit of enterprise. That is actually what hon. members are saying. We maintain that the people who are in the forefront of the economic process in South Africa must be rewarded for their trouble, in the same way as people running the economy in all fields must be rewarded, as they are in fact being rewarded.

Mr. Speaker, we were interested when the hon. the Deputy Minister intervened in this debate. We were hoping that we would at last get an answer to the charge contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia, who pointed out that two sections of our people were not sharing in the prosperity of South Africa, namely the farmers and the pensioners. The Deputy Minister gave a long list of figures to show how the cost of living had risen, and he gave an equally long list of figures to show how certain groups of the population have had their incomes increased to keep pace, and more than to keep pace, with the increased cost of living. But it is remarkable that in his whole speech he did not refer once to an increase in the income of farmers, or to a satisfactory increase in the income of pensioners. He completely avoided the very points made by the Opposition in this debate. Of course he had no answer and that is why he tried to draw a red herring across the trail. As far as the cost of living and the value of our money are concerned, there is one complete answer to any attempt by the Government to say that the position is satisfactory, and that is what is happening in the investment field in South Africa. People have lost confidence in the rand. They will no longer, except by special inducement, lend money if it is to be repaid in an equal amount of rands eventually. They are rushing to the Stock Exchange and they are investing in land and property because they know that the value of their money depreciates under this Government constantly and continuously, and so they are trying to hedge against inflation. They have lost confidence in the money of South Africa. That is the simple fact. All you have to do is to look at the Stock Exchange and hear what the Minister of Finance has to say about his worries and his problems. But he does not say that the fundamental problem is that people are trying to protect themselves against the creeping inflation which has also become part of the policy of this Government. That is the simple answer, Sir. The answer of the hon. the Minister is typical of what we had from the other side of the House—an evasion of the issue—and one of the most interesting attempts at evading the issue was the repeated references to the new political allegiance of my friend the hon. member for Umlazi. My hon. friends on the other side derived great joy from the speech of the hon. member for Umlazi. Sir, I wish him joy …

You did not say that the other day.

I wish him great happiness in the Nationalist Party and, what is more, I will recommend to the United Party of Natal that we write off whatever he owes us. Our object with this debate, as I have stated, has been to draw attention to the plight of two very important sections of our South African nation. The object of hon. members opposite has been to draw red herrings across the trail and to avoid the issue, and the biggest red herring has been the hon. member for Umlazi, which is an interesting role in which he has been cast. The hon. member for Umlazi told us about the reaction that he got; he only received ten telegrams condemning his action. But he should come to the office of the Leader of the Opposition, and the secretaries will show the hon. member a considerable number of letters and telegrams which will be most informative to him. Obviously people who disapproved of his action have broken contact with him, and I do not blame them. As one of those people said—I have seen some of these letters—they are not prepared to waste 20 cents on a telegram to the hon. member for Umlazi. Another one said that she would not send a telegram because the Post Office would not pass the words of a definite number of letters that she would like to use in her telegram. I think the hon. member should go to the office of the Leader of the Opposition.

Sour grapes.

The hon. member made the point that he went to the Nationalist Party because he thinks that national unity can be advanced there. I do not want to argue that for the moment, but I want to challenge him to give one instance or one indication of where the principle of national unity has ever been denied, denigrated or abused in the United Party. I challenge him to deny that the idea of national unity is the warp and the woof of the thinking, the philosophy and the outlook of the United Party. I challenge him to deny that the United Party is a living example of national unity in action and in practice. Sir, it is not news when English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people belong to the United Party, but when an English-speaking person joins the Nationalist Party or speaks English at their congresses, it gets headlines in the Press. That is the difference. Indeed, it happened that Dr. Verwoerd had to appoint people to the Cabinet before they had joined the Nationalist Party. Sir, that is the extent of national unity in the Nationalist Party. I think that we should see this in perspective.

You are trying to save the day for the United Party.

When did the Nationalist Party become converted to the idea of national unity in the sense of equality between English-and Afrikaans-speaking? Sir, we remember—and there are hon. members over there who should remember it; there are hon. members there who remembered it only the other day in the Nationalist Party; I need not refer to the incident—how Gen. Hertzog had to leave, a broken dejected figure, the congress of the Nationalist Party in 1940 because he wanted it written in the Nationalist Party constitution that they stood for equal political rights between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking. An amendment was passed guaranteeing language and cultural rights but refusing to include the words “political rights”. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote the honest leader of the Nationalist Party of some years ago, one of the most forthright politicians we have had in South Africa. I did not agree with him and I cannot agree even with the memory of his policies. I refer to the late Mr. J. G. Strydom. This is what he had to say about the national unity which the hon. member for Umlazi now discovers in the Nationalist Party, after he had been in the United Party all his life. Speaking at Brakpan on 7th November, 1942, Mr. Strydom was reported in Die Burger of 9th November, 1942, to have said—

That was the philosophy of the Nationalist Party. Speaking in Pretoria on 29th June, 1948, Mr. Strydom was reported in Die Vaderland of 30th June, 1948, to have said—

One party, Sir. [Interjections.] Political allegiance was put above allegiance to South Africa—the one-party attitude. I again quote Mr. Strydom—

I am not making an issue of that, Sir. This was at the Transvaal Congress of the Herenigde Nasionale Party, in the Nasionale Klubsaal, as reported in Die Transvaler of 18th September, 1942. This is what Mr. Strydom said and this is what I want to bring home—

Sir, that is not national unity; that is a sectional demand that all communities should conform to the policies of the Nationalist Party, and I say—and I have witnesses to prove it—that even to-day the policy of the Nationalist Party as far as national unity is concerned is that they offer other sections in this country unity but it is the unity which the cannibal offers the missionary, complete absorption, utter digestion, loss of personality and loss of individuality. Sir, there is my evidence; look at the hon. the Minister of Forestry …

On a point of order. Sir, the hon. member must address me correctly.

Mr. Speaker, I think I will have your sympathy, because members of the Cabinet have been kicked out and about so much lately, that it is difficult for us to keep track. I think the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is an example that what the Nationalist Party is offering other sections in this country is unity based on complete absorption. Sir, my witness for this is Mr. Ivor Benson, who earned the gratitude of the Nationalist Party with his broadcasts and who had to leave the Nationalist Party, I will not say in disgust, but in chagrin, because, as he said, there was room only for “die gebonde uitkyk oor Afrikanerskap” of the Nationalist Party. Sir, I can quote Mr. Jones, who had tried for years to be a member of the Executive of the Nationalist Party in Natal and who had to leave because there was no real place for the English-speaking people in the Nationalist Party. I call as my witness Blyth Thompson who was a candidate of the Nationalist Party. As far as I know he is still a Nationalist. He is not happy and he has said so. He was a contributor to one of the Nationalist newspapers and he was stopped because he was too ardent in his pleas for true national unity. These are facts, Sir, but listen now to the hon. member for Umlazi, who has had experience all his life of English and Afrikaans speaking working together in the United Party, not selfconscious, not even aware of any differences, as South Africans. Now at this hour suddenly, on a Tuesday morning, out of the blue, he realizes that he must go and look for national unity elsewhere. Sir, he had other arguments. He told us why he could no longer support race federation and called it “ ‘baasskap’ in a gift wrapping”. Sir, I know the hon. member for Umlazi; he is a fine debater. I have had great joy listening to him tearing the hon. the Minister of Transport to pieces and he promised us that he would do it again this Session.

He may still do it.

One never knows; he may still do it. The hon. member is a man who makes sudden decisions. The hon. member says that the policy of race federation is “baasskap in a gift wrapping”. The words of the hon. member should be analyzed. What does he mean by that? What he really means is that it is white leadership applied with consideration and justice and with a sense of what is right and fair. That is the gift wrapping. But now he prefers the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister, which is crude, brutal “baasskap” with no gift wrapping whatsoever.

That is progress! But I shall come back to that in a minute. He condemns the United Party for standing for white leadership, and in the same breath he says that the Nationalist Party for 20 years has applied white leadership, and that is why he is joining them. What must one think of the logic of such an argument? What must one think of the motives which persuaded such a member to different political views? He made the amazing statement that under our race federation policy there may be friction between the haves and the have-nots if they are represented in the same parliament. But the friction in the world today between the haves and the have-nots is between independent states. The whole world to-day faces the problem that the United Nations is being abused under communist leadership by the have-nots against the haves of the world, because they have sovereign independence and so they can do it. The only countries where there is peace to-day, is where there is a unified government, a unified state, where justice can be done to all people by the same government in the interests of the community as a whole. Now he wants to separate the have-nots from the haves in South Africa, and give them political independence, and the weapons with which to conduct the battle between the have-nots and the haves. He states a premise and comes to a directly opposite conclusion. What must one think of the motives that persuaded him to join the Nationalist Party?

He spoke about the Coloured people and made the surprising statement-—I am sure I heard it wrongly—that they could not get into Parliament under our policy. Does he believe that? Now he is quiet. Did he make that statement, believing it?

I said it.

He said it, but he does not say that he believes it. I will tell hon. members why. In all his criticism of our policy he was criticizing that policy as it was before our union congress in 1967. That is the answer. Here is a Member of Parliament, representing a constituency, leaving the party which elected him to Parliament, because he criticizes a policy on the very points on which that policy was amended and improved in 1967. And he did not know it! That is not the only example. In 1967 we decided that the Coloured people could elect their own four representatives to Parliament, and they could be Coloured. Now, will the hon. member for Umlazi stand up and say that he thinks so little of the Coloured people that he believes, they will not elect their own people if they may? Does he really believe that? You see, Sir, he was talking utter nonsense, and he was discussing a policy that does not exist. [Interjections.] What is your problem?

[Inaudible.]

He spoke about the value of the vote. He said that they would now get their own council, the Coloured Council, and they would all be able to vote. But it is also the policy of the United Party and was the policy of the United Party before it was the policy of the Nationalist Party. When the Nationalist Party was still thinking in terms of a state within a state, when they had no Coloured policy, as they have no Coloured policy to-day, by the admission of the Prime Minister, that was the policy of the United Party. But it is also the policy of the United Party that those people will in addition have something valuable, something meaningful, namely representation in this Parliament. But under their policy, the Prime Minister tells us, the Coloureds are now getting something better than they ever have had before, namely a vote in an inferior, non-sovereign body in exchange for a vote in the superior, sovereign body. It is the same as taking away the rights of, say, the Afrikaans-speaking people to sit in Parliament, provided one gives them municipal franchise in Pampoenpoort. That is the logic of the hon. member for Umlazi. That is the sort of motive that persuaded him to join the Nationalist Party.

He will not go back!

He can try! Let him try! He spoke about the Indians. What is the policy of the Government in regard to the Indians? Where do the Indians fit into the concept of separate development? Where is their separate part of South Africa? Where is their elected council? All they get is a nominated council, the most inferior form of representation that human intelligence can devise.

Look at the Minister they have.

Yes. That is why I was going to save the Indians the final hurt by referring to the hon. the Minister as the Minister of Indian Affairs.

With regard to the Bantu I really want to join issue with the hon. member for Umlazi. He said that the Bantu are now on their road to development. The other day we saw the policy of the Government, of the Prime Minister, of the whole Nationalist Party, lying in fragments on the floor of this House. We are still awaiting an answer to our exposure of its failure.

All that happens is that while the United Party is making its policy more precise and stating it more clearly to the people, the Government is becoming progressively more vague. A little while ago they had “a state within a state” for the Coloured people; now they only have a hereditas damnosa for their children. That is all. The previous Prime Minister not so long ago told us that by 1978—some people stake their reputations on this—the numbers of Bantu would decrease in the white areas. Now we are told that numbers are of less importance. We are told, by implication, that they are not important at all. People can be in the white areas in their millions, but as long as they do not have political rights then they are in fact not there. That is the stupidity, the utter, rotten nonsense which is called a policy, and which motivates the hon. member for Umlazi to join the Nationalist Party. We are still waiting for the Prime Minister or any member of the Cabinet to tell us how they are going to resettle 400,000 black people a year in the reserves in order to make their policy work. That is the sixty-four thousand dollar question which they have not answered and the hon. member for Umlazi cannot answer. This is a policy in terms of which people are supposed to be put on the road to separate development and separate freedom, but where will the freedom be for the urban and the rural Bantu, the non-reserve Bantu, in South Africa? Where is his hope? It is the same hope which the Indian will find in his non-existent Indianstan and the Coloured man will find in his non-existent Colouredstan. There is no hope, no prospect, no development, no separateness, in fact. That is the policy of the Nationalist Party, which we are now told has attracted the hon. member for Umlazi across the floor of the House. I will bring the hon. member for Umlazi a witness to the policy of the Nationalist Party. Here is my witness. I want to quote from a discussion on the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Bill (Hansard, 30th May, 1967):

That was the hon. member for Umlazi. During the Committee of Supply (Indian Affairs) debate he said on the 25th May, 1967:

This is now the new hope for the Indians. A year ago it was completely debunked, on the authority of the hon. member for Umlazi. During the Committee Stage of the Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Bill on the 9th April, 1968, the hon. member said:

Now, this has become the most wonderful policy for the Coloured people, this policy of not doing anything but leave it to an unfortunate future generation to try and find a policy after a mess had been created by the Government’s lack of any insight in this matter. My time does not permit me to say everything I want to. I just want to fix the attention of hon. members on this. The hon. member said that the Government was dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s of their policy. Any impartial observer—I put the emphasis on “impartial”—can see that the Government is not dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. It does not even know what is an i and what is a I with regard to its policy. Since the advent of this Prime Minister the policy of the Nationalist Party has become increasingly vague, uncertain and devoid of a basic philosophy.

Is that the reason why …

Let me explain to the Prime Minister. First of all, the Prime Minister after all the debates in this House, after the constitutional crises that we had in this House about the Coloured people, has to make an admission that after 21 years the Nationalist Party has no policy with regard to the Coloured people. Dr. Verwoerd did not admit that, Mr. Strydom did not admit that, Dr. Malan did not admit that. They engaged this House in the most controversial legislation it had ever had because they had a policy for the Coloured people, even though it was wrong. They did not wait for the next generation. But this Prime Minister goes from the definite to the vague and he calls it progress whilst the hon. member for Umlazi calls it dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. In the case of the Indians there is no policy, in the case of the urban Bantu there is only uncertainty, and the excuse now is “Numbers do not count.” The most cardinal fact, the most tangible fact about the race situation in South Africa is that the number of Bantu helping us to produce the wealth of South Africa outside the reserves is increasing by leaps and bounds. That is the cardinal, the most striking fact of the situation in South Africa, but to the Government it does not matter. And because of this joyful euphoria the hon. member for Umlazi feels that he too must enter this world of illusion, this world of dreams, this world of phantasy. He too wants to remove his feet from the earth and float upon the wings of the angels in the Nationalist Party. Nevertheless, I wish him joy.

The hon. member said that we had said he would not get the nomination in Umlazi again, that we had said that before the last election and yet he did get it. Well, that may be true. I do not know who said he would not but he got the nomination. However, he only got the nomination because he then still had the support of the United Party as such, but in the next election it could have happened—and this is the point he forgets—that his nomination would be vetoed by the party authorities. That is what he feared. With every justification he feared that, because he was neglecting his duties as a member of Parliament in his constituency [Interjections.] I say that without any fear of contradiction. I can bring every politically-minded person who supported the hon. member for Umlazi as a witness to this fact. It was even discussed by the Natal executive of the party. My hon. friend the member for Umlazi must talk to the Natal leader of the Nationalist party.

We have already talked a great deal.

Yes, but he should talk to him about a particular point, and that is how a person can get the nomination and yet not stand as a candidate. The hon. member for Klip River will remember how he got the nomination in Stellenbosch, but never stood as a candidate of the Nationalist Party. He should explain that to the hon. member for Umlazi; they will have touching arguments which will bring light to the hon. member for Umlazi and light to the public of South Africa of what went wrong with the hon. member for Umlazi.

The hon. member for Umlazi also said he saw no need to resign his seat. I am not going to insist that he should resign his seat. It is a very difficult matter to insist upon because it is entirely an individual decision which is taken in the light of a man’s own conscience, his own insight, and his own morality. I cannot judge the hon. member. There have been differences of opinion with hon. gentlemen like Mr. Hamilton Russell and Dr. Bernard Friedman, and they resigned their seats. We have had hon. gentlemen like the Minister for Indian Affairs that the Government does not know about …

… and Mr. Norman Eaton, who joined you.

I am trying to make the point that this is an individual decision which a member must take for himself. I say there is one hon. member in this House who has no doubt about what the hon. member for Umlazi should do, and that is the hon. member for Maitland, who yesterday spoke so touchingly of all the things he and the hon. member for Umlazi had in common. But on 23.2.1967 the hon. member for Maitland said the following, and I quote from Hansard (Volume 19, column 1864)—

Then, unfortunately, the hon. member for Maitland was interrupted, and it is one of the great mysteries of life in South Africa that we may never know “the because”. I appeal to the hon. member for Maitland to complete that sentence, and to be consistent and join those tens of thousands of South Africans who think that perhaps the hon. member for Umlazi should resign. As I say, it is his decision, he has to sleep with his own conscience, and all I can say is: I hope he sleeps well. Of course, when one discusses this type of thing, it causes ribald amusement in the Nationalist Party. One must never talk about matters ethical, because they find it very funny indeed.

What about Norman Eaton?

I am giving an answer to the hon. member, will the Minister please be quiet! [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to follow the hon. member; I rather want to refer to what the hon. member for Von Brandis said, but it is none the less necessary to refer to the hon. member for Yeoville, who has just sat down. I think we found it very pleasant to watch such a storm in a teacup here this morning. I think the speech made by the hon. member was very clearly an attempt at rehabilitation, an attempt to put some heart into themselves. I think the hon. member talked himself out of heart, however, and it was in fact pathetic to watch him. I would suggest that where we often hear of cyclones and storms which blow themselves out, the next one that occurs in the Indian Ocean should be called “Little Marais” or something like that. I think that would be apt. I do not want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member any further, but I just want to say I am very sorry that the Opposition, which made a great to-do about the problems of the farmer, waited until 4 o’clock yesterday afternoon, and now suddenly leave all the farmers of the country in the wilderness with their problems and run after one little stray sheep. To me that is typical of that side. And then the hon. member opposite talks of “red herrings”.

I want to return to the problems of our farmers as set out by the hon. member for Von Brandis. He specifically touched upon the citrus industry. I want to agree with him at once that the citrus industry has many problems, and these problems have been stated by myself and other speakers in this House during the past years. I am nevertheless participating in this debate, because it is necessary that certain facts referred to in the plea made by the hon. member be put right.

The citrus industry established itself very firmly, in the first instance in the export market, by co-operating properly. The hon. member referred to the 16 countries in which our citrus industry is selling its products, and said our farmers had done an enormous amount, and the Government now had to render assistance, because the farmers had great problems. I just want to point out that in the years when I entered the citrus industry England was our only overseas market for this industry. This is typical of the way that party acted. Since this side came into power, it has been made quite clear that there is not only one foreign market and one country in the world. We expanded to all the countries of Europe, and we are now selling from Canada to Japan. It is the National Party that stimulated that idea, and I want to stress this particularly.

Then the hon. member said citrus properties “are bonded beyond true value”. I feel this statement is quite exaggerated. We know that the Land Bank is conservative in its approach to land values. To say, therefore, that the bonds are already higher than the true value, is in my opinion a complete exaggeration. The next point which the hon. member raised, and to which I want to refer now, was the question of freight and the conference shipping lines. If the hon. member had acquainted himself with the facts in that regard, he would have known that the citrus industry is free to withdraw and to enter into contracts. At this very moment there are ships available, particularly from Israel and France. If those shipping lines which are now making such attractive offers increase their freight charges, the citrus industry must not come back and ask again to be taken up in the conference shipping lines agreement, not ask for Government protection. In this connection I want to mention that in our negotiations with the Department of Commerce last year we did get a concession, although not as large as we wanted. I therefore want to stress the fact that the citrus industry can withdraw at any time to enter into contracts on its own. One point on which I agree with the hon. member, and which I also want to stress, is the question that, as far as freight charges are concerned, deciduous fruit receive preferential treatment as against citrus fruit.

It is also necessary for me to point out what assistance has been made available to citrus farmers by the Government. I want to associate myself with the plea for assistance to citrus farmers that was made this morning, but it is necessary, however, to place on record what has already been done in this respect. I want to thank the hon. Ministers concerned for the assistance that has been rendered to the citrus farmers. The hon. member referred to the assistance that was rendered previously, and also to the assistance rendered by other countries, for example Brazil, to their citrus farmers. The assistance rendered previously, however, was rendered during the war years and other times of emergency. I also just want to point out to him that Brazil is a country with a large shortage of foreign exchange. They nevertheless encourage their farmers to export citrus—and this is one of our problems—even if it is done at great losses. However, the small amount of exchange they earn in Europe is used by their Government, and the farmers are paid for it. This is the kind of commercial practice one gets which is actually immoral in my opinion, but they nevertheless occur. Another important factor is that the citrus industry in this country is to a large extent dominated by a small number of large companies. This makes the position a very difficult one. If, for example, the Government had said last year that it was going to grant subsidies, we would have found that a large percentage of the crop was produced by a few large companies and that we would not have helped the actual number of small farmers. Some of these large, established companies would have derived the most benefit from what the Government offered. The hon. the Deputy Minister need not be concerned, because I do not include him in this. However, I want to stress that the Government provided R¼ million for advertising, to which the hon. member referred. The Government, however, gave more than this; it was not only the R¼ million for advertising. You know, Sir, our position in the citrus industry is such that approximately half of our crop is already being marketed locally, because the standards are so high abroad. Processors have been granted a rebate and there is the devaluation assistance referred to by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs. In my opinion these matters are very definitely necessary. The reason why the hon. member does not benefit from the assistance—I, as a citrus farmer, do not benefit from it either—is that it was an express condition that assistance would be granted if the prices obtained were lower than those of the previous year. In other words, should the prices increase and neutralize devaluation, no assistance would be granted. For the most part citrus prices increased in relation to devaluation; therefore assistance has been withheld accordingly.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In moving this motion, I want to emphasize at the very outset that we regard this matter as a very serious one and that we want to make a plea to the effect that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to appointing an able commission of experts to go into this matter. I shall gradually motivate this request I am making here, in the course of my speech.

Sir, you may have wondered what made me introduce this particular motion at this stage. I want to say that I have heard it being said in the ranks of the scientologists that they know that a very great deal of pressure is being brought to bear upon me. However, they have not been able to determine the source of this pressure yet. They are quite right, because a great deal of pressure is, indeed, being brought to bear upon me. I just want to say here that this great deal of pressure that is being brought to bear upon me does not come from outside, but that it is the pressure which my conscience is exerting upon me since I have observed what is happening in our country and how an increasing number of prominent and responsible bodies are asking for action to be taken against these people.

You will recall, Sir, that for example, a newspaper such as the Transvaler, under a prominent headline published a plea on 7th February that Scientology should be exposed. It is not only the Press that has asked for this to be done. I have in mind, for example, the Dutch Reformed Church, which has appointed its own commission of inquiry because it has found that this movement is causing an enormous amount of harm in the church sphere. The National Council for Mental Health, which keeps a watchful eye over the mental health of the population of the Republic, has pleaded for this on many occasions and has expressed concern at the activities of these people. The same applies to the National Welfare Board. Voices have been raised from among the academics asking: “But can an unscientific body such as this be allowed to continue its operations?” Voices were raised in the Medical Council, the Medical Association and the Psychological Association. All these bodies have pleaded that action be taken against this movement. Several people have asked me what “Scientology” really is. Is it a cult, or is it a religion with its own particular church and bible? Is it a science functioning on a scientific basis or is it, as some people allege, merely a money-making organization which obtains a large portion of its money by means of blackmail?

The scientologists themselves say they are nothing but a religion and that they have their own church of “Scientology”. When one wants to answer this question of what Scientology really is, I can tell you, Sir, that history shows that the founder of this organization, namely Hubbard, founded the Hubbard Dianoetic Research Foundation in California in 1950. In 1951 differences which arose between him and the control board of that organization compelled him to withdraw from the organization. Then he started “Scientology”, which now has its ramifications in many countries of the Western world. But Hubbard himself retains full control. He is and remains the managing director of the organization. These facts do tell us something about the history and origin of this movement, without providing an answer to the basic question of what this movement really is. A major problem presents itself in this connection, because nobody has ever been able to obtain a clear definition from the organization itself of what Scientology really is. As regards a definition, we find, inter alia, the following in the report drawn up by the commission of inquiry appointed by the State of Victoria in Australia—

One of our professors referred to what was said by somebody who wanted to give a definition of this movement. He said that a certain writer who had tried to find out what this movement really was had said that, considering the prospects held out by the organization, the peculiar procedure followed by it and the fantastic achievements it laid claim to, one might just as well try to wrap a dozen live eels in one parcel as to give a definition of this movement. The same report I referred to described it as follows—

Scientology claims to be that branch of psychology which embraces human ability. Its theories are however generally impossible, peculiar and novel to itself in that it deals with a variety of real and imagined activities and conditions of the mind. Scientology may be classed as a kind of psychology, though often irrational and perverted. Its techniques are a conglomeration of procedures based on misconceptions of psychiatry, psychology, psychoanalysis and other sciences, as well as a heavy leaving of procedures that are its founder’s own brain-children.

In trying to find out what Scientology really is, we come up against the definition given by Hubbard himself. He said: “Scientology is the common people’s science of life and betterment.” However, he has given several definitions of one and the same matter. Mr. Speaker, where he has given a more detailed definition, you will perhaps be able to help me to understand it better. He said—

He also said: “It is the science of learning how to learn”. In trying to analyze the philosophy and the methods of these people, we should bear in mind the important concept which is central to the scientology movement. That is the so-called “thetan”. This is the name given to it by Hubbard himself. In 1951 Hubbard claimed that he had succeeded by means of scientific rather than religious or humanitarian methods in proving the existence of the “thetan”, which is related to the concept of the soul. In 1951 he based his Scientology on this concept. Further research into the so-called thetan, which is the most important concept in this philosophy, reveals that Hubbard says that it is distinctive and unique. It does not belong to a person in the same way his soul or spirit does, of which he can say it is his own. He says it is the self, and he says it does not belong to the person, because the thetan has inhabited thousands of bodies before. In other words, it is a form of reincarnation. He says the highest form the thetan can achieve is the stage of the “operating thetan”. In the “operating thetan” one has the supreme form of purity. He says the thetan has been put into a particular body, which the thetan then has to operate for a certain period. Mr. Speaker, when you buy a new motor car, you are the owner of that car. In the same way the thetan is the owner of the new body of which it has temporary occupation. Then there follows a whole process. This body is now “pre-clear”. The other two poles of development are called “clear”. That is the optimum person the thetan can achieve, but only when all elements of pain and all folly, etc., have been eliminated. It has to undergo a whole process of development. In the course of that process he has his disciples, namely the so-called “auditors”, who go round helping people to undergo this process of development and to reach the highest stage. But when dealing with people who have spiritual problems, one wants this work to be carried out by highly experienced and able people. This report from the State of Victoria in Australia shows that this is by no means the case in the Scientology movement. The following is stated in the report in this connection—

Can these people be allowed in a civilized world to continue to move about freely to deal with the spiritual welfare of people and to try to cure them? These people are equipped not only with things they will need when they interview people, but also with the so-called E-meter. An instrument similar to this one is to be found in any psychological laboratory, but Hubbard claims that he has succeeded in making this instrument so sensitive and delicate that he is able to measure the emotions of a tomato with it. A nail was thrust into the tomato and the needle of the meter went down, indicating how extremely sensitive the fruit was and the pain it experienced. This is the kind of people who are doing this work in our society.

When considering the claims made by these people, we realize what enormous claims they make in respect of what they are capable of. On 19th February a letter was published in the Transvaler in which, inter alia, the following was said by a person who wanted to defend Scientology (translation)—

These are the claims they make. Let us consider some of their claims. Scientology claims that it can cure 70 per cent of the diseases of mankind through its methods. Hubbard claims that Scientology is the only counter to the hydrogen bomb. He claims that Scientology can make one immune to colds. He says it can improve the achievements of space travellers. It can also assist the pilots of jet aircraft to avoid crashes. Another significant claim is that it can raise a person’s I.Q. with “1 point for every hour of auditing”. In this way, for example, he claims to be able to increase the I.Q. of a boy from 82 to 212. He goes further and claims that he can prevent people from growing old and that he can cure psychotic persons much more quickly and cheaply than psychiatry can. He can make a person leave his own body and let him stand in a corner to look at himself. We may perhaps regard some of these statements as rather exaggerated, but let us consider a few of them. If it is true that one can raise a person’s I.Q. in this way—and we have an enormous problem of mentally retarded people—or if one can really cure psychoses and psychoneuroses and all these things much more quickly and cheaply than State institutions and so forth can, it means that we shall render a tremendous service to mankind and that we shall be compelled to give these people the green light and to say to them: “Go ahead, because you are rendering a tremendous service.” And this in fact is what they say. They say they render greater service to mankind in a matter of ten minutes than all the scientists together can render in hours. But is this true? There is also another side to this picture.

A great deal of criticism is being levelled at this movement by people on whose word we have always been able to rely in the past. For example, we have in mind the protest raised by the church. They say that these people are putting forward a new idea which is not a religion and which wants to uproot and destroy established religion with all its blessings. This is the case to such an extent that the churches decided to appoint an ecclesiastical commission of inquiry, as I have said. Furthermore, church leaders have expressed themselves against the movement. I am thinking, for example, of the same article which appeared in the Transvaler and in which it was pointed out that persons such as the Rev. D. P. Beukes, Dr. Jan Grobler, the pastoral psychologist, and Professor A. B. du Preez had expressed themselves in very strong terms. Professor Du Preez said, inter alia (translation—

One can understand that the church objects to this movement, for when a movement publishes a booklet such as this, namely “Scientology and the Bible”, in which the Bible texts are given on the one hand and their parallel views on the other, one finds that it is not only in competition with what we regard as a sacred scripture according to which we must live, but, what is more, if one looks at the texts quoted in order to be rejected, as it were, by them, it will make every right-minded exegete’s hair stand on end. That is why one can understand that no church which is worth its salt can remain silent when people begin to play about with the Bible as these people are doing.

But it does not end there. For example, there is, as far as the churches are concerned, a holy sacrament such as baptism. Baptism is not only an important ceremony in all the churches, but something which forms a basic part of their faith. It is a holy sacrament. Now, this man, Hubbard published a book, “Ceremonies of the Founding Church of Scientology”, in which he said the following about baptism—

That is the thing I mentioned at the outset—

This is what baptism means to them. Can we tolerate such nonsense being expounded in an enlightened world, in an enlightened Christendom and in an enlightened age in order to impress people? And they themselves claim to have at least 25,000 members in South Africa among the white population alone and that their membership is increasing at a rate of between 20 and 30 per day. This is what they claim, but when somebody asked them. “What about the non-Whites?” they said, “No, for the sake of the policy of apartheid we do not want to interfere with the non-Whites.” People asked them: “If you have the truth in your hands and all the churches go out to evangelize the non-Whites, why don’t you do so too?” Their reply was that they were not quite aware of it.

We can continue in this way to show how ridiculous all these things are, but the findings of the commission appointed in Australia are very clear in pointing out the dangers of this movement where the following is stated on the very first page of their report—

But the findings of these people went much further than that. They state—

I say that when a responsible body submits such a comprehensive report and that is their finding, one cannot but say that this matter should be investigated and, if necessary, the organization stamped out.

But I want to go further and I want to say that we must not think that this movement is confined to the cities and the universities, etc. This movement has its roots even in the country areas. I just want to quote a few words from one of the letters I received and in which a minister of religion in a country town wrote to me saying that he was very grateful that a motion such as this would be brought before this House. He wrote (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why I am pleading for this, is the self-righteousness of these people. I have mentioned blackmail. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that these people have some sort of court in which people who are caught stand trial behind closed doors? I have certain information at my disposal in this connection which I want to read to you—

You can guess what this means—

And here are the “findings and recommendations” of the “chaplain’s court”. The “interested parties” are the same. On the first charge, “whether there is an irregular second dynamic situation” the finding was, “established as correct”. On the second charge, “whether damage has been suffered by Norman Herring as a result of his wife Zena Herring’s association with Maurice Pivo” the finding was, “Established as correct”. On the third charge, “whether training and processing has been impeded by any irregular second dynamic of the defendants”, the finding was, “Established as correct”. On the fourth charge, “whether a fine of not less than £1,000 or greater than £5,000 should be awarded”, it was recommended “that Norman Herring be awarded £1,000, to be paid by Maurice Pivo”. Mr. Speaker, can such things be allowed to happen in a society such as this, with all the opportunities it offers for possible blackmailing? But what do these people think of a government, of you, Sir, and of me and of churches and other people that criticize them? Here is the answer. In “Understanding: Difficult Scientology”, written by Hubbard, he says—

And this is what he thinks of scientists—

I have here one of the typical pamphlets which are sent to any party that wants to have the movement investigated—

If a body or an organization such as this, or whatever they are, is able to render such a great service to mankind and is so averse to any criticism or opposition, I say it is time that we opened up that sore and determined what the real value of this organization is. All the money they receive is derived from the sale of these so-called “E meters” and books and courses and such like. Mr. Hubbard, who is living in luxury somewhere, reaps the fruits of all this. Mr. Speaker, you must bear in mind that approximately 30 per cent of every population consists of people who are susceptible to the development of neurotic problems and it is these people to whom they appeal; it is among these people that their ideas take root. Every system of philosophy, every religion is prepared to throw itself open to criticism. To quote what an outstanding missionary once said to the students of India in respect of the Christian religion—

This is the attitude adopted by every religion and every system of philosophy and every scientific discipline. But here we have people who claim to have the key to all the problems of mankind, but heaven help you if you try to interfere in their affairs. Mr. Speaker, it may be that I have done them an injustice, it may be that I have misunderstood them, that I have not presented their interpretations correctly, but then there is all the more reason why a commission of inquiry should be appointed to conduct a searching investigation of this matter and to see whether these people may be allowed to carry on with their activities or whether they should be dealt with firmly and be prohibited as people who constitute a danger to the community, as is the case in those countries which have already taken action against them, namely Australia, Rhodesia, England and others.

I wish to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down on the objective manner in which he has introduced this discussion and the convincing way in which he has put forward the facts at his disposal. Sir, there are two alternatives for an Opposition in dealing with a private member’s motion, either to accept the motion or to move an amendment. Sir, we are at one with the hon. member in this matter, and I will point out that the same day on which the hon. member tabled his motion, a motion was tabled from this side of the House in my name, a motion in almost identical terms and containing the same request, namely-

I believe that we are agreed on this. For the record, I would like to point out that concern and anxiety concerning Scientology have existed in the minds of members on this side of the House for some years. It is evidenced in Hansard itself, and reference to the indices of speeches in Hansard will show that this matter has been raised from 1966 onwards by the hon. member for Rosettenville, by the hon. member for Durban (Central) and by myself, both by question and in speeches. The participation of hon. members opposite has been confined in the main to the Ministers to whom the pleas or the questions were addressed, with one single exception and that was the hon. member for Geduld, whom I do not see in the Chamber at the moment, who admitted, in response to a speech made by the hon. member for Rosettenville, that he had little knowledge of this movement but that he would not be sorry if the hon. the Minister had this movement investigated.

Sir, I feel it is fair to detail some of my own activities in connection with scientology. My attention was first drawn to Scientology during my election campaign in 1966, when I was approached by people in my constituency who expressed concern at the effects which Scientology appeared to be having in family circles. They claimed that there was a disruption in family circles, between husband and wife and that there was an estrangement between children and grandchildren. I resolved to look into this matter. I went immediately to the people who, I felt, would have more knowledge of this than I did—the medical men in municipal, provincial and Government employ, officials in the Department of Health, and the psychologists, and I found that at that stage there seemed to be a certain lack of knowledge concerning Scientology. There was not a great deal of information about it in official circles in South Africa. After a visit to Rhodesia in 1966 I received certain information concerning the founder of Scientology which I felt would be of interest to the authorities here. In due course I made an appointment with the hon. the Minister for Justice, who is now the hon. the Prime Minister, to place before him the information I had gained. It was then obvious to me that the Department of Justice was concerned and active in connection with this question, because a file was kept and the Minister indicated to me that written complaints had been received from the public. More facts were collected and these further facts were forwarded to the new Minister of Justice for his information and consideration. I became more and more concerned because of the weight of evidence, complaints, and information which reached me. As a result of this growing concern I wrote to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, as I understood that there might be interest by that department, in this problem.

It sounds queer to me.

I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that if I read it again, it will sound any clearer to any of us. I believe it is claptrap. Now, Sir, who is Hubbard, the founder or the inventor? I believe that there is ample evidence to show that Mr. Huggard is an impostor and a fraud. He has degrees which have been discounted. The degree of Bachelor of Science and the degree of a Doctor in Philosophy have been discounted by the very educational institutions at which he claims to have attained the qualifications. Not only that, but he has renounced himself the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

I want to come back to the question of the clears, because I believe that it is something which the hon. the Minister should take into serious consideration. A breakdown in the names and addresses of the clears published in this list of 500 show that there are 247 clears in the United States of America, 131 in England, South Africa is third with 53, New Zealand 29, Australia 22, Canada 8, Denmark, Greece and Germany two each, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland and France one each.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Sir, when the House adjourned I was referring to the question of Scientology “clears”. I mentioned the fact that there were over 500, as listed by the Scientology organization, and that we in South Africa had this threat, that more than 10 per cent of them apparently emanated, or gave their addresses as having come from South Africa. Another interesting aspect of this matter is that “clear” No. 1 is or was a South African. It has been said in Scientology circles that the mantle of Ron Hubbard will fall on John McMaster, “clear” No. 1, who is or was a South African. I believe that this is a fact which we cannot disregard. It was not possible for me to go and listen to this man when he spoke in Durban, but I sent my son along as an observer. This developing situation is in S.A. something which I believe we must take into consideration.

When talking about the founder himself, I had referred to the fact that the degrees which he claimed to have gained by study, had been proved to be phony, or had been publicly renounced by himself. The history of Hubbard, as I have obtained from authentic sources, is that he has been married three times and divorced twice; and yet Scientology claims to be superb at healing marital difficulties. Another claim of Hubbard is that he is, or was, a science fiction writer. I wish he had stuck to that. From all accounts he proved quite good in that capacity.

There has been an attempt to define Scientology in this House to-day. The definition which has already been quoted is, as Hubbard says, simply that it is “the common peoples’ science of life and betterment”. My comment is that not many “common” people could enjoy the doubtful advantages of Scientology. It is an expensive cult to subscribe to. The fees are high; even the “E” meter, I believe, costs R100. I do not believe that it leads to “betterment”. Some people have said that it is impossible to define Scientology. One Pressman said that it was “like trying to giftwrap a dozen live eels” to define Scientology. But, the report went on: “it purports to be a sort of religion”. Significantly enough, it is not affiliated with any of the broad United States church movements. I submit for consideration my own definition of Scientology. I say that “Scientology is a pseudo-profound racket, embellished with a host of weird, invented connotations which appeal—(1) to the gullible; and (2) to people who may be in need of expert medical advice. It is publicized with all the gimmicry and skill of modern promotional techniques”. Reference has been made to the claims of Scientology. Scientologists themselves in their publications claim that “a burn or bruise or even sprains or breaks heal much more swiftly with Scientology assists”. They also claim that “Scientology in the hands of an expert (auditor) can cure some 70 per cent of man’s illnesses (sicknesses)”. In passing I would like to say that if there were any drug on the South African market which laid claims to such ability and such properties, I have no doubt in my mind that it would be under very strict control.

What is the reaction to Scientology in other countries? Obviously, this is a world-wide problem, and in certain countries it has been dealt with, I believe, most effectively. I have referred to the fact that Hubbard’s activities are mainly centered at East Grinstead in England; it is common knowledge that disciples and followers from all over the world endeavour to attend the instruction offered at East Grinstead. Large sums of money are required for this instruction. I think it is a matter of interest to our authorities here, to satisfy themselves about the extent to which money is leaving this country in the hands of people who wish to study Scientology at East Grinstead.

There have been developments in the House of Commons, which indicate that the people of the United Kingdom are concerned about the practice of Scientology. I have the photostats of the actual Hansard of the 6th March, 1967, when there was a debate on Scientology. The Minister of Health in the House of Commons indicated that he had tried to alert the public to the facts about Scientology and its potential dangers, because he considered the practice of Scientology to be potentially harmful to its adherents. Later on, on the 27th July, 1968, six steps were announced in the British House of Commons to curb entrance of foreign nationals who were entering the United Kingdom for the purposes of furthering their studies in Scientology. But this is not all. The latest development, which goes back just to January of this year, is that in the House of Commons it was announced that Sir John Foster, Q.C. (spelt with an “F” and not a “V”), would carry out an inquiry under terms of reference “to inquire into the effects of Scientology and to report”. It has been indicated that the results will be published. I believe these results will have particular significance to us in South Africa.

Then I should like to refer to Australia, particularly to the State of Victoria. Mention has been made of the Anderson Report. The commission was appointed in November, 1963; the report was published in 1965. The report recommended controlling legislation. It was recognized in Australia that there was a threat, because it was not long before the legislation was promulgated, debated and passed. I would refer hon. members to the Psychological Practices Act of 1965, “an Act to provide for the registration of psychologists and the protection of the public from unqualified persons and certain harmful practices and for other purposes”. Hon. members will notice that there is no reference to the term “Scientology”, but I am satisfied, from a study of the report, that this legislation was designed primarily to deal with the problem of Scientology. I feel that, like the previous speaker, I too should mention certain facts from this report. I think it gives hon. members, who may not have had access to or the time to study the report, some indication of what was felt in connection with this report. These are some of the comments. I quote from page 43:

Also on page 43:

On page 2 it goes on to say:

Paragraph 10 on page 11 reads:

Nevertheless, despite the fact that this particular cult has been banned in parts of Australia, the latest Press reports from Australia indicate that, armed with 2 million Australian dollars, scientologists are resolved to reestablish their activities in the State of Victoria in the form of a church. It is interesting that the 2 million dollars could be made available for this objective. When in the Anderson Commission’s report it was suggested that Hubbard himself should attend the deliberations of the committee, Mr. Hubbard indicated that he felt his expenses should be paid. Apparently, he was not able at that stage, or willing, to defray the cost of travelling to Australia to defend Scientology before the commission. The Premier of Australia, Sir Harry Holt, indicated that his government’s opposition to Scientology had hardened. He said: “We are dealing with a dangerous man.” I want to quote Hubbard himself, because I believe that this particular quotation has a certain significance. This is what Hubbard was alleged to have said:

Mr. Speaker, take it as you will, either that it is futile nonsense, or that it is a threat. I believe that we cannot afford to dismiss a matter like this. I believe that the seriousness of it has been accentuated by recent developments, where it has been shown that the attempt now is to establish Scientology as a religion in South Africa. We have seen from the evidence and the activities of scientologists that they, in many cases, are responsible for breaking up homes, destroying family life and separating husband from wife.

I just ask in conclusion, whether that has any relation to the concepts which we as a Christian nation accept.

Mr. Speaker, to-day we are indeed dealing with a matter about which we must decide whether we must laugh, or whether we have reason to cry. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) gave a very fine exposition of the aims of this monstrosity. We must call it a “monstrosity”. As the hon. member for Berea also said, so many definitions for this phenomenon have been given that further definitions will not clear this matter up. The hon. member for Kimberley (South), as well as the hon. member for Berea, said that this phenomenon, not to call it a monstrosity, was like a dozen of slippery eels one tries to bundle together. It is my considered opinion that we will get the eels into the water, but we now have to deal with what we are going to pull out of it. What we are going to pull out of the water, is an octopus. At the head of that octopus is this person, Hubbard, of whose history we already know something, who prides himself on being a scientist, on his being able to improve matters for people, that people are all equal and that any person can be improved by his scientific methods. We heard of the case where the I.Q. of a person was raised from 81 to 220! This can be done, they say, if one attends enough sessions. This person, i.e. Hubbard, allegedly studied nuclear physics at the George Washington University from 1930 to 1932, in which he claims a degree, which has not been confirmed by the University. He did receive a doctor’s degree in philosophy at the Sequoia University in South California. After investigation it was established that this university consists of an ordinary house, in which certain lectures are given. After that he started writing works of fiction. What is of great importance to me is that this person travelled all over the world with his father for a number of years as a Naval Officer and made an intensive study of Buddhism. Later on he also took a course in hypnotism. Now we must answer this question, i.e., what are the dangers? Are there indeed any dangers, and what do we know about them? This person, who has his seat in England in a small castle, in 1950, after he had published his first book, even went as far as changing the date. As from 1950 the years become A.D.O. and so on. He assumed certain powers for himself and he even granted his followers amnesty. So, for example, in 1963—A.D. 13 according to him—he issued a bulletin in which the following appears—

What claims does this person make? Firstly, he makes the spiritual claim that all people are equal, and man is fundamentally good, is not born in sin, and that man can fight against sin. He also claims to have the power of healing, as the hon. member for Kimberley (South) clearly pointed out. They hold the view that if one is a “clear”, one is able to look after one’s own body, and in that way one can determine spiritual and even physical health. These people do not want to be accused of quackery and therefore they approach other people by creating a subtle mental condition in them. Such people are told, “Maybe you are not sick; maybe you are just suppressed”, and anyone has the right to help someone who is “suppressed”, to achieve a better state of mind. I have here the “Report of the Board of Inquiry into Scientology” of Australia, and I want to quote what appears on page 45, where the Association claims the credit for certain healings that were brought about. Notice the ridiculousness of it all when it is seen from a scientific point of view, when in a circular the healing is attributed to “Dianetics”. The part in question reads as follows—

This is the ridiculous scientific approach of this person. This organization makes other claims as well. This sect, or whatever it is, or let me rather return to the person, because he is the starting point of the movement, also claims to be able to cure cancer. He says, inter alia, the following in his bulletin—

This is the processing of these poor people so that they become submissive—

This is something that has entered a person’s life and that they can eradicate by means of this process—

There are numerous other cases, as have been mentioned, for example, atomic burns, sinusitis, hay fever, yes, they can allegedly cure 70 per cent of the physical ailments. They do not only claim the ability to cure physical ailments, however, and this is where the sect or cult becomes dangerous. They also claim the ability to cure mental disorders in people. Who are the people that turn to this cult? Its basic premise is that it makes the good person better, the able becoming more able, the stupid person becoming less stupid; in fact, one can achieve anything until one eventually becomes “clear”. The ordinary people who go to them are fortunately not clear-minded people; they are persons who are mentally rather suppressed, persons who are unsure of themselves, persons who do have certain ambitions, but who cannot realize them. If such a person then believes, “I know I am going to improve”, he is caught in that net. We also find the following in this report, on page 124—

—he is worked up into a sort of ecstasy—

I may just add that the Board of Inquiry in Australia attended some of these sessions. I read on—

In this way the report discusses case after case. I have a newspaper clipping here in which mention is made of the “disappearance of children under the influence of an evil cult”. A certain Mrs. Dell said that her children underwent a dramatic change of personality after they had joined the movement and that they had even given up their university studies. This is the danger of this sect, namely that the mental health of a person may be affected. But the following is another danger we must take into account. These persons who attend the sessions are usually persons displaying some or other symptom, for example, depression, headache, migraine, or whatever the case may be. We are dealing here with pseudoscientific people who, as we have heard, become “auditors” after 20 sessions of one hour each.

Let us look at the report where it refers to a certain person who went through these sessions. They worked this person up into such a state of ecstasy that three days later he was admitted to a mental institution and was there certified as being manic in the worst degree. The commission referred to the psychiatrist, who said that these very sessions, where the person had been asked certain questions and where certain suggestions had been made to him, and where he had been worked up, had pushed him over the threshold of mental derangement. But this is not all. This Hubbard has great ability and a wonderful organization. I am sure his great science lies in the actual organization, so that he has information on and knowledge of every person who goes through some process or other until he becomes “clear”, when he is a “wonderful” person. He also has a strong influence on those persons and now I want to show how strong his hold on those persons is. I refer to page 137 of the above-mentioned report. He wrote a letter to headquarters in Melbourne in connection with a certain Horner. I am not going to mention many names here, but the following words appear in the report—

The greatest danger lies in this sort of activity, because it has already reared its head in South Africa too. Recently we had the court case of a certain Du Plessis, who had in fact been instructed to try and find out whether certain persons did not have anything in their pasts. The hon. member for Rosettenville was involved in this. This is something that is foreign to us. There are many cases in Australia and New Zealand. I shall quote a few of these cases. One headline in an Australian newspaper read as follows: “Cult spy guards his family”. The report read, inter alia, as follows—

Apparently a certain member of the Government. The report goes on—

He had to investigate 16 people. That was his task. Can we afford to allow this sort of thing in South Africa? Can we allow people’s pasts to be investigated? Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain. With that hold he has over his own people, and the hold he has over those who condemn him and over those who criticize him, we are indeed dealing with an octopus.

I go further. I have here a letter from a professor in theology. He wrote to me personally after I had asked him a few questions about his research in connection with Scientology. The letter reads, inter alia, as follows (translation)—

They pretend to be against communism. In the letter which appeared in Die Transvaler, and which was also quoted by the hon. member for Kimberley (South), it is stated: “Scientology is not foreign to the nation”. It was probably written by a scientologist. He does not say that he is one. This is what he said (translation)—

Sir, this is not all we have to deal with. We must decide whether this fraud, this cult, this octopus, is a religion, because they declare, as is done in this letter, that (translation)—

I briefly want to give a few quotations about this man Hubbard. Hubbard states that he has been in heaven twice. He has been on Venus once, and he has once passed over the Van Allen Belt—I do not know where that is. He believes in a Thetan, a mystical entity. He says the following:

He goes on to say—

Listen to the postscript—

Is this religion? In the same bulletin he goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by mentioning just one other facet of this matter. It is this. Is Scientology connected with communism? There is no evidence to prove that, but the scientologists have most certainly made use of a book called “The Brainwashing Manual”. I shall read a passage from it, which is also quoted in the report of the English Board of Inquiry. In its report the Board stated the following—

It is doubtful who the author of the book was. The Board maintained that the author was Beria, the chief security officer of Russia. He allegedly gave a lecture on this subject, which was then translated. The report states—

These are the people who say that they are anti-communist and that they are in favour of our Government. After this “Brainwashing Manual” had been analysed by scientists the finding of the Board of Inquiry was that the language and style of this were exactly the same as those of Hubbard. This is no proof that he wrote the book, but we do have proof that his people distributed it. It was found that one issue had been translated and that the “communism” had been replaced by “Scientology”. The word “comrade” had been replaced by “audit”, and so on. One paragraph of this amended edition of the book reads, inter alia, as follows—

Mr. Speaker, if we can make out a case, we must decide to-day whether we have any doubt as to whether this cult is an ideology foreign to our nation, whether it has any connection with the breaking down of our norms, and whether it is a church. I may just say that they sent us a splendid booklet, in which their views on religion, etc., are stated. And on the front cover there is a little chorister, as we have in certain churches, singing a little song!

It gives me great pleasure to-day to endorse the plea made by the hon. member for Kimberley (South) in the motion before the House. I am glad that the hon. member has not, in this instance, asked for a commission of inquiry, as this would involve a series of public hearings and subsequent publication of the evidence given. There is no doubt in my mind, from the evidence available to us, that the public has been and is being seriously hampered in its knowledge of the real objects of Scientology by the fact that on almost every occasion when the organization is publicly discussed either by individuals or in the Press, the person or the newspaper concerned has been served either with a writ of libel or, as I was last year, threatened with an action for defamation. It is, as we know, the common practice of this movement to hound people in this way who speak about the movement in public and not in a privileged Assembly of this kind. I am reliably informed, as I am quite sure the hon. member for Kimberley (South) is also, that South African psychiatrists generally are at present collecting all the available evidence they can about the damage being done by the Scientology movement in the field of mental health. For this reason, also, it would seem advisable for the hon. the Minister to consider the appointment of a departmental committee of investigation at this stage.

Now of course there is a background to this type of movement, of which I think we should all be aware. Perhaps my approach to the whole matter is somewhat different from that of some of the other hon. members. I believe the United Kingdom Minister of Health was correct when he said in the House of Commons in August last year—

The scientologists attempt to refute that suggestion. They have a leaflet, which was sent to me before I participated in the symposium at the University of Cape Town last year, in which they set out some principles, inter alia, that they intend to improve your ability to communicate to enable you to handle problems, to give you relief from the hostilities and sufferings of life, to give you freedom from the upsets of the past and to give you the ability to face the future and to change conditions. Well, all that sounds absolutely wonderful, particularly to the insecure person, I have no doubt. It is quite clear to those of us living in this modern world that unless a person’s psyche is reasonably developed or robust, many people can scarcely be blamed for feeling often, even if the reaction is not verbalized, rather like a meaningless cog in a vast machine.

I think we all of us feel sometimes, in the vast technological revolution in which we are involved, that this is something which is very much beyond our control and we do not understand as much of it as we would like to. In other words, people tend to feel a little bewildered and lost. One of the techniques developed by science from the days of Pavlov’s experiments with his dogs, to modern behaviourist psychology, as our medical friends will know, is this technique of brainwashing or manipulation of the human psyche. Like so many scientific discoveries, these techniques have often been commercialized.

We are familiar with them in other fields, by means of advertisements, jingles and slogans. We find a degree of it in politics, of course. The brainwashing of political prisoners has become a commonplace in communist countries. We find it in certain education systems and in religions and cults and movements, such as this one, and you even find it in psychological analysis itself, where the bona fides of the person concerned are not what they should be. But I think that perhaps this basic feeling of anxiety and insecurity, on which this movement relies very much for its adherents, is what drives people to support movements of this kind. As the hon. member for Kimberley (South) quite correctly said, it is our experience to-day that the accepted conventional religions often find it difficult to reconcile our present scientific knowledge and techniques with dogmas that have proved valid for people throughout the centuries, and so it is that people who are in doubt about these things turn to lunatic fringe movements of this kind and find they have a great appeal. They find it a means of getting outside themselves and their immediate difficulties. They think it is a means of allaying some of the anxieties which beset their lives. Scientology is essentially an amalgam of semi-religious and pseudo-scientific jargon and teachings which, I entirely agree with the hon. member for Berea, are basically something of a fraud.

On the surface, if you read this leaflet, the Scientology training programme would appear to be all sweetness and light, but I think we should bear in mind in discussing this matter—and I hope the hon. the Minister will bear it in mind—that the thinking and the action behind this type of movement are nothing new, despite modem psychiatric techniques, techniques which can be, and often are, in the hands of laymen, commercialized and abused. It is a demonstrable fact that throughout our civilization there have always been these curious marginal areas of the human mind, and I refer generally to the world of fortune-tellers and astrologers, occultists and scientologists and the like. They are as old as the hills; there is nothing new about them. It is merely that the one under discussion is making rather dangerous use of modern knowledge and techniques for its own purposes. Fortune-mongering and attempts at mind control, and things of that kind, can be extremely complicated and, as we have agreed here this afternoon, they can have very serious social consequences indeed. Hon. members have already demonstrated that the jargon used in circulars distributed to the initiated in the Scientology movement suggest all the magic and the mystery and the kind of inner secret code that always accompany this type of rather phony movement. I think the thing to remember, as I said in the beginning, is that the basic condition for initiation as an adherent and as a supporter is a state of anxiety, tension and insecurity. I make no bones about saying that without this situation the movement would have very few adherents at all.

This is the key, of course, to all the advertised courses of this movement, which promises to teach its followers how to translate anxiety into action and how, finally, to translate action into the wielding of power. Of course there is usually quite a lot of money involved and the technique of leading anxious people on, by holding a light in front of their eyes continuously and promising them a marvellous solution has very interesting possibilities, particularly for people in search of power over others.

We are agreed that Scientology may pretend to be a science, but of course it is nothing of the kind, although it has borrowed from science all along. But the trouble starts in any such movement when the anxiety of an individual is deliberately made use of by means of lengthy consultations, and costly ones at that, and a final diagnosis is very often never reached at all. This, I think, where it can be proved, and it has been proved often, is, as I said at the University Symposium—and I repeat it in this House—a confidence trick in the accepted sense of the word. The danger seems to me, from a medical point of view, to lie in the form of any psychological reconstruction, so called, that this may take especially in the hands of amateurs; because this type of handling of people in the psychological field, which is a new science, the science of mind, may alter forces within the psyche itself for better or for worse. It may give vent to long pent-up energies, many of which may not be constructive. It may also create a curious phantasmal world to serve as a substitute for the real thing, and there are very real dangers, as any doctor will tell you, attached to that kind of thing. Since the study of mind and psychology itself is so closely related to physical and mental disorders and it is a comparatively new science, very great potential dangers attach to any movement of this kind, which plays about irresponsibly in this field.

I say that the activities of an organization of this kind may take the form, and in fact do in certain aspects of a fraud against a vulnerable person. Medical science is now, I think, more than ever concerned to prove that by far the greatest amount of preventable illness and sub-normal health comes from the mind itself, and that better understanding and the prevention of factors which lead to maladjustment, frustration and unhappiness is the most favourable line of attack. For that very reason I consider, and I am quite certain the medical people consider also, that this is something which should be left entirely in the hands of the experts and should not be handed over to amateurs in this field.

Now the money-making procedures of the Scientology movement are elaborate and there is no doubt that the organization makes considerable profits from a variety of sources. Individuals who were present at the symposium in which I participated, under the aegis of the Rational Thinkers Forum at the University of Cape Town last year, without exception got up and testified, after the symposium was over, against the movement. The majority of them claimed that they had had to pay large sums of money for consultations and, on finding that the movement was unable to help them after all, when attempting to leave it, they were subjected to threats of exposure and even of defamation of a most unpleasant kind. May I say finally that Scientology leaders, as those of us who have been bombarded with literature from their public relations officers ever since we opened our mouths on the subject know, have an equally insidious habit of misquoting statements made by people in the public field and in the newspapers as well. After I had spoken at that symposium, I was sent a letter by their legal officer. Here it is. I was then informed that they had made a transcript of my address at the University that evening while I was talking. They then proceeded to quote what purported to be two statements made by me in the course of that symposium. I had very full notes with me at the time, and I have them here in my file today. The first statement is totally inaccurate and the second statement is accurate, except that they left out one sentence which was vital to the meaning of the whole point I was making, and in fact it made it very much worse than anything I actually said. I have the notes here to prove that.

They went on to say in this letter from their legal officer—

Well, this is characteristic of what happens to other people in this field. May I just say that at this symposium the other two people who spoke with me were Dr. Pascot, who is a senior psychiatrist in the Government Service, and Prof. F. J. M. Potgieter, professor of theology and doctor of psychology, of the University of Stellenbosch. I have no doubt that these two gentlemen received similar threats of actions of defamation after the symposium was over. The hon. member for Berea was present that evening and so he can vouch for the accuracy of everything I say here to-day.

My second example of how they misquote for their own purposes the things that are said by the Press comes in a document which purports to include a series of quotations from the overseas Press, proving that, in fact, the majority of people in Britain were very much against any kind of investigation being made into the movement. It so happens that one of the papers they quoted from is the English weekly paper, The Spectator, which we get at home and generally enjoy reading very much. They quote from The Spectator, but leave out sentences which happen to suit them and they end up by saying this, quoting The Spectator—

In other words the British Government should reverse its intention of carrying out an investigation. Having put in: “In fairness to all sides in this controversy, the Government should reverse its present stand” they leave a few dots and end the quote. That sentence should be completed with the words—I have The Spectator in front of me to prove it—“… and order an immediate and full inquiry into Scientology in Britain.” Mr. Speaker, this is the type of action they take in order to state their case. Quite clearly they have no scruples in misquoting anybody or anything they choose. I was interested to see that the Minister of Health in the United Kingdom, when he was discussing this matter in August last year, referred to the findings of the Anderson Commission, i.e. the Australian one, and said—

He went on to say this finally—

That was the British Minister of Health. In an article, which hon. members may have seen this week in the Rand Daily Mail of 19th February, the writer quoted a Mr. Gordon Cook, assistant public relations chief for the Scientology movement in Africa, as saying in response to a question—

All their pretentious claims that they are there merely for the purpose of assisting people are rather given the lie by that type of statement.

I would say, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that not only is the movement manifestly silly and sick, but I think it represents a real danger to the psychologically unstable people in our society. For that reason it gives me great pleasure to support the motion before the House this afternoon.

In the first place I want to extend my sincere thanks to hon. members who have participated in and who are still going to participate in the debate for the way in which they have discussed and will discuss this matter. I feel that no one who has been listening could have escaped the impression that we are dealing here with an awkward but a very serious matter. I want to say to the hon. member for Kimberley (South) that he has done the House of Assembly and the country a service by focusing attention on this matter. He did so in his customary thorough way, and I think I can say the same for the hon. members for Berea and Brentwood and the hon. member who has just resumed her seat. I listened to them very attentively because this is an important matter. What I found particularly striking was that the hon. member for Kimberley (South) said that apart from anything else he was rising to speak here because his conscience had told him to do so, and that he also said at the end of his speech that he had perhaps misinterpreted the movement; that perhaps it was not what he thought it was. In other words, he brought what his heart told him to bring to the House for inquiry with clear conscience. In the second place I am grateful for the tenor of the discussion because no requests were made here to the effect that the Government or I should base our judgment on the reports of other countries or people, and that is a very important thing. A second thing which struck me was that in this entire debate, an open debate on a matter—and I want to emphasize this—which is not a party political matter, not a single voice was raised in defence and this so-called Scientology organization. The Government must take very careful note of that. That is why I, on my part, want to put the standpoint which we have adopted up to now. When I took over this portfolio there were immediate requests from all quarters to the effect that this matter should be investigated, and I then adopted the following attitude; I think it was the correct attitude at that stage since I had not had an opportunity of taking this matter into consideration. I said—

1. (1) I have made no decision in regard to action, if any.
2. (2) My predecessor has considered an investigation, but did not finalize one.
3. (3) The Government …

Not only the Department of Health—

1. (4) It is not my intention at this stage to have a public inquiry instituted.
2. (5) The methods used by the cult to reply to criticism are unsavoury and reprehensible.

I think this was proved here to-day—

1. (6) Quite a number of complaints are being received from members of the public, in which they complain that the Scientology movement is obtaining money in an extortionary way from people who find themselves under the influence of the organization.
2. (7) The South African Medical and Dental Council has expressed its concern about this movement.

1. (8) It is my duty in the public interest to point out that there is nothing good to be said about charlatanism, and in many cases it results in uncurable, prejudicial mental and/or physical consequences.

That was my standpoint last year. Since then, as happened here to-day, there has been a tremendous public demand to the effect that there should at least be an inquiry. In Die Transvaler, for example, a strong plea was made: “Dissect Scientology”, and there was also a leading article. Other newspapers followed the example of Die Transvaler. These are newspapers which, without fear of contradiction, act so responsibly in matters like this that one must take thorough cognizance of their standpoint. In fact, I want to say this: With a few exceptions the newspapers have, as far as this movement is concerned acted very responsibly up to this point. The same demand was also made by various members of Parliament. The hon. member for Berea is correct; he came to discuss this matter with me. I may just say in passing that I did of course grant interviews to members of the House of Assembly, but I granted interviews to no one else, and I firmly refused to grant an interview to the scientology movement. I am merely mentioning this for the information of hon. members. In addition there were a great number of letters and other representations to the effect that an investigation should at least be instituted, and certain information was submitted which gave rise to doubts in regard to this whole movement.

Mr. Speaker, I have here before me certain opinions from Government Departments and from other sources. I am certain that hon. members will not expect me to reveal what the source is in each case, but I do in fact want to say that these opinions came from the most responsible bodies imaginable. What do they say? I quote (translation)—

Here is another—

This movement has caused concern throughout the world, not only in South Africa. I am quoting again: “At the moment it would appear that it is a threat to the psychological and psychiatrical professions. It is well known that Hubbard, the head of the movement, derives financial benefit from the organization.” I cannot confirm this, but I understand that he is actually stateless and that he lives aboard a ship in the Mediterranean—

And then the following—

(this is not a conditional statement)—

In addition I have here the opinion of the South African National Council for Mental Health—

Sir, I feel that I must state the situation precisely as it exists. The three Afrikaans churches, the Anglican church and the Methodist church have not yet adopted an attitude in regard to the organization. There is an inquiry, as the hon. member indicated. However, one must take cognizance of the personal opinions of eminent church leaders and what they say—

They go on to say—

These are only a few of the extracts which I want to read to hon. members. Mention was made here of the fact that the state of Victoria in Australia appointed a commission and subsequently declared the organization to be illegal. Mr. Hubbard cannot go to Britain nor Rhodesia. In August of last year the British Government took the following steps, and as we have all come to expect from the British we know that if they take steps against any organization it is late in the day; their doors are always open to any organization; they can go unchallenged in Trafalgar Square or anywhere else; this is a characteristic of the British nation. They took the following steps (translation)—

In view of the way in which Britain always acts. I think I can say that this was extremely drastic. On the 28th January, 1968, Sir John Foster Q.C., a Conservative M.P., was appointed to investigate the movement. This investigation was to be undertaken privately, but a report of his findings were to have been published. These, and the pleas presented, I have before me, and so has the Government, and I now think that any sensible person will admit that it would be serious dereliction of duty if we did not at least agree to a very thorough investigation into this organization and its activities, a very thorough investigation because we must know what is going on here. We will definitely have this investigation made. I will, on a subsequent occasion, announce who the members of the commission of inquiry are to be. This commission will function in the same way as ordinary commissions of inquiry. Nevertheless I want to give this House an indication of what the terms of reference of this commission will be. I cannot commit myself at the moment as to what the specific terms of reference will be but I do nevertheless want to give an indication of what they will be. It will be a committee of inquiry into the activities of the organization with the following terms of reference: To investigate and report on: Firstly, the aims and objectives of Scientology and to determine whether the organization as such is capable of achieving such objectives. Secondly, the methods, processes, practises, techniques and principles of the steps taken in order to achieve the envisaged objectives. Thirdly, the nature and amount of compensation levied or received by persons involved in the practice of the cult. We must also establish in what way and by which methods this money is collected, and the methods which are applied. Fourthly, the kind of behavioural deviations and diseases, or so-called diseases to which the devotees give attention. Fifthly, the way in which Scientology is being advertised. In the sixth place the possible beneficial or prejudicial results of the processes and lastly, the way in which persons under the age of 16 years are being implicated in this movement, and legal considerations regarding the consent of parents to having their children implicated in this movement. It is very important that we should also look at the youth aspect in this matter. As I have said, this commission will subsequently be announced, and will function in the normal way. We will also follow the procedure that the report published will as usual be considered by the Cabinet and that a decision will then be taken as to whether it is going to be published or not. I just want to say this here because this is the normal procedure. It is also the procedure that the Government cannot of course be bound in regard to recommendations in such a commission’s report. This is a democratic and correct way in which we should act.

There are also a few other things which cropped up and which convinced me even further that this matter should receive urgent attention. Arising out of what has been said here, there can be no argument about the fact that there is a big question mark next to the activities of this organization. That they follow strange procedures has been placed on record here. The fact that interrogations take place and that fines are imposed is also well known. If there is any vestige of truth in this, and I accept in the light of the evidence which is being brought in, that there is more than just a trace, this is in itself a reason for having an investigation instituted. South Africa is not used to this kind of thing, and if it exists it must be stamped out as we are stamping out Communism. The germ of blackmail are contained in this organization. The disruption of family relationships was also mentioned here, as well as the proportions which this organization was assuming in South Africa in comparison with the rest of the world. The last, and to my mind a very important point, is the type of person on which these people concentrate this precisely at a time when we are achieving an ever-increasing amount of success with psychiatric treatment.

Mr. Speaker, as you have probably noticed, I have not expressed an opinion on any of these matters. However, they are to my mind sufficient proof that a government is doing the right thing in having this matter investigated. There are a few other reasons as well. Perhaps something good can come of this, and one must never lose one’s sense of humour when one is dealing with this kind of thing. However, this is not humorous, I am coming to that later. An organization which states in its own publications that it is no longer doing certain things is admitting that it did in fact do those things. My opinion is that if the organizations has done what it claims to have done, that alone justifies an investigation. What do they say? I have here a booklet with the title “Report to Members of Parliament on Scientology”. This booklet was not addressed to us but to Members of Parliament in England. It contains this statement—

The last point is quite important, especially in these days in which we are living, i.e. “prohibition of any confessional materials being written down or otherwise recorded”. If this is so, i.e. that they are no longer doing these things, it is already reason enough to have this organization investigated, since these things were done. I said one must not lose one’s sense of humour. Hon. members spoke here about things which these people had themselves said. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) stated that they have an instrument which is connected up to a tomato, and then they determine what is happening in that tomato. I am not interested in this, but if that instrument really worked on pumpkins we could perhaps derive some benefit from it. If it is possible that they can increase people’s I.Q., then we must go into this matter very thoroughly. They also claim that the spirit of a human being can be separated from the body, and then that person can gaze at his own image from a distance. If one can succeed in doing that, one can put it to good use. Lastly, I do not know what this question of “clears” includes, but the opposite of “clear” is to my mind “muddled”. If one can obtain greater clarity in regard to certain things as a result of these activities it could be of value to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for the fine contributions they made, for the responsible way in which this matter was presented, and particularly for the significant thing which happened here, i.e. that not one single member stood up to defend this organization or to oppose an investigation.

Mr. Speaker, it has already been said that we on this side of the House welcome this motion. We also want to thank the hon. the Minister for announcing the appointment of this commission. I think that from the debate here to-day, the hon. the Minister realizes what difficulties he will be faced with in getting people to give evidence before the commission. As the hon. member for Wynberg said, we as politicians are bombarded with masses of literature. There is one piece of literature in particular of which we as politicians should take note. I refer to something written by Mr. Lafayette Ron Hubbard, who is the head of this organization. He said:

His attitude to anybody who questions the bona fides of this organization is therefore one of intimidation. As the hon. the Minister quite rightly said, and I was pleased that he mentioned it, we in this country like Great Britain allow a considerable amount of freedom of religion. But I think that it is unfortunate that Scientology comes under the cloak of religion, because in all the documents I have read I have not found any reference to the teachings of the Bible to any great depth, other than references which are interpreted as being in favour of Scientology. As the hon. member for Wynberg quite rightly said, there is nothing new about this cult or the methods it uses. We have seen these methods being used in other parts of the world for the furtherance of Communism. We know of the power of brainwashing and of bending the mind. As has been quite rightly said here today you find that people who come under the influence of this organization are unfortunately the weak.

The methods of recruitment used by this organization are quite interesting. I received a pamphlet which was handed out, I believe, in the vicinity of Sea Point. It is an enrollment form which takes the form of a questionnaire. The questionnaire appears under the heading: “What can Scientology do for me?” This is an enrollment form and if you complete it you can of course go a step further in this organization. The leaflet says: “If you can say no to the following questions you do not need the help of Scientology and we would be very pleased to meet you.” Then certain questions follow, such as: “Do you worry about money?” Our answer would of course be yes. The leaflet also asks: “Would you really like to change your job yet fear to venture into something new?” As a politician, one’s answer is of course yes and no. Other questions are: “Do you ever feel that your children are naughty, spoilt and out of control? Would you like a happy marriage completely free of problems? Do you often mistrust other people’s intentions? Do you wonder what profession your child is best suited for? Have you ever felt that you have been unfairly treated? Do you ever wonder how on earth you could have chosen your marriage partner?” These are very intimate questions. Other questions are: “Have you ever worried about your children’s health? Do you ever dream of becoming a famous personality?” This might appeal to an untrained and weak mind and that is of course what it is intended to do. I have other documents here which for instance describe how you go through a security check.

These people have made much of what has happened in the United States of America. They have even sent out circulars. But the feeling of intimidation is always present. They tell us about the lawsuits that they are going to institute in the U.S.A. and they tell us what they are going to do with the money, etc.

There is a growing resistance against this organization all over the world. I know of a case here in Cape Town which involved a young man who was quite clever and had a bright future. His family hoped that he would go to university. Unfortunately he was caught up in this cult and he changed mentally completely. I am pleased to be able to say that he is gradually returning to normal and that he will be able to complete his studies. He was not up to the brainwashing and the advanced teachings of this organization. There are hon. members who have received letters from various people who are involved in this organization. The fear or prosecution is deeply rooted in these people. They have brought these matters to our notice but they have asked us not to mention their names. We hope that the people who appear before this commission will be protected so that they can come forward and state their case so that we can get as much evidence as possible about this organization. This organization might be above-board but the rest of the world has not found it so. I think that we will find the position to be similar in this country. When we see the cancer of Scientology growing in this country of ours with its small white population, we should stamp it out in its early stages. Like Communism this cancer could destroy our country. If we do not take action against it as soon as possible, it will do so. On behalf of this side of the House I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the statement he made to-day in regard to this organization.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At first sight the wording of the motion might give the impression that the only issue arising out of the population explosion in the Republic is that of family planning. However, as any doctor will tell you the term “preventive medicine” covers a very wide field indeed. In fact it covers the whole spectrum of what is normally related to our Public Health Act. I could just as easily have used the term “social medicine” though I understand that this term lends itself to misinterpretation. As far as I am concerned preventive medicine involves deliberate programmes to deal with such matters as family planning, malnutrition, child clinics, health education, industrial hazards, such as air and water pollution, excess noise and other related subjects. I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that on the 20th February, 1968, I asked the previous Minister of Health whether a division of social medicine existed in his Department or not. I was told that such a division of social medicine had never existed but that if I had any ideas on the subject, they would receive serious attention. This motion is therefore an attempt to bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister and I believe that it will receive serious consideration. Being a doctor himself, the hon. the Minister will know that it is far better and less expensive to educate the population in regard to health matters and, where necessary, to help with the provision of antidotes in anticipation of sickness or disease, rather than to let things deteriorate until the need for the hospitalization of serious cases arises at ever increasing cost to the authorities and patients alike. Hence, therefore, the term “preventive medicine.” This applies also to the population explosion and the whole question of family planning. There is no doubt that a lack of family planning gives rise to much malnutrition, over-crowding and unhygienic conditions and all the diseases which so often accompany those conditions.

I should like to deal initially with the population explosion and the need for famliy planning. I should like to say at once that I have deliberately raised this delicate issue with the Minister of Health, as I consider it imperative that this matter should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to impinge upon the political field, especially in view of our present political situation. The desirability of curbing population growth as a means of preventing starvation must be obvious to everyone in this or any other country. I think it is equally obvious, as any social worker in fact will tell you, Sir, that it is not possible merely to dole out the pill to ignorant people and hope for a quick answer that way. Any family planning campaign undertaken in the Republic, if it is to be a success, must obviously involve a degree of social and educational uplift as well, including better housing and higher wages. These things are all related. In the past 100 years, as hon. members may know, the world population has doubled, and at the present rate of human reproduction is likely to double itself again within the next 50 years, and unless steps are taken to prevent it, it is quite impossible for us to prevent catastrophes of one kind or another resulting from a situation of that kind. If we in this country wish to provide the opportunity for a full and happy life to our own descendants as well as to others, the problems of numbers must be faced and faced now. I wish, however, to make it perfectly clear that in raising this issue and making an urgent plea for greater subsidization and organization by the State of family planning services throughout the country, particularly amongst those sections of the population least able, for reasons of poverty and ignorance, to care adequately for the very large families they produce, I do not link this plea with a concomitant one for the restriction of feeding schemes or other campaigns in the field of preventive medicine. In other words, it is my view that family planning is an absolutely essential and important aspect of preventive medicine, but it is only one aspect of it. I think our responsibilities go much further than that.

Other nations have had to face these issues also. Japan for example is well on the way to solving its great post-war problem of overpopulation. Hon. members might be interested to know that in that small country planned parenthood has reduced the birthrate in the past 20 years from 34 live births per thousand to 16 per thousand. In South Africa in 1967 the figure was 22.9 Whites per 1,000, 43.3 per thousand among the Coloureds, 30 per 1,000 for Asiatics, and of course there are no reliable figures available for the Bantu.

I think what should concern us, if we are to keep the matter in perspective and deal with it on a rational basis, is not the population explosion as such but rather over-population in terms of the country’s resources and requirements. Over-population implies precisely what it says, namely the existence of more individuals than can be supported in reasonable health and comfort over the years. It is a condition in any country, not only in our own, which brings with it many attendant miseries. I submit that many of these miseries are already apparent within the borders of South Africa.

To fill the country to saturation point because of a failure to plan ahead in this field would lead, inevitably, to a sabotaging of the common good—that applies to everybody. What should be encouraged is not numbers but quality.

All the medical authorities the world over concerned with the problems of over-population are agreed that illiteracy has a direct relationship to the birthrate. It is for this reason, amongst others, that the problem of a family-planning campaign in South Africa assumes such complexity. Where do we begin? Formal education does not fall within the purview of this Minister’s Department; on the other hand health education very definitely does. It is correctly argued that if educational and living conditions in communities are improved, your population explosion will to a large extent automatically take care of itself. This has proved to be the case in fairly developed communities, particularly in highly industrialized countries. However, we in South Africa have another hazard, and a much greater one, and that is that our population growth is at present far outstripping the social advancement of the majority of our people, and unless something drastic is done and comprehensive research and planning carried out, there seems little chance that this unfavourable balance will be reversed in the foreseeable future.

I do maintain that no one has the right to tell other people, especially if they belong to another racial group, how many children they should or should not have. It is imperative, however, that individuals should be advised, that problem families should be helped, and that by running extensive family planning clinics we should try to give people the means to make the vital decision in favour of smaller families.

Under these circumstances, and approached in this manner, such a campaign will assume a positive and not a negative aspect, for parents can then be persuaded that they can do far more for their children, provide more of their material needs, assist them in their education, if they are able to space their families intelligently. Another important point is that the fact that this leads also to considerable improvement in maternal health which, in turn, reflects upon the general welfare of the family. With better education goes a better standard of living—these things are all related—as well as a lower illegitimacy rate, and therefore we have a healthier, better cared-for child population, and better and more productive workers in adulthood. A drop in the size of families is one of the results of improvements in living standards.

Here in this country we also have to take into consideration the fact that, where a population is likely to double itself within a period of 20 years, as is the case of the Coloured people of the Cape for instance, it becomes increasingly difficult for the authorities generally, all the Government departments, to catch up on the backlog in housing, health services, schools, and the teachers needed to maintain them. Unfortunately it is a fact that in South Africa to-day we devote far more money to dealing with the already chronically sick and the provision of hospital services than we do to family planning, medical research or to preventive medicine.

What is asked for in this motion is an urgent re-assessment of the whole scope of our public health services in the Republic. I do think such a re-assessment is badly overdue. We should begin by widening considerably the scope of our Public Health Act, which was drafted in 1919, and, apart from certain minor amendments, has not been seriously adapted to the changed conditions and problems now facing our public health authorities. The whole situation has completely changed. Many of this country’s most highly qualified medical people consider that the state of public health in South Africa is at a very low ebb. This is due in part to our outdated Public Health Act, and I hope the Minister will think in those terms. It is also partly due to the rapid changes in medicine and world conditions that we have seen in the last half century. The Minister himself, in a speech he made here in Cape Town the other day, referred to the growing density of our urban population. I think he should bear in mind also the fact that the public health service, both local and state, is very poorly paid, and that present entrants cannot compete with better-paid sections of the medical profession elsewhere.

I hope the Minister will support this suggestion here to-day, because let me remind him that preventive medicine is mentioned only once in the 1919 Public Health Act, and an amendment to implement this section is clearly indicated at this stage.

Let me deal with another aspect of preventive medicine. As far as one can ascertain, the state medical service does very little about preventing malnutrition for instance, despite the subsidy paid to local authorities and Bantu Tribal Authorities for the distribution of skimmed milk powder. When I wrote to the Secretary for Health in December, 1967, asking for information that would give me an “overall picture of Government attempts to combat malnutrition amongst all sections of the Republic”, Dr. Murray wrote as follows in reply—

In one of the papers which Dr. Murray sent to me in 1967, the departmental adviser on nutrition, Dr. J. M. Latsky, made an interesting comment. He wrote as follows—

The cost which was cited by Dr. Latsky in the early 1960’s, would quite obviously be very much higher to-day. This is all public money—quite apart from the fact that the children concerned in kwashiorkor cases are often seriously affected physically and mentally for life if treatment is not available at an early stage. Take the problem of tuberculosis. If ever a campaign of preventive medicine was required, it is in this field. In March, 1966, the Secretary for Health said that 40 people a day died of tuberculosis in the Republic—between 15,000 and 20,000 people a year. When I tell the hon. members how the amount voted under our Health Vote has gone up for this particular disease over the years, I think hon. members will be astonished. Let me tell them that 17 per cent of the Health Vote was allocated for dealing with tuberculosis in 1949, 42 per cent of the Health Vote was thus allocated in 1961, 55 per cent of the Health Vote was devoted to this disease in 1962 and, according to the Minister between 57 and 60 per cent of the Health Vote was devoted to dealing with tuberculosis in 1968. If ever there was a reason for preventive medicine, surely this is one. In 1967 there were just under 70,000 registered cases in South Africa and there were thousands of cases that were never registered at all. Of those 70,000 registered cases in South Africa 58.751 were Bantu, most of them were in the rural area. It is quite true as people say, that malnutrition is a cause of tuberculosis. In South Africa it is largely a result of poor feeding habits on the part of the non-white races. In part I think that is correct. In this field, of course, the role of the health educator, which is another aspect of preventive medicine, is absolutely vital. There is no doubt about it that poverty is also an overriding cause of malnutrition. I want to give the Minister two very brief examples of this. The findings of a 12-month field study undertaken by the University of Cape Town in 1967, as reported in the Medical Journal of July, 1967, were as follows:

Dr. J. F. Potgieter who is on the staff of the National Nutrition Research Institute said, as published in the Medical Journal in 1965:

So here it is the children who are most affected. It is to them that preventive medicine can be most profitably applied. We have had the South African National Tuberculosis Association pleading in its report at the end of last year and saying that ignorance was the big cause, and that health educators were the people who were needed most of all.

When I raised this question of health educators in the House last year, the hon. the Minister replied that there were 27 of them who had been trained by his department. The scheme to train them was started in 1965 and by 1968 they had been trained; 27 health educators only, none of whom were concerned with Europeans, Coloureds or Asiatics. All of them are employed by the Department of Health for work amongst the Bantu, of whom we have got 11 million in this country. Of these 27 health educators, six are in the Orange Free State, 13 in the Southern Transvaal and eight in the Transvaal—not one for the Cape Province, which includes the Transkei, where the disease of tuberculosis is rampant. The minimum educational qualification for a two-year health-educator course for a Bantu is std. 8. The hon. the Minister will probably agree with me that a greater effort could be made in this field in order to train more of these Bantu people, who have achieved std. 8. Why not put them through a special course and send them out to work amongst their own people where they understand the reasons for resistance to health measures? I am sure there are hundreds of Bantu with std. 8 qualifications, who are working with picks and shovels to-day, who could be recruited and subsidized and trained to work most profitably amongst their own people in this way. Rhodesia does it.

The system of tuberculosis control in Rhodesia is one of the best in Africa. I went into this in great detail with the Secretary of Health when I was in Rhodesia last year. The key to their system is that most of their health assistants are Africans. If you add up the number of Africans in Rhodesia registered with their medical council, who are competent to deal with health education, the figure is much higher than in South Africa. They have 883 African nursing orderlies, 116 health assistants, 126 African hygiene demonstrators, totalling 1.125. That is their number for 4½ million Africans. We only have 27 health educators for 11 million Africans in this country. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is something we should really consider very seriously. The Secretary for Health in Rhodesia told me that these fieldworkers in the health education programme are taught to demonstrate sanitation methods, water supply protection and simple domestic hygiene. They are also taught inoculation techniques and the treatment of minor injuries, and ailments. A programme of health education was in fact instituted in South Africa some years ago and it functioned for about eight years. However, it went out of commission altogether and no scheme has ever been implemented since. In 1965 Dr. Quass of the C.S.I.R. made an urgent appeal for the establishment of a department of nutrition, but nothing has been done about it. I think we should take this position of the deterioration of our health service over the years very seriously. In its last report, in 1955, the National Nutrition Council in South Africa expressed its great concern at the virtual disappearance of health education as a function of the Department of Health and recommended to the Minister that a division of health education should be re-established. Well, Sir, that is my plea to him to-day.

Before I conclude, I just want to say a word about food surpluses in the application of preventive medicine. Often in the Republic—not this year because we have a drought—but often the farming community finds itself with food surpluses of one kind or another. You know there is a whole series of control boards, established with the express purpose of dealing with primary production, either controlling or limiting production, or in order to see that the farmer has some kind of a guaranteed market. But how often have we in this country not found ourselves faced with an overproduction of milk, citrus, bananas, eggs, maize and beans? Yet no co-ordinating Government agency or scheme exists, whereby these essential human foodstuffs could be collected, processed and distributed to those who are most in need of them. Instead of this the taxpayer in South Africa, that is you and I, are faced with the need to provide very expensive and extensive hospital facilities for thousands who, with a little official foresight and imagination, need never become hospital inmates at all, particularly if they were assured of a balanced and reasonable diet. In the United States poverty even now affects 8 million people. In 1946 they introduced the National School Lunch Act and in 1966 the Child Nutrition Act. Now there are facilities for special milk, school breakfasts and a national school lunch. May I point out to hon. members that in the United States these programmes require community effort. They are not a welfare handout—they require community effort. School officials and local citizens run the programme among themselves and the Department of Agriculture’s consumer and marketing service, as they call it, administers and is responsible for the distribution of essential foodstuffs which in turn is subsidized by the federal government. I know this Government has subsidized primary produce of various kinds over the years.

I also want to remind hon. members that in 1964 we had just under 3 million Bantu, Coloured and Asiatic children in school where you could get at them and do something about their feeding problems. If each one of them received ½ pint of fresh milk or dried milk daily, the danger of contracting tuberculosis or kwashiorkor, on the grounds of malnutrition could virtually be prevented. I know that 1½ million gallons of dried skimmed milk was distributed to local authorities through the Milk Board and the Government during the last year, but we throw away millions of gallons every day also. This is a terrible thing. Information has been given to this House that in six days between January and December, 1966, 22,100 gallons of milk were thrown away in Pretoria. In Johannesburg over a period of 69 days between December, 1966, and February, 1967, 572,000 gallons were thrown down the drain. In February, 1968, the Minister told us that in Johannesburg between October, 1967, and February, 1968, 1.5 million gallons were thrown away in 124 days; imagine 1.5 million gallons of skimmed milk were thrown away! In 1968-’69, the latest figures, in a period of 13 months between January, 1968, and February, 1969, in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Bloemfontein and the Western Transvaal 3,383,000 gallons were thrown away. Surely, it would be much more intelligent to utilize these surpluses in a preventive health scheme. For the Minister of Agriculture to say to me to-day that the Dairy Board was negotiating with a firm in Lourenço Marques to purchase all South Africa’s surplus skimmed milk and other milk products, for those products to be utilized in another country, seems to me entirely wrong. I would really plead with the Minister to think in terms of preventive medicine in this field, because the alternative is underfed, disease-ridden communities, whose sickliest members have ultimately to be dealt with at a great cost by our hard-pressed hospital services.

Now, may I make a suggestion in regard to the distribution of food? I would like to suggest that the State should organize a food distribution scheme under the leadership of this Minister. It could include mobile markets, selling food on an economic basis in our sub-economic residential areas, and selling fortified maize, meat, fresh milk, milk powder, fruit, vegetables, groceries, margarine, butter, eggs, soya beans and groundnuts, all the things that contain the most necessary vitamins and proteins, including cheap cuts of meat and offal. In July, 1968, our Mealie Control Board had a surplus and was faced with the problem of disposing of 26.5 million bags of surplus maize. The Board expected to lose about R10 million on the current crop, but it hoped to recover some R6 million in the form of levies from producers and consumers. I would suggest that it would be much more effective and useful for producers and consumers alike if such a surplus were given to a Government-sponsored scheme for proper utilization locally—and I would stress the word “locally”—or even for the storage of the grain in response to the country’s needs. I think that the lead in these matters should be given by the hon. the Minister of Health.

In conclusion, I want to say that I think it is an indisputable fact that our general health services and the units responsible for them need overhauling. There are other aspects of preventive medicine which should receive attention but which I obviously cannot go into in any detail now, like school feeding, the wider distribution of pre and post-natal and family planning centres, including baby clinics, to deal with large-scale immunization and child welfare. Industrial workers gathered in factories could be given health education and family planning instruction as well. There should be creches for working mothers. This is a must in these days. There should be propaganda by the Department by means of films and film strips, visiting vans, closed-circuit television and talks and lectures, school visits, canteens, and food distribution units. There are all sorts of ideas which could be used.

I think, to sum up, the two main needs are a country-wide network of family health centres, which should be related to the density and distribution of our population and should be related also to the siting of our general hospitals. These family health centres should be in a position to deal with all the major health requirements of the population in a preventive sense. They could be run very largely by para-medical personnel, especially by qualified nursing staff under medical supervision, with the assistance of married women doctors, medical students, retired nurses and all sorts of people of that kind. They could give preventive treatment to a large section of the population at a vast saving of cost to the State. Ancillary services could be provided by mobile units for radiology, biochemistry and bacteriology, etc. I submit that such a scheme would stop the inundation of our hospital in and out-patient departments, which are under very heavy pressure at present. There is also the endless waiting time and travelling expenses, shifting from one hospital to another, and the present vast expenditure on drugs, which could be considerably reduced. I am very pleased to see that the Cape Province is taking a lead in this matter and has already embarked upon a scheme of peripheral clinics for the area of Greater Cape Town.

The other need, finally, is for the training of health visitors or educators—Bantu for the Bantu people, because they understand each other, Coloured trainees who could work among the Coloured population, where they so often need instruction of a different kind, particularly in regard to illegitimacy and alcoholism and the reduction of violence and basic hygiene in dealing with their children.

Now I want to say, finally, that it is quite clear that the economic background to poverty and inadequate housing is not the direct concern of this Minister, but I beg of him to see whether we cannot achieve some kind of coordination between his Department, the Department of Health and the Departments of Agriculture, Community Development, Housing, Labour, Social Welfare and Education. He is Minister of Planning and it would fall within his purview. Surely it is possible for us to devise some scheme, under his guidance, instead of just drifting on, as we are at the present moment, until the problem of overpopulation defeats us. I do think that our present practices and health services, which have not changed materially for 50 years, are hopelessly inadequate, and, what is more, they are vastly expensive. It is along these lines that I urge the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to the motion before the House.

Many years ago I was already told that one should not argue with a lady; one would not understand her anyway. It was very clear to me when I began to read this motion that in terms of it one can speak about well-nigh everything, and that is what the hon. member for Wynberg in fact did. I do not think she can expect me to reply to everything she said; I cannot solve all the agricultural problems, all the family problems and all the medical problems in the space of a few minutes. I am therefore going to confine myself, as I understood the motion, to the question of the population explosion.

The population explosion is, of course, an international problem. As the U.N. also says in its publication, “The Future Growth of the World Population”—

At present the international population growth is about 5,000 persons an hour. In 20 to 30 years’ time it is calculated that it will be about 11,000 an hour. One of the first people who began to indicate the dangers of the population explosion was Malthus. However, this problem received more attention among philosophers than economists. Perhaps this is because the economists were all settled in the developed countries. The economists were of the opinion that salaries and incomes would determine the population growth. At that time, however, their field of vision was restricted to a fairly close horizon which only stretched as far as the streets of the cities. However, if one looks further, at the Andes mountain ranges, at Africa and Asia, the problem of the population explosion really becomes one of a fight against hunger. More than half of the world’s population to-day is still waiting in vain for the most elementary signs of progress and sufficient food supplies. An obstacle is that the population increase is greatest in the undeveloped countries. It is thus calculated that by the year 1975 the population increase per 1,000 per year in Europe will be 8, in North America 12, in Russia 15, in Africa 17, in Asia 23, and in South America 28, an international average of 20 per 1,000, or 2 per cent.

A person needs about 2,750 calories to be properly fed. In Asia, Africa and South America the average amount of calories available is about 2,150, a shortage of 600. In the other countries of the world there is sufficient food. Unfortunately for the present this group, which has the least food, comprises about 2,136 million as against 876 million in the other parts of the world.

That, then, is the problem; in order to maintain the same level of nutrition, although subnormal, the food position by the year 2000 must increase as follows: in Africa there must be an increase of 100 per cent, in Asia 150 per cent, and in South America 200 per cent. Biological necessity makes it necessary for the food production to increase two or fourfold by the year 2000 just to keep hunger at bay.

In addition we also find that the gap between rich and poor countries is becoming ever greater as the population growth speeds up. What then, is the cause of this population explosion?

The causes are twofold. In the first place, the death rate and, in the second place, the birth rate. Specifically as a result of what the hon. member pleaded for here, preventive medicine, the death rate has decreased to such an extent that the population increase has become tremendously great. That is as a result of this preventive medicine. In contrast to that biological necessity still existed, so that the birth rate did not decrease, and the result was a tremendous increase in population. In the middle of the 18th century we also had this tremendous increase in population in Europe. As a result of progress with that medicine the death rate decreased, and consequently there was a tremendous increase in population. About one million people a year emigrated from Europe to America and elsewhere. In this way, inter alia, South Africa’s White population came into being. What then, is the position in South Africa now compared to that in the rest of the world? As I have already put it, the problem of the population explosion is one of nutrition. In South Africa we calculate that by the end of the century there will be a doubling of the population. At present we are experiencing great prosperity. I have no doubt that by the end of the century South Africa will still have sufficient food to feed its people. The population explosion in South Africa can therefore not be seen in the same light as that in the rest of the world.

There is also this further aspect that we have two large race groups in South Africa, a White group and a non-White group. The position of the Whites is altogether different from that of the non-Whites. If there must be family planning, then the family planning among the Whites must be altogether different from that among the non-Whites. Mr. Speaker, it is worthy of note that between the years 1888 and 1901 the ratio of male immigrants to female immigrants who entered South Africa was 200:100. That is to say, there were 200 men for every 100 women. If one thinks of a population explosion, it is essential to think especially of the women. The group of men gathered together in a community would die out if they were not supplemented from outside. It is therefore important that we take stock of this figure of 200. If one considers that the immigrants which came here during those years were mostly English-speaking, if one looks at what the position of the English-speaking persons in South Africa is to-day, these figures are particularly informative. The average age of all members of the Presbyterian Church is 34.7 years, a tremendously disturbing age; that of the Jewish community is 34 years; of the Anglican Church 32.7, of the Roman Catholic Church, 32.4; the Lutheran 32.4; Congregational 29.5; Methodist 26.5; N.G. Kerk 24; Gereformeerde Kerk 23.7; Hervormde Kerk 21.7; and the Apostolic Faith Mission 19.4. If this is not a disturbing figure for the English-speaking portion of South Africa then I do not know what a disturbing figure is. Mr. Speaker, a nation which does not have its youth, has no future. It is for that reason that in South Africa we are also finding that what was originally regarded as an economic burden, i.e. too many children, is becoming an economic advantage for the Afrikaans-speaking portion of the population. I therefore say that if one thinks of population explosion, of family planning, one must not only think of family increases and decreases. In South Africa we are in addition faced with the particular problem of having different races here. If one begins to make propaganda for family planning, there are prejudices which one must break down; there are accusations which one may perhaps let oneself in for. The accusation can easily be levelled against one that one is engaged in the suppression of another race. Therefore the State can find itself in a particularly difficult position in this regard.

However, for me there is one particular way out, and this is the policy of the National Party. If one keeps Whites and non-Whites apart, if there is a boundary between the different races, anyone is at liberty to make propaganda on a large scale for actual family planning without any suspicion being aroused. Then and then only can one do it in the interests of that nation alone without bringing down on oneself the accusation of racial murder. Sir, just now I spoke of the biological necessity of the woman in the increasing of the population. It is known that the family takes root where the woman is, where the family is born, where they grow up; there is the child’s home, there is his mother country and there his family can be planned. That is why it is in the interests of family planning, of national planning, that this policy of separate development of each nation in its own area be implemented; that is why it is necessary for the women to remain in their respective homelands, the White women in the White homeland and the non-White women in the non-White homeland, and that propaganda for family planning be then made there in such a way that it is in the interests of that nation. Therefore I think that if we foresee future problems as a result of a population explosion, the solution is only to be found along the road the National Party is now following.

Sir, I agree with much of what has been said by the hon. member who has just sat down, but in the course of what I have to say I will also show to what a great extent I differ from him. Sir, in speaking in support of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Wynberg, I think I should analyze a real problem which she has posed, and in doing so I want to make it clear that I am not making a political speech, although there may be some political fringes which are unavoidable. The problem she poses is the problem of the population explosion. She added other items such as malnutrition, bad feeding and badly designed health projects, with most of which I agree, but basically this problem is the problem of the over-population of this country in certain respects and in certain areas. Sir, can we regard ourselves as a viable State with the rapidly rising non-White birth rate and a declining non-White death rate? We must ask ourselves whether we can carry on as we are doing at present. Obviously we cannot. We must control the population explosion where it exists and that is in the Bantu homelands. The problem which this motion poses, when analyzed, is solely one of over-population and is specialized over-population. This country has peculiarly difficult problems because it is multi-racial. We have one race battling to increase its numbers. The other races, on the other hand, while not battling to increase their numbers, are in the natural course of events increasing their numbers. Sir, it is clear that if the numbers of the non-Whites continue to increase at the present rate, the disparity between the number of Whites and non-Whites will become increasingly serious and could lead to the destruction of the most highly educated group. It is accepted by most people that in the final issue numbers will count. Educated people, like the Western Europeans, have for many years practiced birth control. They have now arrived at the so-called pill which is simple and about 90 per cent reliable. There is, however, more than one method of birth control, but for the moment I will discuss only sterilization. Sterilization without adequate medical cause is of doubtful legality. Speaking personally, I have not felt that to be a handicap in any way. I know it is felt by many of my colleagues in this country and used as an excuse to avoid it. There has never been a clear resolution on this subject. Sterilization of the male is a trifling operation without risk and without any effect upon potency. It is almost irreversible. But unfortunately it has at times carried a stigma, and it has been suggested, and even carried out largely by Hitler, that certain degenerates and criminals should be forcibly sterilized. This stigma must be removed. The idea that there is something wrong about sterilization of the male should never be allowed to develop. It should be the duty of this House to settle this point once and for all. It should be made clear that there is nothing illegal about it. This House should seriously consider making a public statement by means of a motion that sterilization is not illegal, and the reasons for which it should be carried out should be made known. Sterilization in the female, apart from the endocrinal sterilization of the pill, is not entirely free from risk. Nevertheless, it is frequently carried out when women suffering from some abdominal trouble request that they should be sterilized at the same time. When done under these conditions it adds nothing to the risk of the primary operation. This form of birth control is satisfactory. It is the most reliable method; it is fool-proof, but unfortunately it reaches too few people. It should always be voluntary. It is unlikely, unfortunately, to solve our present problem as the people concerned have not yet been educated to the point of appreciating that there is such a subject as biological patriotism, a patriotism which people seldom appreciated by the race, namely that of elimination from its own members. Mr. Speaker, in 1934 a British commission stated—

Some generations ago this country adopted a policy of helping its mentally handicapped citizens. We fed them, clothed them, housed them, and allowed them to increase in numbers. At first we felt some pleasure in the consciousness that our charges were being cared for. But now some of us wonder whether we have done the right thing. We got over that feeling because we argued ourselves into believing that we were doing the only thing possible. This is a serious problem to the people of this country. Are we to allow the degenerates and the mental deficients to increase and become an increasing burden on the people, or shall we attempt to persuade—there must be no question of force—these people voluntarily to undergo sterilization? This is a method of protecting ourselves from this increasing burden.

Charity in the sense of St. Paul, is Love and compassion, it is kindly action and it brings strength and happiness, pleasing Him that gives and Him that takes. But organized charity, and the charity of this country should be organized, should end in one or at most, two generations. The ideal benefaction is a start to lessen the need for charity. The true Good Samaritan not only feeds, gives water to and binds up the wounds of the robbed man, but he also takes care that there are no more robberies on that road. This is where the Department of Health could help. The number of those who need perpetual care is continually increasing. The number of those who are prepared to give charity is steadily diminishing.

We have so organized our policy that degenerates and morons are having children, which they do, as a rule, in greater numbers than the classes of people called upon to support them. Observers have noted some of the known inherited human characteristics and their mode of inheritance. There are few valid objections and many compelling reasons for making sterilization available to those who want it. Many a degenerate does not want a lot of children. If we put him on a par with ourselves on the matters of contraception and sterilization, he himself will have fewer children by his own wish. Eugenics show that planned families without sterilization is impossible.

I have shown what can be done. I know that our own problem is difficult and complicated. But other nations have solved similar and equally complex ones. Our problem is urgent; time is moving relentlessly against us, and we must act now. Let us consider what other countries have done under somewhat similar conditions. Defeat took the heart out of the policy of expansion of Japan. It was clear that the Japanese people had no place to go and that there were in addition 3½ million Japanese who had been ejected from the islands which the state had occupied before the war. These added to the millions of returned soldiers who were competing for_ the jobs in Japan. The Americans with their background could not suggest birth control. But they made it quite clear to the Japanese authorities that they could not tolerate Japanese expansion on the scale which industry and ambition has brought about before the war. The Japanese faced up to the problem and they introduced certain laws. The Americans were very careful to avoid the dangers of being accused of genocide. In 1948, three years after the war, the Diet passed the eugenic protection law which protected women whose health would be endangered by childbirth and also prevented the birth of inferior children. It also permitted sterilization for health reasons. In 1949 the law was amended to allow a doctor to take economic factors into consideration when he advised abortion. In 1952 the law was amended to permit approved doctors to produce an abortion without consultation. Also in 1952 the institute of public health began to try to avoid abortions, and they trained 36,000 contraception workers, who went out into the community and taught the women how to limit their families. Six years later the number of abortions was still 1,170,000. It is believed that the number was at least twice that, because they were not all reported. The Japanese people more and more are relying on birth control with abortion as a backstop in case of failure.

The Indian government was faced with worse problems than anybody else. It has ordered, although there is opposition, compulsory sterilization of all males who have more than three children and they pay 100 rupees to every sterilized male. Their advice to the newly married is: “Do not delay the first; do not hurry the second and do not have a third.”

The Swedes, who are probably the best organized family planning people in the world, have advocated birth control for many years, and have actually achieved their objective. The Swedes, feeling that they should do something in the way of foreign aid, and knowing that as a small country they could not afford large sums of money, decided to export know-how. They decided to export know-how in the form of birth control and family planning. They went to Ceylon and studied the question. They then sent a doctor into Ceylon. This doctor used Ceylonese personnel which he trained himself. He took two areas each with a population of, roughly, 7,000. It was a village about 20 miles away from Colombo, in a mountainous area, and inhabited by Tamils who are said to be on the lowest social scale among the Ceylonese. When he started, the village population was about 20½ per cent illiterate and had a recorded birth rate of 31.2 per 1.000. The other, a tea estate area, had 75 per cent illiteracy and a recorded birth rate of 39.5 per 1,000, which is amongst the highest in the world. That was in 1958. By 1960, only two years later, the birth rate of the village area had dropped from 31.2 per 1,000 to 27.1 per 1,000. By 1965 it had dropped to 23.9 per 1,000. It is a most incredible drop amongst uncivilized illiterate people in such a short period.

The Swedes relied entirely on education and they used particularly audio-visual aids. The difficulty which they had to face was that they had to convince the women that the women’s duty in a community of that kind was not to have a child every 10 months. Once the women learnt about this, they were avid for further information and they were among the first to accept and carry out family planning. The Swedes made it clear—and that is necessary here too—that their desire was to promote family planning and not to be genocides and merely suppress birth. To prove their point, they went so far as to help infertile couples to find the fault and to have children. They taught this programme to give better life to the women and to their children. Finally the Swedish Government issued unlimited contraceptive devices free of charge.

Until recently most underdeveloped areas with a death rate in the region of 40 per cent per 1,000, were compelled to adopt every possible means of keeping the population numbers up. They adopted such things as very early marriage and also polygamy, but once fertility control came in, it was found to be possible to train these people to plan their families.

The crux of the South African problem is the reduction of the non-White birth rate and particularly the Bantu birth rate in the homelands. This can only be achieved by careful education and by convincing the people themselves that we, the Whites, wish to help them and their children to a happier and fuller life. We want to show them that faced as they are to-day with the fact that their own areas cannot support their natural increase, something must be done to obtain control and allow the fertility of the country to catch up with those which live upon it. In England it has been found that planning by clinics, the setting up of clinics, is not of great value. The only method by which family planning can be propagated is by using women, because women will listen to other women. It is the women, in the years when I was much younger, who taught the other women of England to accept family planning. Unfortunately they were fighting for other things as well. The women, at the same time, were battling against the chackles of puritanism and the tyranny of men. Planned parenthood groups have been led by women. Specifically, these were aimed at freeing the women from the pain and drudgery of childbearing and child rearing, as well as from the consequences of male sexual exploitation. They achieved their object. Experience has shown that so long as the crusade for planned parenthood has been controlled by men, especially under the clinic system in England, it has not had great success. We, I believe, Sir, should send out women missionaries—I do not mean religious missionaries—into the Native and other areas to convince the women that family planning will give them with fewer children happier and healthier lives and will not estrange their husbands by denying adequate sexual satisfaction.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I propose subsidization of the study and teaching of genetics. Allow official legalization of sterilization provided with safeguards and publicly allow abortion where the mother’s health is in jeopardy and/or the prospect of an offspring which will be deformed in body or in mind is reasonably certain. Introduce, particularly in the Bantu homelands, a campaign led by women for teaching and training for planned families. At all cost, avoid the possibility of being accused of genocide. Leave it to the women to teach and the women to decide and leave it to social scientists, community development specialists, communication media specialists and the printed word to carry the gospel of planned families.

Mr. Speaker I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Durban (Central). He is always able to put a matter with fine scientific precision. However, when he spoke just now about his present age and his lost youth, I thought it just as well that he dealt with this matter which he chose to speak about to-day. He can speak about it far more objectively now than 30 or 40 years ago. I shall now be able to take his words much more to heart. He went into particular technical aspects thoroughly and I enjoyed listening to him. However, at the end he mentioned a few matters, some of which are already being implemented while others will indeed be dealt with by the hon. the Minister. The discussion up to now has centred on the question of birth control. I cannot blame the speakers who dealt with this question in that specific manner, because the translation in the Afrikaans section of the motion is “voorbehoedende medisyne” instead of “voorkomende medisyne”. However, in the English version of the motion I read the words ‘‘preventive medicine”. My “one-track mind” then changed and I then approached the whole matter as the hon. member for Wynberg had done. For this reason I want to confine myself to the crux of her motion, which in effect amounts, not to an indictment, but to doubt as to whether the Public Health Act as it exists to-day is able to meet the requirements of the times and whether it makes provision for the research and planning which we need, as far as health matters are concerned, in respect of our rapidly increasing population. For the specific coupling to the idea of population explosion she must, however, not blame the other gentleman, especially because they are people.

Understandably enough we would all feel concerned about the shortcomings in the Public Health Act, especially if they are legal shortcomings, which can impede the implementation of the functions of this particularly important department. I consider it a good thing that we should quickly sum up the functions according to the Public Health Act so that we can see what this Act contemplates, what it contemplated and what falls within its scope. The main functions of the Public Health Act, No. 36 of 1919, are summarized in Cluver’s Medical and Health Legislation, and they briefly boil down to the following: The prevention of the introduction of infectious diseases into the Republic from outside. Secondly, the prevention, limitation and suppression of infectious, communicable or preventable diseases; advising and assisting provincial administrations and local authorities in regard to matters affecting public health; the promotion or carrying out of research and investigations in connection with the prevention or treatment of human diseases; the publication of reports and statistical calculations; and in the final instance the collection and publication of facts relating to overcrowding and other aspects of public health, together with the comprehensive function of promoting public health. Overcrowding is also discussed and specific mention is also made in the functions of the Act that in the urban districts of the Republic facts about overcrowding and ineffective housing should be collected so that this question can be investigated and considered. These functions were initially much more comprehensive than was realized and through the years extreme demands have been made on the department. However, adjustments have been made and I wonder whether the hon. member has taken this into consideration. She must regard the adjustments which were made over the years in the Public Health Act in the light of modern developments and knowledge. The hon. member must also take into consideration that, through the years, the Department of Public Health has accepted many executive functions, which it could accept under these main functions. Some of these functions involved district surgeons, who must serve the country districts, port health, hospitals, hospitals for contagious diseases and also field work in connection with diseases such as typhus, bilharzia, malaria and tuberculosis. The department also had certain duties in connection with housing. The hon. member must remember that the demarcation of functions, also with regard to health, has been an historic problem over the years. The demarcation between the Central Government, the provinces and the local authorities is an historic problem which we inherited and which we have not yet solved satisfactorily. With almost every adjustment of the Principal Act we were faced with these problems of the relationships between the different levels of government. Many adjustments have taken place since 1935. Hon. members will remember the Gluckman report and the drastic recommendations which it contained. These recommendations boiled down to the fact that the Provinces had to forfeit many of their rights which they obtained with Union. Amendments were brought about to the Principal Act in the years 1944, 1948 and in the years from 1952 to 1956. All these measures made provision for moderate adjustments in the relationships between functions and finance. It was a give and take process, but up to now it has not yet been satisfactory. The different levels of Government do not know precisely what to do. They do not know where their functions end. When we hear about the Schumann and Borckenhagen commissions to-day, some of us raise an eyebrow, but these commissions were emphatically instructed to investigate these functional and financial relations very thoroughly and to report on them so that we could obtain more of a permanent decision in regard to these relations. We are all awaiting those findings. Drastic proposals may even be made. But this motion of the hon. member is also one which could perhaps entail reasonably drastic legislative change. I just want to read to the hon. member one of this commission s recommendations. Then she will see what the problem really is. On page 61 of the first interim report of the Borckenhagen commission, which is still to be considered by the Cabinet, this recommendation appears—

As the hon. member knows, she may also obtain this interim report. It is not a secret document. This recommendation will actually boil down to the fact that if we allocate preventive medicine, in the sense in which the hon. member uses the term, in toto to a sub-department of the Central Government, domiciliary services, i.e. district surgeons and district nursing services, must be added. Then we will be in conflict with recommendations which will be made to the Government. We are then putting the cart before the horse and in this sub judice matter we may then be going backwards rather than forwards. The problems which the hon. member raised are therefore broadly, as I said, already the task of the Department of Health. These recommendations can be implemented without another sub-department of the Central Government. But at this stage I also want to say that I welcome the hon. member’s initiative in submitting this matter to the House for discussion to-day. Hon. members will note that there is no amendment to the motion because we only want to discuss this matter amongst ourselves. But when we indicate shortcomings we must take note of what the Department of Health has already done and is still doing for the prevention of disease. The hon. member mentioned the problem of malnutrition and undernourishment. We must admit that it is a big problem and that it leaves much to be desired. Kwashiorkor still occurs a lot to-day. We know that the cost of the necessary powdered milk is being subsidized. But in this connection the question of education is, as far as I am concerned, of much greater importance. In my years as district surgeon I found that the carelessness and the ignorance of parents in respect of the nutrition of their children were by far the most important points. The mere supplying of food is not so important here, because we are financially capable of supplying it. The State is also willing to give these people the necessary proteins. I would say that the hon. member raised something of importance here, and that is that the South African National Nutrition Council, established under Act No. 14 of 1940, should be reactivated to take action and to function. This Council has a particular function, which is as follows—

We know that the council last assembled many years ago and that the hon. the Minister has just taken over the portfolio, but I nevertheless submit it for consideration. As far as education is concerned, I feel that the hon. member should really not be unreasonable. The Department has an education service and is doing its very best. There are two institutions in Natal and in the Transvaal which train educators and the facilities do exist there. If, in spite of all the efforts made to encourage the people, only 20 or 24 turn up, it is not the Department’s fault. Gathering information about nutrition, diseases, the prevention of diseases, and so on, is at present a continuous task, to which full recognition is given. But, Sir, to reach everyone is a tremendous task. The hon. member spoke about how important personal contact was. It is a tremendous task if one has to make personal contact with people to get them to an understanding of these things. Those persons who go around canvassing for votes know what I am talking about. This Department is already adopting modern approaches in the form of the Press and the radio. Over Radio Bantu one can hear how this kind of information is broadcast. But although they make use of the Press, the radio and also personal contacts, a gap nevertheless still exists, and in this connection I agree with the hon. member. I think that our agricultural departments do not co-ordinate sufficiently with our Department of Health as far as recommendations about nutrition and its use are concerned. It is no-one’s fault. It is simply the way things are; sometimes we do not understand one another. There is the question of immunization, of preventive medicine. I do not want to say much about this. I think that to-day we all know that it is one of the best developed divisions of our Department of Health.

However, I do want to say a word or two about family planning. That is something we cannot omit; none of the other gentlemen did so, and if I were to do so now, the hon. member could perhaps think it strange. Family planning is already being implemented by the White and Indian communities. Research by SABRA has indicated that 80 per cent of Natal’s Indians accept it. The increase in the White population is 22.8 per 1,000 per year, which is admittedly not high, but nevertheless amongst the highest in the Western world. The figure for our Coloureds is 45.8 per 1,000 per year; the nearest to that is India with 42 per 1,000 per year. It is therefore clear that they are in the explosive phase. Let me now read to hon. members what Dr. P. M. Robbertse the Chairman of the Human Sciences Research Council said about this—

We therefore have a vicious circle, and the question is: can South Africa afford it in the long run?

It is a good thing for us to speak about our different nations, but if there is a case to be made out for birth control, then that is how it is, and the matter has nothing to do with the races. It involves the family, with its capacity to keep its head above water economically. If there is thus a good case, we must admit that attention should be given to it. However, we must take into account that we have a heterogenous population in South Africa, and therefore this is a matter about which there are certain principles which must be taken into account when one applies this policy. I have worked out the following principles for myself in relation to the State’s function. There must be no coercion, there must be free acceptance by the individual, whether through personal realization or through education. The duty of the associations, such as the National Council for Maternal and Family Welfare, which has been giving attention to such problems on a personal basis for many years, is just as important as that of the State. However, it can be expected of the State to make available its existing organizations and staff, where it can facilitate the execution of such a task, and even to be prepared to supply these people free of charge with all these means. I now want to say that in South Africa to-day every under-privileged person can freely make use of all these means without it costing him a cent. That is the position, I am not going into it any further.

I was quite surprised because the hon. member made almost no mention of an extremely important aspect of preventive medicine which confronts us to-day, and that is the question of industrial diseases. Possibly the hon. member had it in mind. In this connection we do not have to change the Act. Section 3 of the Public Health Act states its general purpose as being that all preventable diseases may be prevented, and according to section 136 the Minister can make regulations to regulate trades and professions which can impair the health of workers. By means of regulations he can impose obligations in that connection which in my opinion are comprehensive enough for the Department of Health to take charge of preventive measures in the entire field of industries, which cause industrial diseases. We know of the chemical and physical materials which are liberated and which cause industrial diseases, and there are many more of them than we could ever imagine. We have benzine which is a destroyer of the blood, lead which is a paralyser, chrome which causes serious sores, with ferro-manganese, which causes Parkinson’s disease—and this is not Parkinson’s law, but Parkinson’s disease. There are sulpher and chlorine and gases. This is a problem which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and I think that our Department, can play a greater role here to-day than it is doing. But there is something else. I think that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services should also give attention to industrial diseases which are applicable to that Department. I shall come back to that. There is splenic fever, there are certain kinds of pest control remedies which are used in the agricultural industry and which also affect people. These are all matters in respect of which there ought to be greater co-ordination and co-operation with the Department of Health. The establishment of an efficient medical inspectorate of industries under the Department of Health can be the solution here. I should like to put this to the Minister for consideration. The Department of Mines at present actually controls only one industrial disease, and that is pneumoconiosis with all its attendant or resultant ailments, other diseases such as silicosis, etc. There are also the mining ailments. However, it is all limited. The Public Health Act nevertheless makes provision for comprehensive control of all these diseases.

In conclusion I want to say this. The sub-departments which the hon. member asked about here this afternoon are really not necessary. There is encouraging action by this Government as far as medicine, health, research and long term planning is concerned. There is the Human Sciences Research Council, the Council for Medical Research, which is soon to be established, and think back to the Minister’s speech delivered a few days ago to the United Municipal Executive in which he specifically mentioned that attention will be given at high level to air and water pollution, to noise, to the planning and establishment of industries, which is important, and to housing for the less well-to-do masses.

I want to say to the hon. member that she and I may rest assured that these matters will be well attended to, to-day, to-morrow and the day after.

Mr. Speaker, when this world was put together, a most peculiar anomaly occurred. We have the heavens and the earth and the latter consists of the earth and the water and all the living things on the earth, The anomaly is this. The quantity of earth that we have got in our world remains constant but there is no real active mechanism which stops all living things from multiplying. Whether these living things are the little termites under the soil or whether it is man, they multiply. Nature, in man, has not really stopped procreation by any special mechanism which can be turned off or on at man’s will. What it has done, is that it has limited the period of procreation over a number of years; it starts at a certain age and it stops at a certain age. While this goes on, we find that the earth, which is remaining constant all the time, becomes more and more crowded with those living things which are multiplying. We in our wisdom are now discussing whether or not it is a good thing or a bad thing to stop people from multiplying. I sometimes think to myself, if the good Lord wished us to stop breeding for any particular reason he would have given us the mechanism whereby to do it. He has not done so, he has not done it with any of the animals or any of the insects or any of the birds of the earth. It goes on, it is perpetual, and I think it might be somewhat dangerous to interfere with nature, unless we are skilful enough not to stop nature but to help it along so that we can adjust it to our own needs without interfering with the balance. What happens in our daily lives, things that we read from day to day? The hon. member for Durban (Central) advocated that we should take a course to regulate the numbers of people living on earth. He did so with wisdom and understanding, and yet in the laboratories we find that man is devising ways and means of producing people in test tubes. What is this all leading to? Who does the direction and where is it going to end? The question of the population increase is, of course, becoming very serious, because of the shortage of land that we have on this earth. As I said, that remains constant, and every day that passes the land becomes more and more crowded and more and more valuable. More people and more animals and all living things want more of it because they have multiplied. I do not want to sound facetious, but we have reached a stage where for the first time in history man is breeding faster than the rabbit, and for the first time in history man is taking longer to die. As a result the balance is becoming disproportionate and we have more people looking for less ground. We must thus make sure that the ground which is available for this increase in our numbers is looked after very carefully indeed.

Let me just say in passing that in the ten minutes I will take over my speech at least 2.000 people will be born on this earth; so one can well imagine what the population increase is in a year. Now, three-quarters of the people born are from those families who are least able to provide for the newly-born. These people have the lesser share of man’s good things. They are the people who have to find housing, food, clothing and all the things that go with life. They have to try to keep a reasonable standard of living or they have to try their best to keep a mere existence going for themselves and those they bring into the world.

I have taken out a few figures to see how the population of the world has increased over the years. In the Nomadic Age it is estimated that 25 million people inhabited the world. In Roman times the estimated population was ten times that, namely 250 million. In 1650—I take that date for a special reason—the total population of the world was 500 million, and in 1965, approximately 300 years later, it had risen to 3,308 million. It took a million years of this world’s activities for the population to reach 1,000 million, but three centuries later it trebled itself and we can be sure that in the next 30 years it will double itself again. As I said, every ten minutes that passes we produce another 2,000 children. The beginning of the population explosion really occurred about 150 years ago, and it was at that time that people started to realize that the world was getting a little too small for the people on it. In South Africa we have approximately 18 million people now, and that will rise to 40 million in 30 years’ time.

While we are talking about our local problem, let me just tell the House what happened in Durban. In 1947, in Durban, there was an excess of Whites over Asians of 10,000, but in 1963 the reverse had taken place and there were 65,000 more Asians than Whites. The Asians have increased by 104 per cent and the Whites by 36 per cent. But what is disturbing not only here but throughout the world is that the amount of food being produced has fallen behind the population increase. We are now faced with the problem of feeding millions of people who cannot look after themselves. In South Africa we are much more fortunate than in other parts of Africa. We are much more fortunate than they are in South America. We must face up to the problem now that our population is increasing and we must stabilize the food supplies.

At this stage I want to tell the House that among the lower animals like the termites and the insects, the flowers and the vegetables we have on this earth, provision is made for storage of food. The dahlia has a tuber. The potato flower has a bulb. They store up food for the future. The termites, that lowest form of life, have probably the best storage apparatus known to man. But we, with our intelligence and with every know-how that has been devised, still allow 5 million gallons of milk to be thrown down the drain. It is a tragedy that that should happen. I am certain there is not a single one of us sitting here to-day who would not rather have seen the very last pint of that milk put through a process to preserve it. It almost breaks one’s heart to know that not only does this happen in the case of milk, but we see fruit lying under the trees or being destroyed because there is no sale for it or because it might be partly damaged in some way. We see our vegetables being wasted and we have this fact staring us in the face that we are not producing enough food for the people to buy at economic prices both for purchaser and producer. I plead with the Minister of Planning to devote some time to the problem and to enlist the help of all those who are willing to help, and to find ways and means of saving as much of our food as we possibly can. Let us refrigerate it, let us dehydrate it, let us divide it up and let us liquidize it, but let us keep it and give it to those people who need it. To me it means nothing to give a sporadic donation of food to a group of people who need it. To get a healthy population, the flow of food to them must be constant and must be within their reach. Rather than waste it, let us spend more money on preserving it so that they can get it. Let us make it something of which we can be proud in South Africa. This food question, of course, becomes so important that man’s whole life depends on the ingestion of it, the skillful preparation of it, and not the elaborate preparation of it. How can it best be used? If we can do that we will have no malnutrition in this country. We will not have to come here with figures to show how many children died of gastro-enteritis. We will not have any trouble about skin diseases in the young, which are due to malnutrition, or deficiency diseases. It takes time to do it and it takes money to do it, but we are a wealthy country and I think that we can quite safely start now with such a plan, because we have the people who would be willing to do it. If we can find better ways to preserve and save food and if we can find better ways to distribute food, then I will say that we here in South Africa have done a first-class job.

With reference to what the hon. member for Rosettenville has just said, I want to agree wholeheartedly with him that the waste of food is something which hurts and causes one to think very deeply. I think this is a matter which is worth our attention in view of the fact that there are so many who need food, not only in our country, but also and particularly in other countries. The world situation is a strange one. At times there is a surplus of foodstuffs which causes the Minister of Agriculture and the Government to find themselves in difficulties, especially when it is a good mealie year, but the rest of the world is hungry and yearns for that food. It is a strange world we are living in. But, having said that, I think it is also correct to say that the waste of food in our country is involuntary. In many respects we have to do with perishable products. Hon. members know, as I do, that in several quarters—local authorities, provincial bodies and on the part of the Government through the Department of Agriculture—research has been conducted in every possible way to see whether we cannot make more of our food available instead of wasting it. I am grateful to the hon. member for raising this matter. What is the solution? Together with all the other factors that play a part, there is also the simple factor of the economies of the matter. To that I cannot reply today, but it would be irresponsible of this House and I myself, as the person who is responsible for health matters, to leave it at that. I say that I do not know what the solution is, but the other factors involved here are the actual problems which have been insurmountable up to now as regards making this food available.

But I want to come back to a few other matters that were raised by hon. members.

†I should like to say to the hon. member for Wynberg that I appreciated the lucid way—and by that I do not mean “clear” in the sense of Scientology—in which she has put forward her views to-day. In introducing this motion, she put forward her views in a most constructive manner, and she was followed by members on my side and on the opposite side whose views were put forward very constructively on this most important subject of the health of our people. I think to-day’s discussion made it an important day in the health field and all members contributing have certainly given us the opportunity either to agree with what has been said or to give the relevant information. Some information has come forward already and therefore I am pleased that is was not necessary to move an amendment to this motion.

*Mr. Speaker, the first one that I would like to deal with is the question of the revision of the Health Act. The Health Act is an old Act. It is available in English and in High Dutch, and the time must come for this Act not only to be revised and consolidated, but also to be translated into Afrikaans and I am sure that that day will come and perhaps soon. But in saying that I should not like to leave the impression that because the Act is old, the Act as such hampers the activities of the Department of Health. Apart from inquiries within the Department, I have also made inquiries through my regional directors and they have given me the assurance that there is no urgent necessity for a revision of the Act. The hon. member for Gordonia has indicated what the functions of the Department are under the Act, and I think provision is made to-day for those functions which we should exercise. It is also true that the functions which the hon. member foresees for the sub-department mentioned in the motion, are all taken up at this very moment in the present Act and carried out by the Department of Health. The Schumann Report and the Borckenhagen Report have also been mentioned. I would like to suggest to the hon. member that the revision, translation and consolidation of this Act should wait until we have had a Government decision on these two reports.

*I am grateful to the hon. member for Gordonia for having raised this matter. I think it would have been wrong for us to proceed from the assumption that the mere way in which the Act was drafted hampered the activities of the Department. In addition I just want to point out that the Public Health Act has been amended on sixteen or more occasions; in other words, it has been adjusted to present circumstances, and I just want to mention two important adjustments. In 1963 provision was made for compulsory immunization against infectious diseases and for polio vaccine to be supplied free of charge. That was a step in the right direction. In 1965 the Minister was empowered to supply to local authorities any vaccine and other materials for administration to persons with a view to preventing the outbreak or controlling the spread of infectious diseases, and also to raise the subsidy in respect of salaries paid to public health nurses to ⅞ths. Hon. members will also recall that during the current session a minor amendment was once again effected in order that the earnings of learner sanitary inspectors and learner public health nurses might also be subsidized. I am merely pointing this out so that we may not perhaps create the impression here and particularly outside that the Act as it reads at the moment, is an ineffective one. I think we can safely content ourselves with saying that at the moment the Department as a whole is well equipped for making provision for preventive and social medicine.

† I would ask the hon. member for Wynberg therefore not to be adamant in her suggestion that a sub-department should be created. I think it would be a retrogressive step at this stage. I will indicate in what I have to say further that by doing other things in regard to certain functions which ought to be with the Department, we can perhaps strengthen the Department of Health and the functions that it has to perform.

*The question of health education was raised here. Let me say at once that health education is a very wide term. The Department has, as hon. members are aware, a health education section. An assistant chief medical officer, together with his staff, is in charge of this section. But in addition to that we must never lose sight of the fact that, although this is the setup at the head office, our regional offices, of which there are six—in Johannesburg, Durban, East London, Cape Town, Bloemfontein and Pietermartizburg—play a very important part in health education. I want to add that we also make very full use of the Press, periodicals and the radio, and that it has been quite some time since this was extended to Radio Bantu, because in their case it is of urgent necessity to provide health education. Since 1966 the Department has, as their biannual courses for health inspectors and for health visitors, who come from all over the Republic and South-West Africa, provided training in health education, and I am glad to say that this is having very good results.

Then, as far as the non-Whites are concerned, the hon. member mentioned the figure of 27 which was furnished to her in reply to a question last year. I think there must be a misunderstanding here, because according to my information the Bantu guidance officers being trained at Pietersburg are already 72 in number, and together with those who are now being trained in Natal, this figure will be much higher. Our problem is that we cannot find people who are interested in this training.

The hon. member also drew comparisons here with Rhodesia. I do not think that those comparisons were valid. I want to point out that virtually all the people employed in health services, not only those employed by the Department, but also those employed by local authorities, are specifically devoting part of their time each day to health education all over the country. In addition there are bodies such as the Red Cross and the Noodhulpliga which are also instrumental in providing health education. Generally speaking I think that with the limited manpower at our disposal we are doing everything in our power as far as health education is concerned. That is our problem.

Another matter that was raised here, was the question of food subsidies and the whole question of malnutrition. This question of malnutrition is one that should also be viewed in its correct perspective. The term ‘malnutrition’ is in common use at present, but you will recall, Sir, that for many years we referred to ‘undernourishment’, and that was not the correct term. Of course, there is undernourishment, but I think that it is correct to use the term ‘malnutrition’ throughout. The hon. member for Gordonia and other hon. members spoke here about the question of co-ordination among the various departments. I shall come to that later on, but nevertheless I also want to point out in regard to malnutrition that we have to contend with a terrible problem, i.e. once again the problem of health education. I just want to read out to you, Sir, an excerpt on nutrition from reports that have been sent to me—

This is one of the problems we have to contend with. In this regard there is one thing which we may not overlook, and this is also mentioned here—

Another point I want to emphasize, is the question of using high-grade proteins. As we know, the main nutritional deficiency disease is pellagra. I am not going into details. At the request of the Department of Health experiments are being conducted at the moment at the C.S.I.R. to see whether one may accept the eating habits of the Bantu; whether one should simply allow them to eat their mealie meal as is their habit and then to enrich that staple food of theirs with the necessary proteins and other additives. Mr. Speaker, I mention this as a thought or a possibility which is worth investigating; instead of trying to change the eating habits of the Bantu, we should rather respect them, as we do their other customs, and add to their staple food whatever it lacks at present. I mention this as a line of thought on which the C.S.I.R. is doing research at the request of my Department. In regard to nutrition I also want to point out that, although there are major feeding schemes for labourers—for instance, at the mines and other industries—hon. members will nevertheless be astonished to hear how many industries there are which do not provide the necessary meals, and here I include certain rural employers as well. I mention this for one single reason: I think it is imperative for employers to realize that the productivity of the employees can be enhanced considerably if they are provided with good food, and that to provide employees with good food is one of the best investments any employer can make.

Mr. Speaker, reference was made here to the National Nutrition Council which started functioning in 1940. The Nutrition Council functioned for approximately 18 years but is no longer in existence. There are good reasons for that. The most convincing reason to my mind is the fact that the council was too unwieldy and too big. This does not mean that when the Nutrition Council ceased to have meetings, all their functions were called off. These functions were carried on by the C.S.I.R., where a sub-committee is attending to these matters, a sub-committee on which both Dr. Latsky of my Department and, I understand, Agriculture as well, are serving. But I doubt whether this is sufficient. I am thinking along the lines of ascertaining very carefully, especially now that we have the Medical Research Council functioning, whether we cannot reintroduce a nutrition research council—perhaps smaller in scope—which could function better and more effectively, possibly in conjunction or in close liaison with the Medical Research Council. I agree entirely that it is possible for such a council to fulfil a major function in regard to the co-ordination of the functions of the various departments which are concerned with food and nutrition in South Africa.

† Then, Mr. Speaker, the question of the population explosion was raised and different thoughts were expressed by the hon. member for Durban (Central) and the hon. member for Rosettenville. This question of the population explosion is a fact of life to-day. It is a fact of everyday life, not only in our country, but in all the countries of the world. That being so is no reason for us to sit back and say: “Well, it’s happening to the whole world. We are not going to do anything about it”. I must say the hon. member for Rosettenville has pinpointed how exceedingly intricate this whole question of population is. I once saw a picture, we have all seen it, of St. Peter’s Square thronged with people. The caption of this picture indicated that in the not too distant future the whole world will be like this picture of St. Peter’s Square, with man shoulder to shoulder. I do not believe that our Creator will allow that, but because of the fact that I have that belief, it should be no reason for us to sit back and do nothing about it. Those hon. members who have spoken about this at length have also dwelt on the question of family planning. I must say, I always learn from the hon. member for Durban (Central). He was my teacher in surgery and he saw to it that I passed surgery. I have always wondered when family planning was instituted, especially in the U.K. where he was for some time. To-day he gave us the answer. I have the exact date now when family planning was instituted in the U.K., because the hon. member said to us: “When I was much younger, family planning was instituted in England.” I have got the date now and I would like to thank the hon. member for giving it to me.

*Mr. Speaker, this question of family planning is a matter which is thoroughly appreciated in South Africa. We have the National Council for Maternal and Family Welfare. You know, Sir, that they are doing a very great deal in this regard and that, in conjunction with and owing to the kind of offices of the Department of Health, they are steadily extending their activities. I do not want to say much in regard to this matter, except to make a few fundamental premises. The first is that family planning in South Africa is a measure for protection against disease conditions. Disease conditions can be prevented and adverse social conditions can be improved by family planning. The point of departure is children in a family which goes hungry, children in a family which is poorly dressed, children in a family which does not have proper sleeping accommodation, and the diseases attendant upon these conditions. All of this has a bearing on family planning in South Africa. The second premise I want to make, must be understood very clearly, and this is that family planning is a voluntary matter in South Africa. The voluntary aspect of family planning must be drawn through all the activities of the bodies concerned with this matter. The hon. member for Durban (Central) is quite correct in his view that ladies listen more attentively to ladies and also with much more effect. These are the practical matters we must consider, because the voluntary character involved should never be lost. Then I just want to point out that the National Council’s grants-in-aid already amount to R60,000 per year.

They want some more.

Yes, but I just want to finish this line of thought, namely that, whereas this is a voluntary matter in South Africa, it is not a matter which is undertaken as a matter of Government policy, as is the case in India and Japan, and which is made compulsory in a certain sense. In those two countries family planning on the part of the State plays an enormous role in regard to birth control which even exceeds the bounds of voluntary participation. This is not the case in our country and must not be allowed to happen here. The National Council is doing a tremendous deal in this respect. In this respect the family planning clinic facilities of the Department of Health are also very important. In their case these services and guidance in regard to family planning are provided by district surgeons. I also want to point out to hon. members that these services and the things that are connected with it are being provided free of charge—in other words, at the expense of the State. The Department also sees to it nowadays that the district surgeons attend refresher courses from time to time in order that they may be fully conversant with matters concerning family planning. Nor can I refrain from mentioning the function fulfilled by local authorities and provincial hospitals. In those cases where local authorities are taking charge of family planning, they themselves purchase what is required and are then refunded in full by the Department of Health. There is another aspect to this matter, and that is the reciprocal co-operation among Government departments as far as family planning is concerned. This reciprocal co-operation ranks amongst the best, and I must say that we are making progress as regards the voluntary participation of the population of South Africa. I do not wish to say more in this regard, but I think it ought to be clear to anybody outside this House that this is a grave matter which the Government wants to undertake and implement on a firm basis, namely the basis of voluntary participation.

The last thought that was raised here, was the question of industrial diseases. Let me say at once that one could discuss this matter all afternoon. But I do not think this should be done on a Friday! There is yet another obstructive factor, namely that as far as industrial diseases are concerned, the Department of Mines is doing a tremendous deal, also research, in regard to pneumoconiosis, asbestosis and the like. Amongst other things a conference will be held in Johannesburg in April at the invitation of the Government. The Government has made available an amount of R40,000 for that conference. The fact of the matter is, after all, that most countries in the modern world in which we are living have a medical inspectorate for industries, or something similar, within their departments of health. This is the point the hon. member for Gordonia advocated. Now I can mention to hon. members the other obstructive factor which is the reason for my not wanting to elaborate on this matter any further. A month or so ago I issued an instruction to the effect that this matter had to be discussed with the Departments concerned, namely the Department of Labour, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Department of Mines—there may be more, but these are the three that come to mind now. I must admit that we are actually filling a gap to which we have not paid quite enough attention up to now, namely the question of industrial medicine in regard to diseases other than peneumoconiosis and the few others that are classified into the same category. However, I must say that it is inconceivable to me that these diseases could fall under any department other than the Department of Health. I think it would be a major step in the right direction if we could have such an inspectorate, or whatever one wishes to call it, which could be in charge of attending to industrial diseases.

I think I must leave this matter at that since I have tried to touch upon most of the matters raised by hon. members. In conclusion I want to say that there are many things that have to be done, and if we do them in this way, we shall get them done. After the discussions we have had here, after the information that has come to light and having perceived that all of us wish to do these things, I do not think that the hon. member for Wynberg will insist that this motion, namely to establish a sub-department, should be agreed to.

†I am convinced that the hon. member would have gathered from our discussion that pressing this motion would perhaps do more harm after we have had this fruitful discussion. Therefore I would like to suggest that this motion be withdrawn and that we carry on with a good job.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the objective way in which the Minister has dealt with this matter and the sympathetic reply he has given to the hon. member for Wynberg. On both sides, a high standard of objectivity has been maintained. At this stage I move—

Agreed to.