Last year the level which was maintained in this debate was not a consistently high one, and I hope that we will not have a repetition of that this year. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout pleaded for tolerance in this debate. I welcome that plea. He was himself not as provocative as he has been in the past and I hope that this year he will also be able to resist the temptation of indulging in petty politicking by which neither he nor his party nor South Africa gain anything.

That is provocative.

I hope the Opposition will maintain a high level in this debate on matters which are of vital importance for our entire future. I know that hon. members on this side will do so, provided they are not provoked, for then they will hit back and hit back hard. In this debate the Opposition must always bear in mind that most of the demands made on South Africa in respect of our domestic policy, in regard to our relations problem, are such that neither the Government nor the Opposition can meet them, just as our Portuguese friends or our neighbours in the former Federation with their policy of partnership cannot or could not meet them.

I want to begin by making a few general remarks in regard to the U.N. During the past session of the General Assembly there was an increasing sense of frustration at the U.N., particularly among those countries that have regarded the U.N. as a peace-preserving factor. In this connection I want to quote what the American Ambassador Wiggens said on this occasion—

The president of the General Assembly was undoubtedly speaking in the same vein when he uttered the following words—

It is no wonder that delegates and the president of the General Assembly have made statements like these. In the UNCTAD debate, for example, we heard an African delegate inveighing vehemently against a legal opinion which had been drawn up by the legal advisers to the Secretariat and which did not suit this delegate’s purpose, so that he stated in a blatant and shameless way that he and his people were not concerned about the legal validity of matters and paid no heed to it. As a result of this frustration, and as a result of the realization that the U.N. can only do certain things and cannot do other things, South Africa’s enemies have resorted to holding all kinds of conferences, meetings, “picnics”, etc. The expenditure for this was tremendously high and one of my officials calculated last year that the costs involved in gatherings of this kind amounted to more than the contributions of 30 member states. Of course, South Africa objected during this session, just as in the past, to this wasteful expenditure, and we made some progress in so far as the payment of fees to the members of the working group in connection with prisons and trade unions was abolished. They will in future no longer be paid, as they were in the past. It is fortunate that we have made some progress and that there is some realization that the U.N. has its limitations, and we are delighted about the measure of realism which became apparent from the failure of the attempt to ban South Africa from UNCTAD. We hope that that realism will increase and prevail in future.

South Africa’s position in the U.N. remains unchanged. The Government’s attitude in regard to the U.N. has often been stated; this, too, remains unchanged. As long as it is in our interests, and as long as we are not humiliated there, we shall remain in the organization and co-operate with them. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well as the hon. member for East London (North) asked why we still remained a member, and in fact insinuated in a quite naive way that we were remaining a member although we were not convinced that it was to the benefit of South Africa. There are advantages attached to the organization. It is called a “talking shop”, as the hon. member opposite rightly said. One of the Russians said recently: “It is in fact a ‘talking shop’, but over the past 20 years we have by talking at least avoided shooting one another”. After all is said and done the U.N. remains a very useful forum; it is the best, the largest international forum where we can state our case in a businesslike and positive way, when this can be done with good results, and we have already achieved good results in this connection. It is also a meeting place where one can make the best possible contacts at the least expense. We must also bear in mind that membership of the U.N. itself affords admission to the so-called specialized agencies and other bodies. Admittedly it was impossible for us to remain in certain of these agencies, but nevertheless a large number of important ones still remain where we are enjoying valuable co-operation with various countries in regard to very important subjects. One thinks, for example, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, International Civil Aviation Organization, etc. As far as the organizations in which we are no longer represented are concerned, our relations with the World Health Organization are a good example of how absurd, how unreasonable, the vendetta against South Africa actually is. It is truly ironic that of all countries South Africa, with its remarkable achievements, with all its knowledge, should be prevented from exercising its rights at the World Health Organization. That is really the height of ridiculousness. If member states were really trying to promote the interests of mankind as a whole, how could they justify such behaviour towards South Africa, towards a country in which medical science is so far advanced, a country whose medical achievements have compelled the admiration and appreciation of the entire world? One would have expected all responsible governments to move heaven and earth in order to obtain and to retain South Africa’s cooperation in the field of medical science, and that they would do so in the interests of mankind as a whole.

As far as contributions to the funds of the U.N. are concerned, South Africa is one of the best payers at the U.N. From time to time cases occur of countries falling more than two years behind in their payments, and then their voting rights are threatened, but those countries are by far in the minority. In general the contributions are paid fairly regularly.

Mr. Chairman, many questions have been put to me, although the debate is still in an early stage. I shall try to furnish brief, factual and complete replies to them. As regards having a permanent committee for foreign affairs here in South Africa, I am not in favour of that, nor do I think the Government will be in favour of it Such committees do in fact exist in the United States and in a few other countries, but there are good reasons why this is the case in America. Hon. members will be aware, for example, of the fact that the procedure followed in the United States in regard to the appointment of ambassadors differs completely from ours. Moreover, this is by no means a common practice. Our own system works very satisfactorily. As in the past, the Prime Minister from time to time informs the Leader of the Opposition about urgent and important matters when necessary.

No improvement is needed as far as the appointment of our own ambassadors and heads of overseas missions is concerned. The persons appointed, both professional diplomats and others, are all selected persons of the highest calibre. I think you will agree with me that some of the ambassadors representing South Africa abroad are of Cabinet calibre. All these people are doing excellent work, and I think the comment by the hon. member for Krugersdorp in this connection is sufficient. I do not think I need elaborate on that.

As regards our annual contribution to the U.N., I want to point out to hon. members that the U.N.’s annual budget is increasing considerably year by year. We do in fact withhold payment of certain funds, but I do not think it is necessary for me to take up the time of the House with details in this connection. For example, we withhold payment in respect of pro rata costs of picnics and the contribution in respect of the so-called “bonds”. Consequently the impression created by this figure before us is a little misleading, and I think the question in this connection was a very reasonable one. As regards the contributions by other countries to the Anti-Apartheid Fund, I may point out that there are two funds. The one fund is the United Nations Trust Fund, and this is concentrated mainly on legal aid, relief to persons who find themselves in difficulties and their dependants, education and assistance to refugees from South Africa. The other fund is the Education and Training Programme, and the object of this fund is—

During the four years of the Trust Fund’s existence approximately 43 countries have contributed to it. However, most of these countries did this only once. We took up this matter and lodged objections with the governments concerned. We pointed out to them how these funds could in practice be utilized for objects which those governments which had donated the money could hardly support. The result of our representations was that some of these countries made no further contributions to the Trust Fund. As far as the Education and Training Programme is concerned, this Fund is very closely bound up with contributions in regard to Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories and it is difficult to indicate specifically which of the activities of this Fund relate to South Africa. This second fund is regarded as being less contentious by Western countries, and consequently there has recently been a tendency among them to contribute to this fund rather than to the Trust Fund. Up to now 22 countries have made contributions to this Fund.

It was also asked why White Papers in regard to the U.N. and the activities of my Department were no longer being laid upon the Table. However, it is no secret that the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs is increasing. Nor is it a secret that we must conserve our resources as much as possible. It is true that we draw up a document each year in connection with the U.N. session for the Department’s own use, but it would take up a great deal of time to get it ready for publication. In addition, this report is far more comprehensive than a report which can be made available to the public. Hon. members on the opposite side know that they can call on the Department for information at any time. They also know that we have always been willing in the past to supply them with documents and copies of speeches and other items. I want to make an appeal to the hon. members to do so again in future. There are also certain U.N. documents in the Library, although they are not always quite up to date. I must point out that White Papers were in fact published in the past, although not regularly. As soon as it is possible, we shall try to do so again in future.

Are there appreciations of the situation by the officials as well?

Yes. Mention was made of South Africans who experienced difficulties in other countries. A statement was made which may have left the impression that we cannot negotiate with countries and governments with whom we are not officially represented. This is a complete misconception. Hon. members must remember that it is totally wrong to think that South Africa is in a state of war with the rest of the world, or part of it. There is continual contact between other countries and us by means of South Africa’s representatives in the principal cities of the world who negotiate and discuss matters with their counterparts whenever necessary, particularly in London, Washington, Paris and even at the U.N. Often we negotiate directly with governments, although we do not have official diplomatic relations with them. I want to mention a few examples to hon. members. I am thinking for example of the recent Uys case, i.e. the person who crashed in an aircraft near Equatorial Guinea. We made use of three or four channels and succeeded in making the necessary documents available to Mr. Uys. Within a very short time we effected his release. During the recent troubles in Czechoslovakia quite a number of South Africans were trapped there. We helped them; we facilitated matters for them, particularly by addressing requests through the agency of a third country that lent us its support. I also want to remind hon. members of what happened a year or so ago when South African policemen found themselves illegally in Zambia. That matter was amicably settled by direct negotiation between the South African Government and the Zambian Government. But I do not want to take up the time of the House with further examples.

As for the demonstration in London and the damage caused there, I want to say that we lodged a protest. The British Government expressed its regret for what had happened and offered to compensate for the damage.

Our standpoint in respect of the South African Police in Rhodesia was very clearly stated by the hon. the Prime Minister. The British Government, Mr. Wilson and his colleagues, know precisely how matters stand in this connection. I discussed this matter myself in Britain with Ministers. I have not yet had an opportunity of going into the legal position in regard to the alleged recent statement by Mr. Wilson, but I do not think it is of fundamental importance, since the British Government is fully acquainted with the position as regards the presence of our Police there.

Reference was made to the diplomatic suburb in Pretoria. The newspaper report in regard to a luxury hotel in that suburb has nothing to do with this matter. This was probably the work of a journalist who gave free rein to his imagination. My Department is definitely not involved, not in this particular area. As already indicated by the hon. the Minister of Public Works, a guest house, consisting of flats, restaurant facilities, etc., is being envisaged. A start will soon be made with its erection. It also appears from the documents which are already before the hon. House that two further dwellings for diplomats are being erected at the expense of their government. These houses are under construction. General development costs are covered out of the Loan Estimates. The hon. member will find details of this under the Department of Public Works. As far as Cape Town is concerned, I am not able to make any announcement at this stage.

My Department is not concerned in the development programme of the Parks Board either. The housing referred to in yesterday’s debate, housing for eminent persons, is not exclusively for diplomats. My assumption is that it is for high-ranking visitors, of whom many have been visiting South Africa recently. My own Department, and other Departments as well, are continually entertaining such visitors. Any additional accommodation facilities for such persons are of course welcomed by us all. As regards the hotel to be built at Jan Smuts Airport I do not know how large the halls will be which the hotel will have available. Nor do I know whether the facilities of the hotel will be used for international conferences. The degree to which use is made of these will of course depend upon what is available. I can of course see that such an hotel ought to be a popular meeting place. It will be situated close to Johannesburg, yet not in the city. Hon. members know of course that buildings can be sound-proofed to-day. But this is not a matter which falls under my Department.

Does the Government have no part in it?

No.

It is a private concern which is involved in this matter. References were also made here to an article in the Financial Mail of 24th January. Of course I do not agree at all with certain exaggerated statements made in it.

The hon. member went on to refer to difficulties which visitors from Lesotho were allegedly experiencing in that they supposedly had to obtain permits to visit South Africa. He also insinuated that Lesotho and other neighbouring states were being regarded as Bantustans.

No. I was merely quoting from the article.

Then I am sorry. In any case, the true position is that, except in exceptional cases where South Africa has withdrawn its exemption, Basutho enjoy visa exemption as regards entry into South Africa. Basutho who want to visit the Republic for less than a fortnight, only require a passport or other valid travel document. If anyone should want to stay longer than a fortnight, he must obtain prior authority. In any case, no permits are issued. But Basutho who want to come here to work must of course possess the proper documents and therefore need work permits. I may add that special arrangements are being made, on an ad hoc basis, as regards border inhabitants who often enter the country, and for emergencies, such as illness, when people want to enter the country at short notice. Our neighbouring states are all aware of these arrangements and they also know that they can contact South Africa in this connection at any time, as they are in fact already doing.

As regards the exchange of diplomats, I want to point out that good relations can exist between states without there being any exchange of diplomats between those countries. Let me refer in this connection to our neighbouring states. We have no diplomatic representation there and yet our relations with them are sound. There are also many countries in the world which are on friendly terms, yet do not exchange diplomats. This is particularly true of the young and poor African states. Let me mention one example to you in this connection. Recently the President of the Malagasy Republic paid an official visit to Malawi, yet these two countries have no diplomatic relations with each other.

Are we too young or are we too poor?

This matter cuts both ways. We can of course afford it, and we do it wherever it is necessary. There are, however, other states which cannot afford it, and will have to borrow the money from us, or elsewhere, if they want to do it, and this is money which they would be able to put to better use for the development of productive schemes in their own countries. The exchange of diplomats and the maintenance of diplomatic relations are therefore not a sine qua non for the friendly coexistence of countries. Of course it has its value, but it is not always indispensable. Modern means of communication are such that direct contact between governments is often, although not always, easier, cheaper and faster than through the mediation of diplomats.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also wanted to know what was being done to bring the true facts with regard to South Africa to the attention of the world. Last year already I gave a full account of the steps which my own Department was taking in this connection. I referred to publications which had appeared—the work on South-West Africa for example, replies to the U.N., an introduction to our legal system, a paper on human rights. We also lodged a proper protest with the Secretary-General against the misuse of the organization’s propaganda machinery. These documents we had circulated, as far as this was possible, as official U.N. documents. Consequently they came to the attention of all member countries, and went even further afield. Here I also want to remind hon. members of the statement on South-West Africa which I made in the Other Place recently. There are of course many ways in which we can bring the true facts concerning South Africa to the attention of the world besides publications. What I have in mind here is our appearance before the U.N., the activities of our ambassadors overseas, the large number of visitors who visit South Africa either officially or as private visitors and who can ascertain for themselves the true facts concerning South Africa and who do in fact often return full of admiration for what they found here. In this connection I just want to emphasize that although we are furnishing the true facts concerning South Africa at the U.N. or elsewhere, we are not doing this because we stand under any obligation towards any person or any country or any body. We have a case we need not feel ashamed of. We have nothing to hide. On the contrary, we have a great deal to be proud of, and we are making those facts known.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that one of his colleagues would discuss the Customs Union. However, I think it would be useful if I said something in that regard at this stage. It may prevent fruitless discussion. Hon. members will recall that in the President’s Address at the opening of Parliament it was stated very specifically that the negotiations in regard to the Customs Union had, at the beginning of the year, already reached an advanced stage. But then unavoidable delay set in as a result of the taxation system introduced by our Budget. We informed our neighbouring states of our intentions in this regard. Deputations were sent to them. They expressed their appreciation for that and thanked us. They also submitted certain representations to us in this connection. Further discussions will take place during the latter half of this month. I sincerely hope that a satisfactory solution will be found in this connection.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout wanted to know what the prospects in the rest of Africa were. The Prime Minister made a very explicit statement in regard to this matter. He pointed out that we had good contacts with various other African states and that we were expanding those contacts. The hon. the Prime Minister also stated, quite rightly, that it would for obvious reasons be premature to furnish more details at this stage. I may say, however, that we are in direct contact with considerably more African governments than I am prepared and in a position to disclose at this juncture. Discussions with government members and with officials are taking place virtually all the time in capital cities. In this way the Planning Adviser to the Prime Minister, for example, recently visited two neighbouring states by invitation, although we have no formal relations with those states. He held discussions with ministers and officials there. Discussions are also taking place on ministerial level at the U.N., and elsewhere with ministers from Africa. Hon. members might perhaps be surprised to hear with whom we have talks. I have stated repeatedly in this House that I have always believed that the time would come when there would be greater realism in Africa. This is coming about now.

I am glad the hon. member for Krugersdorp referred to the Lusaka Summit Conference. He pleaded that we should follow up that manifesto. He also pleaded that we should do everything in our power to eliminate the misunderstanding which existed in the world, and particularly in Africa, in regard to our Government’s policy. We are continually doing so. We are continually trying to eliminate this misunderstanding. During the last session, to mention only one example, I had a discussion lasting more than three hours with the Foreign Minister of an African state. Our conversation was a very friendly one, and we parted on very friendly terms. This is a very great challenge to us. Much of the success of these undertakings will of course depend upon the success we achieve, and which we are achieving, here in South Africa with the application of our own policy of separate development. The hon. member for Krugersdorp was rightly impressed by the spirit of the manifesto issued by the Summit Conference in Lusaka. Apart from the realism which is beginning to appear from it, the modesty of these people in regard to their own achievements, or lack of achievements, and the fact that they deny that they are opposed to the Whites simply because they are Whites, I should like to read the following quotation from this manifesto—

This is encouraging, but we must not make the mistake of thinking that this problem in regard to Africa will be solved overnight. It will require time and hard work to break down the distorted image of South Africa which has been systematically built up over a period of years in the outside world.

The hon. member for Karoo referred to the vacuum in the Indian Ocean. There is very little I want to say about this, because the hon. the Prime Minister has already expressed an opinion on this matter and has said everything which can be said at this stage. It is of course a delicate matter. As far as co-operation with our neighbours in the Southern Hemisphere is concerned, I feel very strongly about this, and hon. members will recall that I made a speech in this House three years ago in which I pleaded for close co-operation with all our neighbours in the Southern Hemisphere. In this connection I want to quote what I recently said at a dinner which was attended here in Cape Town by the representatives of six South American countries. On that occasion I said the following—

The hon. member for Karoo, as well as the hon. member for Brentwood, pleaded for technical assistance, personal assistance, to be provided to our neighbouring states. The hon. member for Brentwood in particular has every right to do so because he and his wife set an example worth following in this connection in that they both went to Malawi during their leave, where they rendered medical and nursing services free of charge for an entire month. Now I want to say that in spite of the limited funds available to my Department for technical assistance, in spite of the fact that we believe that money should not be pumped into developing states, it is nevertheless amazing how far one can get with assistance in the form of expert help and advice. The traffic between South Africa and its neighbouring states has probably never been so heavy as it is at the moment. This traffic is primarily in connection with technical assistance. It mainly takes the form of South African technicians being made available for some special task for a specific period. These periods of time vary from a few days to as much as a year or two. For example, we recently made a Deeds Office expert available to a neighbouring state for three months. To another neighbouring state we supplied a chief justice and a few magistrates, as well as a health adviser and other experts. In the case of Malawi, as hon. members will recall in consequence of a question in this connection, we seconded two technicians for a period of two years to assist with their radio services, while two senior persons were made available to take charge of the Malawi Development Corporation. On a more short-term basis this assistance takes the form of short visits by South African experts on agriculture, health, planning and so on. I have a very long list of examples, but my time is limited.

I want to dwell briefly on what is perhaps the best example in this connection, namely the assistance in the sphere of medical services. Here a tremendous amount has been accomplished by both the South African Government and private agencies. I am thinking, for example, of the pioneering work performed by the organization of Dr. Anton Rupert, assisted by medical practitioners who made their services available free of charge, and also by senior medical students. I want to express my gratitude and appreciation here in this House to Dr. Rupert, his organization, and all who assisted him in this connection. Recently we also saw that Dr. Chris Barnard paid a visit to Africa, which will probably have good results and promote further cooperation. Our gratitude and appreciation are extended to him as well.

The time has come for greater co-ordination in regard to medical services, that is to say, co-ordination between officials, i.e. Government agencies, and voluntary assistance. With a view to this a meeting was held in my office last week which was attended by members of my Department, the Minister of Health, Dr. Rupert and his advisers, Dr. Munnik, M. E. C., and the Secretary of the S.A. Medical Association. It was decided to approach the Governments of our neighbouring states with proposals aimed at promoting more coordinated action in regard to medical cooperation and at eliminating any duplication. We also feel that it is necessary to determine priorities in regard to the needs which exist in the areas in question, and to see that urgent cases enjoy preference. At this meeting it was decided in principle to establish a co-ordinating committee on which my own Department, the Department of Health and the Medical Association will be represented; they will constitute the permanent members, and this committee will work in very close conjunction with the Rupert organization and also with the South African College of Physicians, Surgeons and Gynaecologists. I wish to announce here that this South African College has offered to carry out certain very valuable services in the neighbouring states in the form of training. We owe the College, Professor Louw, the president, and Dr. Saunders, the hon. registrar of this organization, a sincere vote of thanks, and we hope that other bodies will follow the example set and that they will also liaise directly with the Government in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, in the ten minutes at my disposal I want to express a few opinions in connection with the relations between South Africa and America. Frequently it is lightly alleged that the U.SA. is hostile to us, and at times a great fuss is made in South Africa about the so-called American liberalism which is threatening us. Even in fairly responsible circles the thought is freely expressed that the U.S.A. is a greater immediate enemy to South African then even international Communism. Last year I had the opportunity of travelling a distance of more than 8,000 miles through the U.S.A. in the company of the hon. member for Yeoville. We addressed dozens of meetings, universities, organizations, etc.; we appeared on television for 8½ hours and on the radio for 4¾ hours, and I want to make the statement here to-day that the U.S.A. is, by and large, not hostile to us. There is, of course, a strong current of liberalism in the United States which would like to bring about our downfall. I merely call to mind a report which appeared in this morning’s Burger under the heading “U.S.A. must abandon its interests in South Africa”, and which stated that George Houser, general secretary of the American Committee on Africa, had said that America should abandon its economic interests in South Africa before it developed vested interests in the maintenance of the country’s existing racial situation. Sir, although liberalism is thickly sown in America—no one will dispute this—who can deny that it is thickly sown in Europe and elsewhere? Who can deny that it is thickly sown in South Africa? I see the hon. member for Houghton smiling; she knows what I am talking about. There are, of course, those in America who do not like our policy. There are undoubtedly those in Europe and elsewhere who also do not like it, and in South Africa there are undoubtedly those who do not like it either. It is true that they do not like our policy, but I want to make the claim that those people in the U.S.A. who are so liberally inclined, do not like the United Party’s policy either. They told us so; they put it plainly to the hon. member for Yeoville, and they do not like the hon. member for Houghton’s policy either. They also stated this very clearly. Mr. Chairman I was impressed by the wealth of goodwill towards South Africa in the U.S.A., goodwill which varies from those who are prepared to give separate development a chance to those who made it clearly evident that they believed that separate development was our only solution. Sir, we addressed many organizations and I just want to quote a few items. For example, we had the opportunity of speaking to mayors, governors and high-ranking people. Here I have a Press cutting from the Atlanta Constitution, a local newspaper, of 3rd December, 1968, in which their Governor, Lester Maddox, said the following to us—

Mr. Chairman, near Chicago, for example, I appeared on a television programme called the “Manion Forum”. That television station was so well disposed towards us that they had the entire television programme, questions and replies, printed and circulated throughout America. In fact, a few days ago an American, altogether without being asked, came and handed it to me; I had not even known that it had been printed. At the end of that programme Dean Manion said very clearly that South Africa and America ought to be very good friends. But it is also interesting that the record of that same television interview was read in full in the American Congress by the Congress member for Louisiana, a Democrat member, John Rarick. It takes up about four columns. It appears in their Hansard, which I have before me, of 14th January, 1969, on pages E229 and E230. The person who sent it to me from America wrote me that this was the first time that South Africa’s standpoint had been stated even in their Parliament.

Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville and I addressed the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. This is actually a status club; it has nothing to do with the Commonwealth. On occasion the members of this club have been addressed by persons such as Konrad Adenauer, Clement Attlee, Queen Juliana, De Gaulle, Hubert Humphrey, Mrs. Pandit, Macmillan, and others.

And Paul van der Merwe.

The secretary, Roger Coffee, recently sent me the result of a vote which was taken there on the question: “Should the United States Government support the present Government of the Republic of South Africa?” Of the 12,000 members of the club who cast their votes, 1,085 voted in favour of South Africa and only 628 against it. This shows, Mr. Chairman, that in general there is tremendous goodwill towards South Africa even in the U.S.A. But I want to mention a particular honour which was bestowed upon South Africa’s parliamentary delegation, i.e. our reception in the Senate in Washington. This was a very great occasion for us, and I have here the Hansard pertaining to that day (col. S12703), the 12th October, 1968. Senator Holland introduced us in these noteworthy terms—

He then dealt further with the good relations with us and said—

He then went on to say—

Then the Senate adjourned for three minutes and the Senators all came along, shook us by the hand and said “Very welcome in the U.S.A.” It is all recorded here.

Mr. Chairman, America is often wrongly said to be hostile towards us. I should like to refer to the recent resolution taken by the Security Council in respect of South-West Africa, in which they cancelled South Africa’s administration of South-West Africa. When it came to the point, it was America who refused to allow this resolution to be classified under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, in other words, so that military action could even be taken against South Africa. It is interesting that the American ambassador at the U.N., Charles W. Yost, said—I quote from a report which appeared in the Burger of 21st March, 1969 (translation)—

Sir, this is an indication to South Africa that there is tremendous goodwill towards her in America, even in Government circles, and we must take note of this. In fact, this same George Houser whom I mentioned and with whom the hon. member for Yeoville appeared in a television programme while I went to address the Vasser University, mentioned in his speech that more than 260 American undertakings were doing business in South Africa and that the overall American investment in South Africa to-day amounted to more than 600 million dollars. I therefore say that if we want to maintain good relations with the U.S.A. we must also make a positive contribution to draw that giant of the Western world closer to this giant in Africa, so that the relations between the two can continue to improve.

Mr. Chairman, before referring to the speech of the hon. member for Middelland, who gave this Committee some very interesting information, I just want to say a few words about the hon. the Minister’s replies. The hon. the Minister did his best to reply to all the questions raised by us and this is something which is always appreciated by the Committee. However, I regret that he, as the country’s leading diplomat, started off his speech on such an undiplomatic note, in that he accused us of provocation in the past. I do not want to dwell on that, except just to tell him that he would do well to explain to us what he regards us provocation. I have a strong suspicion that this so-called provocation means the asking of difficult questions. I do not think this is reasonable, because it is the Opposition’s task in Parliament to put awkward questions to the Government at times. I hope that the hon. the Minister will realize that I was not making any insinuations. It is not necessary for us to make insinuations, because if we want to express criticism, we do so openly. I want to leave his action there, but I do think that for a diplomat in such a high position as himself, it was a very undiplomatic note on which to begin his speech.

I also regret the fact that the hon. the Minister rejected the idea of a parliamentary committee. Now, the hon. the Minister has the right to do so. He referred to America. There are special circumstances in America; however, there are such parliamentary committees in most of the European countries, but as I have already said, he has the right to reject my proposal, provided we understand each other. The hon. the Minister’s standpoint is therefore that all questions, delicate or otherwise, should be raised across the floor of the House, or by way of questions. In future we shall therefore, not hesitate to ask such questions, even though they are awkward ones, because there is no alternative.

But I referred to the discussions between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

Yes, but Parliament is more than just the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would be the first to admit it. In addition, the Leader of the Opposition is also under the obligation to keep a private communication private, even in respect of his own party. Therefore this is of no assistance to Parliament as such. The hon. the Minister said that it was difficult for his Department to table an annual report because the Department was very busy. His Department is, of course, very busy, and we realize this, but I think that at the same time there should be a better appreciation of Parliament’s position. Unless we are properly informed of the activities of the Government, Parliament cannot pass sound judgments, I think this matter should be viewed from that angle, and irrespective of the cost and the trouble involved, proper information should be supplied to the House. It should not be necessary for us to run to the Library whenever we need information and, besides, the documents in the Library are usually very much out of date.

The hon. the Minister also referred to the part played by Professor Barnard. We should like to endorse that he has rendered very great service to South Africa. The time will come when we will have to give serious thought to what form of recognition we can accord Professor Barnard for the wonderful image of South Africa which he has created among the nations of the world.

The hon. the Minister and other speakers mentioned, inter alia, Dr. Banda’s role in Africa. There was talk of Dr. Banda visiting South Africa and, although I do not expect the Minister to talk out of turn, it would nevertheless be interesting to know whether there is any possibility, as appears from these reports, of Dr. Banda visiting South Africa this year. The hon. member for Middelland gave us an interesting account of their visit to America. Apropos of that I want to make another suggestion to the hon. the Minister. I am sure that the hon. the Minister has received reports from the Parliamentary missions which were sent abroad. The salient fact which emerges from the reports which we received, is that the impact made abroad by members of the Opposition is of tremendous value to South Africa. From the nature of the case Opposition members make a greater impact than Government members. I am not saying that the quality of the Opposition member is necessarily superior to that of the Government member, but in the first place people listen more attentively to a politician than to another person. In the second place, the Opposition politician, who is in open opposition to the Government, gets a better hearing because people adopt the attitude that he views the Government’s policy more objectively than the Government member can, from the nature of the case, view the policy of his own Government. From the reports we received it appears that the hon. member for Yeoville made a remarkable impression abroad because he spoke as an objective person and because he could give a more objective picture of the Government’s policy. When an Opposition member is abroad, his attitude, when stating South Africa’s case, is to state the Government’s policy first, as the Government sees it, and we of the Opposition usually take pains to present a true picture of official Government policy. Alongside that we then state the Opposition’s standpoint. I myself did so consistently when, for example, I was in West Germany last year. This clearly led to an appreciation of South Africa’s problems. This also presents a picture of South Africa which goes much further than the official documents which are issued. Therefore I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he should give strong consideration to having all ad hoc commissions which go to other countries or to the U.N. consist of both Government and Opposition members. If that were to be done, I think it could only be of value to South Africa.

The hon member for Krugersdorp said here that I had made an insinuation against South Africa’s political representatives abroad. The hon. the Minister also referred to it and in fact endorsed what the hon. member for Krugersdorp had said. He reacted such as when someone quite unknowingly treads on someone else’s corns. I want to repeat that it is not necessary for us to make insinuations. If we on this side of the House were convinced that there were representatives abroad who were not equal to the task, we would say so openly, or we would go and discuss the matter privately with the Minister. There was therefore no need for me to make insinuations. I think the member did not understand me, and apparently the Minister was also under a misapprehension. There are posts abroad to which experienced politicians should be appointed, and we have always subscribed to that view. Everyone admits this. We do have such persons in key posts overseas who work hard and who do good work. However, there is a tendency among all governments, over and above the obvious political appointments which they have to make, to begin thinking of giving a person a post abroad when they do not want to promote him in his home country. This applies to all governments and we know this to be the case. I can, for example, think of a few bad appointments which were made by previous governments. All I wanted to emphasize was that in other countries this tendency was counteracted by referring the proposed appointments for private discussion to their parliamentary committee on foreign affairs. I think this is a good institution and I still maintain that it is a good idea for South Africa and for any other country. We ought to do this here. I approached the matter from the point of view of the principle and did not have anyone in mind who is at present in the foreign service.

Quite a good deal was also said here about an improvement which has come about in respect of South Africa’s image overseas. I am quite willing to concede that there are fields in which there are improvements in the relations between South Africa and other countries. No right-minded person would not welcome something like that. If things are not going well with a country, it affects every one of its citizens; therefore it is in everyone’s interest that things should go as well as possible with his country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the matters which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised, he virtually disposed of by way of reply. I shall therefore not reply to them.

I want to get a little nearer home. In South Africa to-day there is more peace and quiet than in most of the countries of the world. This includes England and America. We hear every day about strikes in England. In the U.S.A. there are daily clashes between Whites and non-Whites. This peace and quiet in South Africa is for the most part attributable to our economic prosperity. As a result of the booming economy which we are experiencing today, there is no unemployment in South Africa. There are sufficient food and clothing for everyone. Housing is being provided on a scale unprecedented in our history. Consequently we have peace and quiet here. This economic prosperity is to a large extent a result of our international trade. This international trade, again, is brought about by sound foreign relations. Our international trade which, as I say, is a result of sound foreign relations, is actually the source of our security. The consequences of this must surely impress themselves upon us all, i.e. that our whole survival as a white nation, about which certain people are so concerned to-day, is dependent upon sound foreign relations. Accordingly it is the Government’s policy to establish friendly international relations as far as this is practicable. In this connection it goes without saying that our immediate neighbouring states must enjoy preference. In this respect it will be admitted that the policy which we are pursuing is yielding very good results, as the hon. the Minister informed us here. Our relations with the former Protectorates are excellent. Our trade with one another is increasing and, as the hon. the Minister said, our technical aid to them is increasing by the day and is also being appreciated by those countries. What is important is that the way in which delicate matters between us are being handled is in no way interfering with our established customs. What I am saying in connection with the former Protectorates also applies in respeot of the other African states which are seeking rapprochement. I want to emphasize here that our established customs are in no way being interfered with as a result of the way in which we are handling these delicate matters. What is of special importance is the fact that as a result of our neighbouring states, the communist states have not been able to infiltrate there. If we had followed a policy of standing aloof, as is advocated by some people, those states would have been compelled to seek this aid and friendship from other countries. As a result we would have run the risk that this communist infiltration could, in fact, have taken place, with fatal consequences for South Africa, in the sense that the communist infiltration into our neighbouring states would have spread its influence amongst our internal population. We have a typical example of this in the case of Zambia. We have thus far not been able to make any breakthrough there. But we do find that Chinese infiltration has taken place in Zambia. In actual fact Zambia is our only neighbour who is out of step. It would be of great economic advantage to that country rather to follow a policy which in reality conforms to one of the basic principles of the U.N. Charter, i.e. non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states. We can only hope that this realization will in time take root there.

Our good relations with Portugal and Malawi will probably be welcome on all sides. I should like to refer the few who find fault with our relations and actions in respect of Rhodesia to the Rhodesian Government under Mr. Smith, which is surely representative of the vast majority of the Rhodesian electorate. I want to point out that the Rhodesian Government not only approves of our line of action, but welcomes it.

In conclusion I just want to say that we are grateful that South Africa is enjoying such a measure of safety in this troubled world in which we live. This is to a large extent attributable to our Minister and his able officials.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Omaruru made a contribution to this debate in the spirit in which we are discussing the Vote of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a South African spirit, in the spirit of people who together are trying, in the face of world opinion, which is often hostile towards South Africa, to put the case of South Africa to the best of their ability, irrespective of political party or insight.

I really rise to react to the very interesting speech by the hon. member for Middelland this afternoon, who recounted some of his experiences in the United States of America.

Do not tell them all!

Of course not. There are moments that one never discloses. [Laughter.] But I do want to say that I am very glad that I can say on this occasion that the hon. member for Middelland did not exaggerate when he pointed out how much he could do to improve the image of South Africa. I was with him, and he performed a remarkable task, sometimes in the most difficult circumstances. He and I together, and at one time the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, enjoyed remarkable privileges, to be able to speak to audiences, on one occasion as large as 20 million Americans, in the interest of South Africa. I think that each one in our own way, with our own limitations—and all three of us have perhaps more limitations than other things—did our best for South Africa. I particularly want to say that it was a great occasion for any South African with an appreciation of history, and the history of democracy especially, to be presented, as the three of us were, on the floor of the United States Senate. It was quite remarkable to observe the great variety of opinion in the United States Senate about South Africa, but we were treated with the most remarkable courtesy. We shall remember that for a long time. But I feel that I should just say to the hon. member for Middelland in this House that we should be very careful that our own personal experiences of the good reception we had in so many cases, should not create a euphoric sense that all is well with South Africa as far as the United States of America is concerned. I am a great admirer of American institutions. I have a great deal of gratitude for the hospitality which on two occasions I have enjoyed from the people of the United States. But we as a South African people, you, Sir, as part of the South African Government, and I, have problems. We must not bluff ourselves that the United States of America officially, or as far as those who form opinion in the United States of America are concerned, is sold on South Africa, whether it is the idea of separate development, of race federation or of a vote on merit. That merit in effect causes the non-Whites to have place of less merit than the white people in practice, when it comes to the compiling of the voters’ Toll. They see through that too. We have tremendous problems in this regard. As far as the United States and the world are concerned I can see only one answer from South Africa which will satisfy them, namely that of one man one vote. I still have to see any political movement of any significance in South Africa that stands for the principle of one man one vote. Even the Progressive Party is with us on that point. They may see in it something for to-morrow, but certainly not something for to-day. That is the problem that we have to face. Therefore I feel that we should be careful not to mislead the people of South Africa to believe something false, namely that either separate development or a federal system or the so-called merit system is what the world demands from us. The world, for reasons which I do not have time to go into, but which I am sure the hon. the Minister and his department appreciate, to-day believes that as far as Africa is concerned, there is only one policy, namely the policy of one man one vote immediately, as has happened in other parts of Africa, and the devil take the hindmost. The issues that divide the world to-day are so tremendously big that the world finds it difficult to make the nice distinctions that we South Africans can make and quite rightly make because of our interests, because the interests of the world powers may be different from ours from time to time. I saw this, and so did my hon. friends who accompanied me, in a most remarkable way. We spent days upon days listening to the debates and the discussions in the United Nations. What did we find? We found this very interesting fact, namely that at the United Nations the Communist countries of the world saw in four countries a target and a lever which they could use in order to estrange the Afro-Asian countries from the great democracies of the West. These countries are South Africa. Portugal, Rhodesia, and this may surprise hon. members, also Israel. They use these countries as a “horrible” example to convince the uncommitted countries of Africa and Asia that the great Western democracies were in fact, whatever their protestations may be. hostile to the emergent races of the world. Because the capitalists of the West, as they said, were supporting the armies of Israel, because there was a consortium of powers in South Africa and they named Mr. Harry Oppenheimer in this regard, who were helping to develop the Cabora-Bassa scheme. That was the final evidence that the Western world were against the Afro-Asian states, because Cabora-Bassa was nothing but a sinister scheme by the Portuguese with the support of the capitalists of the West to deprive the Africans of Moçambique of their land rights and to substitute Portuguese immigrants for Blacks on the fertile lands in Moçambique. We heard and listened to these accusations and it was an education to us.

Did they not say that they want to drown all the Blacks in the Cabora-Bassa area?

They did not exactly say that, but I think that if the hon. the Minister of Community Development was there and suggested it to them, they would accept it. That was their mood. I am very serious about this matter. Our problem is much bigger than we sometimes think when we become so involved in our political differences amongst the Nationalist Party, the United Party and the Progressive Party. I understand that there are potentially other parties in South Africa as well. Despite this I think we have become so engrossed in our own difficulties that we do not appreciate this. Much may be wrong with South Africa. I will not deny that. But there is also the fact that because of circumstances we are a convenient instrument that can be used by the Communist powers of the world to try to drive in a wedge between the Western world and the uncommitted Afro-Asian states. It makes one wonder what South Africa is to do in the circumstances. What is the answer to this problem? Do we accept the principle of one man one vote? I do not think that there is one hon. member in this House who would say that we should do that immediately and that it is practical politics. It seems to me that all of us, to whatever party we may belong, must take very serious stock of the way in which we present and practise the policies in which we believe. With great respect I can say some things about my own party too. The hon. member for Middelland and especially the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education did a tremendous job to put the policy of separate development to the public of America. They did it so well that I hardly recognized it. [Interjections.] I do feel that unless we can persuade the world that the theory of separate development on the part of our government is also a matter for serious practical implementation, we are not going to succeed. I saw on more than one occasion, and far was it from me to raise any doubts about the theory of separate development, that people were impressed, but I also heard them put questions about the practical implementation of it which embarrassed all of us. Can we really put a case to the world to convince them that while the Government officially believes in the policy of separate development, they are officially carrying it out? Can one really persuade the world that the policy of border industries is a policy of separate development, or is it a policy which accepts the impossibility of separate development, and the necessity for economic inter-dependence in South Africa? Are we satisfied that we can tell the world that we are doing enough for the development of these future separate areas to convince the world of our sincerity? I want to ask my own party and my own Leader, and forgive me for saying this, do we have a picture of the federal concept in South Africa which we can put across to the world convincingly and finally as an answer to our problems? The so-called … I am sorry, I withdraw the word “so-called”. Can the Progressive Party with its policy of merit truthfully say to the world that in practice the test of merit they propose will not give the majority of the Whites in South Africa the vote and exclude the majority of the non-Whites in South Africa? Those are the problems we have to face in South Africa to-day. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville told us a moment ago that it took a visit to America to make him accept the theory of the policy of separate development. I think if we wait long enough we may find that he will eventually also become an apostle of the policy of separate development in practice. It was interesting to listen to speeches such as those of the hon. member for Middelland and the hon. member for Yeoville about their impressions after they had visited the outside world as members of parliamentary groups. I think it may be as interesting to note what speeches are made in the parliaments of other countries overseas when we see the enormous increase in the number of visitors to South Africa in the past 12 months. When we look at the list of eminent visitors who paid our fatherland a visit during the past 12 months we find a fourfold or fivefold increase if we compare it with the figures of three or four years ago. During the last year representatives of no fewer than 19 countries visited South Africa. From Europe alone there were visitors from nine countries and from a new sphere, namely South America, from where we are now receiving important visitors there were representatives of no fewer than six states. I think we can praise the work done by our Department of Foreign Affairs, all the other Government Departments as well as the South Africa Foundation in bringing these eminent visitors to South Africa. These visitors included 10 Ministers and ex-Ministers, that is to say persons occupying prominent positions in their respective countries, policymakers, persons who can materially influence the future relations between South Africa and their countries. In addition there were about 15 Members of Parliament, including Members of Congress, apart from a group of British Members of Parliament who came here on a private visit. In fact, seldom did more political figures visit our country than during the past 12 months. But there were not only political figures. Apart from these there were perhaps about 160 prominent persons who also visited our country—people from universities, from the Press, from television and business leaders, not even to mention three big missions—one from the Netherlands, one from Germany and one from France—which visited South Africa within the space of one year. These are the people who will be able to influence any future policy towards South Africa in their respective countries. We had some interesting accounts by members this afternoon of their visits overseas. Similarly we shall be able to hear accounts in other parliaments by members of those parliaments, who visited South Africa.

Over the past few years an important new development has taken place, a development for which we want to express our thanks to the Minister and his Department. I am referring to our relations with South American states. During the past few months representatives of no fewer than six South American states visited South Africa. No fewer than two Ministers from Brazil, the one the Minister of Planning and the other the Minister of Trade and Industry, visited our country, as well as an ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs. From the Argentine we had the Minister of Information and the Minister of State for Naval Affairs. We must take note of the special position occupied by South America, something to which the hon. the Minister rightly referred this afternoon. Brazil has a population of almost 100 million people, of Portuguese descent. I believe that in the course of time they will become more and more interested in Southern Africa, especially as a result of their blood ties with the two provinces of Portugal in Africa. I think that will still generate an active interest in Brazil, and not only in Brazil, but also in other South American states. Virtually all governments of South American countries are, as we are, strong anti-communist. They will therefore want no part in any attempt to establish Communism here in Southern Africa.

There are so many fields in which South Africa can forge links with South American countries. Just look at international trade. In the year 1967 South Africa’s imports amounted to R1,921 million. Of this figure only R12.6 million came from South America, and Brazil was responsible for R8.7 million of that. In other words, only .6 of our total imports for 1967 came from South American countries. As far as our exports are concerned, the position was even worse. Our exports for that year, excluding gold, amounted to R1,355 million, while our total exports to the whole of South America that year amounted to only R2.1 million, less than .2 per cent of our total exports. In my opinion, therefore, there is still a very great deficiency in our trade. I think that with the air connections which have now been established and with the reciprocal visits of businessmen we can look forward with great expectations to an increase in commercial traffic between them and us.

Especially as a producer of agricultural products it ought to be worth our while to establish closer ties with those countries. We must see to it that there is not too much throat-cutting, as it is called in commerce, between South Africa and the countries of South America. This is therefore another field where there is a possibility of fruitful co-operation.

It strikes me, though, that while we sent missions to virtually all other continents last year, we sent no mission to South America. I have heard that no missions will be sent overseas this year, because the staff of our overseas offices are overburdened with arrangements as a result. But I wonder whether it will not be a good time this year to send a mission to South America. I think it is necessary that the good work which was performed by the Minister himself and which was made possible by the visits we had, should be followed up as soon as possible.

I must say that we have had certain very amusing speeches this afternoon! I find something singularly fetching about the image of the hon. member for Middelland, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration trotting around the United States arm in arm like the Three Musketeers, putting their case in defence of South Africa.

My dear, I do not have the figure for trotting about. You are quite wrong.

Well, jogging then. Anybody can jog; so here we have them jogging across the United States, from the East Coast to the West Coast. I hope that the Third Musketeer also will give us the benefit of his travel experiences.

Are you jealous?

The hon. member for Yeoville told us all about the television appearances which the three of them made on behalf of South Africa. I have no doubt that they were very able ambassadors indeed.

I did not appear on television.

I thought you told us you appeared before a television audience of 20 million people.

You said “appearances”. You are exaggerating.

In any event, one of the two musketeers who has already spoken did mention a television audience of about 20 million. I saw a report in which the hon. member for Yeoville claimed credit for having put me into Parliament! I hope the hon. member will correct me if I am wrong. But why he should want to claim any credit for having me here at all, I am not sure. To the best of my knowledge the only part he played in getting me into Parliament was by appearing on the platform of my opponent during the last general election.

When did you come to Parliament?

A lot of things have happened since I first came to Parliament. What is more, I first came to Parliament as a representative of an uncontested seat. So, the hon. member could have had very little to do with that. However, let us leave that to one side. The point I want to make is that I hope the hon. member for Middelland has found that his travels abroad have in fact broadened his mind and that he has come to the realization that a great many people in the United States directly oppose the line being taken by this Government. While some of the opinions voiced by this Government may find support in some of the more recalcitrant southern states of America, amongst the most backward states in the United States, the policy of the United States, even under the present President—whose election, by the way, was heralded with such joy by the Government because they hoped it would mean a completely new line on Africa and on colour policy generally—remains exactly the same. The policy in the United States, as in the whole of the Western world, is set towards racial integration. Throughout the States one can find growing signs of that, despite the troubles referred to here by members.

We never hear of the hundreds upon hundreds of cases of peaceful integration going on all the time, of the schools that integrate in the United States, or the number of Negroes being sought out deliberately for executive positions in the largest corporations in America, of the universities that have set up urban studies departments for the particular object of easing the American Negroes’ entry into commerce, industry and skilled trades. All these things are going on apace all the time. The point is that we must not bluff ourselves that we have any support as far as our official policy is concerned. We will not win any friends by trying to present a sort of phoney argument about a minority government not existing in South Africa. I do not know whom the hon. member for Krugersdorp thinks we can fool by presenting the argument that South Africa is not governed by a minority government, i.e. a white government as against the non-Whites who represent the overwhelming number of people in this country. All our laws are framed to deal with Bantu as a whole and not with ethnic groups. Our Population Registration Act is framed to deal with the large racial groups in this country, the non-White groups in this country. We must not try to bluff ourselves. What we have to do if we want to win any friends at all on the basis of the official policy of the Government, is indeed to try and show some of the practical, if there can be any, results of separate development. The hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration, I am sure, agrees with me. I do not happen to believe that this is a policy which will work. I do not believe that it can possibly work, because we will never be anything but the multi-racial country we have always been. I believe that people have to exercise votes where they live and work, that is, in the towns and not where they do not live or work, that is, in their homelands. The hon. member for Yeoville may be right when he says that only the policy of one man, one vote is generally accepted and that the policy of a qualified franchise is not looked upon with any favour. This may well be so. I will be the first to admit it. In fact, I am considered an arch conservative very often when I go overseas and propound the policy of a qualified franchise. Nevertheless, I wonder if he also put forward the point of view that the qualified franchise of course has to have coupled with it equal opportunities to obtain the qualifications necessary for the franchise, such as compulsory and free education for all the children of this country. When one explains that, of course, the policy is much more readily acceptable. Moreover, the federation policy that my party puts forward is at least based on the normal territorial concept of federation and not on a race federation concept which nobody understands at all overseas. As for the Government, I want to point out to the hon. member for Middelland that the people most closely associated with the idea of separate development and apartheid in America, are the most way out Black Power group in the United States. That is, the former disciples of the late Malcolm X and the Black Muslims. Those are the people who support the idea of separate development in the United States. This is the interesting fact.

You are the minority voice in America in a South African Parliament. There is no common ground between their Black Power movement and us.

I am the minority voice. I am jolly sure that the hon. members exploited my existence when they were overseas. My experience is that I am held up as the number one example that democracy still flourishes in South Africa.

I want to come back to something perhaps more appropriate to the hon. the Minister’s Vote. He has paid tribute to various organizations and people that have been rendering service in the neighbouring states to South Africa. He mentioned Dr. Anton Rupert’s organization and the visit of Professor Chris Barnard as very good examples of South Africa’s goodwill towards the neighbouring states, and the good work that is being done by these people.

I think he ought also to give credit to the Anglo-American Corporation which is doing a great deal for medical services in Swaziland. I think that, while he was handing out accolades, he could also have handed one out there. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree that good work is also being done by Anglo-American as well as by Dr. Anton Rupert’s organization.

Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider giving the Government’s blessing to the presently still abortive but nevertheless very optimistic attempts that have been made by some of the students at our universities to develop a sort of South African peace corps. Such a corps will consist of students who can do work in the neighbouring territories. They can help build schools, help to teach and use their vacations to attempt to give real, practical assistance to some of the neighbouring countries, such as the ex-High Commission Territories. I feel that this can do more to extend good neighbourliness than practically anything I know. Here young people are working voluntarily for the benefit of their African neighbours. I have mentioned this before in the House. There is an organization which was started at Witwatersrand University, and is known as the South African Volunteer Service, or Says. They have already helped to build schools in the neighbouring territories. Up to now there has been very little Governmental praise for this organization, and certainly no help whatever. These activities have all been sponsored by private bodies. I think the hon. the Minister would do well to consider this, because after all in America this was reckoned as one of the great ways in which the Western world could help the underdeveloped territories. At least 20,000 to 30,000 workers have already gone out to these areas in South America and in Africa in an attempt to build up good relations between America and the under-developed countries.

I should finally like to come back to my oft-reiterated statement in this House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the tone adopted by the hon. member for Houghton here to-day, was that of an extremely vicious and jealous little girl who did not get a pretty frock as her friend did. What exactly she is jealous of, one does not know. One does not know whether it is because she could not visit America together with the three musketeers, or whether it is because they achieved such great success in America. I do not know whether she is sorry about that.

Together with the hon. member for Middelland I tried to make a very urgent plea here last year for better relations between the U.S.A. and ourselves. I referred at the time to various incidents which had marred the relations between the United States and ourselves during the past years. But I also pointed out that there are bonds of friendship of many years’ standing between the United States and ourselves, and that we have a very great deal in common. I want to repeat this plea to-day, once again together with the hon. member for Middelland. I do this because I notice a feeling of resentful impatience towards the U.S.A. among my friends and acquaintances, people who belong to both parties in this country. These people may have very good reasons for their feeling of impatience, but this kind of negative anti-Americanism certainly cannot get us anywhere. The U.S.A. is the largest and strongest country in the fight against Communism to-day, and we, who are in fact in the forefront of that fight, must necessarily align ourselves with this great country in this fight. Moreover, the United States has many obligations, and we cannot always understand the political trends there, and therefore it does not behove us to express negative criticism so easily from here. There is every hope that the Nixon Administration will adopt a more realistic attitude towards South Africa, but naturally one must not be too optimistic either, because these people must also keep an eye on the next election, and will therefore not want to do anything spectacular in this first term of office. Knowledgeable people are of the opinion, however, that we have many good friends in the U.S.A., as we also heard here to-day, and that possibly we are on the verge of making a very important breakthrough in respect of public opinion and as regards bringing about a better disposition towards us among the general public there. The complications on the racial front in the U.S.A. have brought thinking people in that country to new realizations, and will continue to do so to an increasing extent. The Negro is placing more and more emphasis on wanting his own identity, and in this concept of a distinctive identity there are decided possibilities for an entirely new field of positive dialogue between the U.S.A. and us. In the meantime it is essential for us to make major efforts to correct the negative concept that has arisen there in regard to our policy of separate development, and to develop the positive aspects of our policy so that the people will appreciate that our policy is not based on oppression, but on the achievement of an individual identity and an individual freedom. I do not think it is necessary that the U.S.A. and we should use hard words to each other. I think it is essential that we should speak to each other in friendly terms, like good friends, and above all that the dialogue should continue in an increasing measure and should not be broken off.

In the second place I want to join with the hon. member for Vasco in discussing our relations with the South American states. It is strange indeed that for the past 300 years we have lived in virtually complete isolation from the people who are nearest neighbours. We have virtually lived next to the people of South America, and yet we knew very little about each other. From the nature of our history and origins we were so orientated towards Europe in our thinking and actions for the past 300 years, that we virtually forgot that there are two large countries right next to us, Brazil and the Argentine, countries with great possibilities and great nations, which are our nearest neighbours. These nations in many respects have a strong resemblance to our nation here in South Africa, and their history to our history. As we do, they live in the Southern Hemisphere of the earth, and in actual fact they have a great deal in common with us. That is why it is a pity that we have remained strangers to each other for so many centuries. With the introduction of the direct air service between Jan Smuts and Rio de Janeiro, the sea between us has been bridged, the sea that separated us in that normally one had to go to Europe first in order to go to South America, which meant a great deal of extra expense and time, and that is why people did not easily go there. The new direct air service has made South Africa and South America real neighbours now, something we never realized before, because we are now only a few flying hours, “a Sunday morning’s hop” as somebody put it, away from South America. The only real obstacle that still exists, is the language problem, and for this reason I want to make an earnest appeal to-day to all our people in South Africa to make a real effort to gain a working knowledge of Spanish and Portuguese. We must not forget the truth of the saying, “The more languages one can speak, the more times one is a man”. Because we South Africans have to struggle with a second language from childhood, we seem to develop a kind of psychologic resistance to learning any further languages, and we often find it difficult to learn more languages once we have mastered the two official languages.

We must know the two official languages first.

Modern methods of learning languages have advanced so far that with a little effort one can gain a working knowledge of a foreign language within a matter of weeks to-day, and I think it is time that we should exert ourselves in that direction. What we really need is better contact between individuals, and this we can achieve only by getting to know each other better and learning to understand each other. That is why I ask that the possibility should be investigated of even introducing Spanish and Portuguese as optional subjects in our schools, if possible. I cannot see why we cannot do so, even at our universities. Hispanic culture, literature and history offer the student a rich source of knowledge, and are really a closed book to us. Our universities would do well to think in the direction of introducing these subjects as courses of study. We may be richly rewarded for the trouble of learning these languages, in that we may find more goodwill and warmer friendship in Brazil and the Argentine, and also in other South American countries, than we expect. We shall also find that these nations have a great deal in common with us, as I have said. As we do, these nations base their foreign policy on the principle of mutual respect and non-interference with one another’s domestic affairs. On that basis they have learnt during the past years to co-operate with one another to the benefit of all, and on that basis, I believe, they will also be prepared to co-operate with us and they probably are prepared to co-operate with us. We have noted with appreciation the reciprocal friendly visits of the South African and Argentine fleets. [Time expired.]

I was glad to hear the hon. member for Algoa making this plea this afternoon for closer co-operation with the South American states. He said that now that the new air service had been introduced between South Africa and Brazil and others, it was only “a Sunday morning’s hop”, and he said that previously it had been impossible to get there. Of course, this was not so impossible, and many South Africans went there at their own expense, inter alia, the hon. the Prime Minister. He visited South America on his own; I think this is the only time he has been overseas. Others also went there and paid for it themselves. We found the people there warm-hearted and friendly, especially in Brazil, but I want to tell the hon. member this, that party politics in this country almost caused a rumpus with Brazil, when a former Cabinet Minister went there and gave an unflattering description of it when he returned. But I am grateful that there is a better spirit here in South Africa as regards foreign affairs. [Interjections.] That hon. member is looking for trouble; I do not know whether he is a “verkrampte”, but he will get it. He should rather keep quiet. I shall rather ignore him. I think the Minister would like to ignore that hon. member. I say that what is necessary in this country, from both sides, is that when it comes to foreign affairs and international situations, we should keep ourselves in check a little more, and create a better attitude. I do not mind if there are members of my party or of the Governmnt party who want to criticize the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Government. In fact, I enjoy their doing so. But I want to ask only one thing please, for our children’s sake. When it comes to foreign affairs, do not fight in such a way that we harm our children in the process.

You should have kept that in mind just after 1948.

The Chief Whip is looking for trouble now. If the Chief Whip is going to catch it now, he must not blame me. I want to tell him that I am sick and tired of this, and I want to tell the Minister of Foreign Affairs the same. He said this afternoon that we of the United Party must be careful what demands we make. That is right. I promise the Minister that I will try to preserve the good name of South Africa in the first place on all occasions and at all times, and that on no occasion will I try to do anything to embarrass this Minister or this Government, or any future Government, as far as foreign affairs are concerned. He has my word for that, but at the same time I want to tell the Minister that I will not allow a Chief Whip to abuse my decency in order to try to promote his petty politics. If he does so, I will hit him back twice as hard. We know the history of that Party, and I want to tell him to-day that the best export article South Africa has to-day still remains a Jan Christiaan Smuts and a Chris Barnard, both good United Party men. Let us be fair with each other now. [Interjections.] But I did not get up for this this afternoon. [Interjection.] I wish the hon. member for Middelland would listen now. He has been overseas on an official mission, but others of us have also been overseas. Pleas were made here for closer co-operation with the South American states, which I want to support wholeheartedly. But there are also other parts of the world to which we could move a little closer. The hon. the Minister said he did not want to discuss the question of the Indian Ocean, because the Prime Minister had already done so, and I can understand why he does not want to discuss it in the finest detail. But I want to fell the Minister that some of us went overseas at our own expense, to the Orient, and there is a source of goodwill towards South Africa on the higher levels in the Orient. I am referring to the ministerial level.

Is this in Hong Kong?

Yes, among other places, in Hong Kong too. The hon. member is only mentioning this because he was there himself; I met him there. This is actually what he wanted to say, i.e. that he too was there. [Interjections.] I just want to say that I think there is a whole reservoir of goodwill on the higher levels abroad. I can tell an interesting anecdote of what happened. I was talking to a certain very important person—the hon. the Minister knows who it is, I showed him the correspondence, but I do not want to mention names—from a country that is not supposed to be favourably disposed towards us, and he said to me: “Your new President …” He was a little confused, because he was actually referring to the Prime Minister, but he said: “Your new President is quite a reasonable man, I believe.” I asked whether we could not iron out some of the difficulties, and then he said: “Yes, but your difficulty is the same as ours. Your country as well as mine suffers from the same disease, democracy. I would like to but I dare not, and your Prime Minister would like to, but he likewise dare not give relief where it is perhaps needed”. I mention this because in a democracy such as we have, where one has to fight an election every five years, pressure sometimes makes it very difficult for a Government to do things which it knows are right. I want to return to what I said at the outset. When “verkramptes” and “verligtes” and progressives are fighting among one another here, let them fight if they want to, but let us fight in such a way as far as foreign affairs are concerned that we will not make it impossible for a Government and for a Prime Minister to do what they know is the right thing to do. I hope and trust that the Government of South Africa and the Governments of some of the countries which are not so friendly towards us, will succeed in getting a little closer to each other. I am thinking, for example, of a country such as India. I realize what difficulties we have to-day, but surely there is one thing India must have learnt, and that is the following: The Indian population in South Africa is perhaps the most prosperous Indian population in the entire world to-day.

That is true.

The hon. the Minister confirms this. Statistics show that this is indeed the case. The Indians in South Africa are the most prosperous Indian population in the world; this is the first point. The second point is the following: I think that India realizes to-day that we in South Africa, with all our weaknesses and shortcomings—’and they are many—are treating the Indians somewhat differently from the way some of the developing African states are treating them.

It will mean a great deal to us if we can succeed in breaking through to the man in the street in those countries that are not favourably disposed towards us to-day. This will be difficult, because the Press has slandered our name to such an extent that the word “apartheid” is the one word to-day which unites the whole world against South Africa. It does not matter whether it is right or wrong; I am merely mentioning the fact.

What was your role?

No, I played no role in that. I did not create the word and I have never been a member of an apartheid Government, and I have never had anything to do with it. To return to the Press, I just want to say that it was not only the English Press that slandered our name. The English Press did so; I have had experience of that. But, Mr. Chairman, let me just give you one small example. After many people had taken a great deal of trouble to create some small measure of better understanding between India and South Africa, for example in connection with the obtaining of transit visas, etc., a report appeared in an Afrikaans newspaper on 9th March, which read as follows: (translation)—

Then they say that this happened as a result of the actions of a certain diplomat. Sir, surely it is not right to look for trouble again. What would we have thought of it if India had published something like that against us? Can these newspapers not display some sense of responsibility? Many of us go out our way, at great expense and at great inconvenience, to bring about better relations between South Africa and some of these states. [Time expired.]

It is a long time since I heard Opposition members using such honeyed words as they did this afternoon and last night. I think this speaks volumes for the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. One only hopes that things will continue in this way. Mr. Chairman, it has repeatedly come to our notice recently how Communism is engaged in a determined struggle to achieve world domination. The struggle for world domination continues unabated. We have seen many examples of this lately. Just recently there were reports of a vehement attack that was going to be launched in Great Britain against South Africa. The attacks are being launched by the communists themselves and by the Anti-Apartheid Movement. But there are also numerous other examples which indicate that the communists are still engaged in their struggle for world domination. In Czechoslovakia we had a very good example. We also saw and heard recently how Russia wants to conquer the Mediterranean and obtain domination there. We also had an incident in North Korea, where another American aeroplane was shot down. There is the struggle for the Indian Ocean, now that there is talk of Great Britain withdrawing from there; and even in Africa itself there have been various major events which showed us that the tentacles of the octopus are moving closer to us. This being the case, it is naturally our first duty as South African citizens to fight back at the same rate and to make a counter-move for every move they make. This idea is, of course, always present in the minds of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Government, but every citizen of this country must realize fully that it is his or her duty also to think of these matters; also to keep abreast of affairs and to see where they can contribute their share. The position is so serious that these matters should receive the first priority in our country to-day. We are aware of the intensified efforts being made on the part of the Government. The hon. the Minister explained a moment ago what efforts were being made and what steps were being taken, but we must never forget that the establishment and development of sound relations should enjoy first priority with us all. We cannot simply adopt a cool or even hostile attitude, because then automatically we will drive the enemy into the very arms of the communists. We in this country must take the lead. During the past years we have learned and realized that we cannot look to the West or to America for assistance in this connection. We are thrown upon our own resources here in South Africa, and we must take the lead in this connection. The question still remains: How must we take the lead; what must we use to provide that leadership? Mr. Chairman, we sent various missions and various groups overseas last year, and all of them prided themselves on our country’s having a very strong economy. My view is that we must exploit and make use of this strong economy of ours. We must strike the iron while it is hot. We passed the Foreign Loans Fund Act in this House last year. Last year we voted the small amount of R5 million for that fund, and this year we have provided the same amount. I want to ask whether it is not possible for us to make that fund much stronger. We pride ourselves on our economy, which is so strong to-day, and we can achieve a great deal by means of that economy. We must expand that loan fund, not only to help African states—this must certainly be our first consideration, because they are our neighbours and we look after our neighbours first—but also to help states in the Southern Hemisphere where necessary and where they apply for assistance, so that it will not always be necessary for them to go to America or to Europe for loans, but so that they can also turn to South Africa for such loans. In the third place, we should perhaps also look at the Northern Hemisphere and at the East and apply this loan fund there. Our power lies in our economy, and we must exploit it at all times. If we put this matter to the country and to the citizens of this country, I believe that all of them will be prepared to contribute to such a loan fund over and above their normal taxes. The hon. the Minister indicated a moment ago that we were providing a great deal of assistance in the technical field to our neighbouring states, that we were doing our utmost in that field, but if we could extend this loan fund further and could use it more extensively, it would mean a very great deal to us. I make bold to say that it could perhaps mean just as much to us as the major armaments we possess in our country to-day, or perhaps even more. Our strength does not lie in our manpower to-day; this we have realized in the past. Our strength lies in our good case, in our faith and in our economy, and we must make use of these at all times. After the last World War Europe set to work to bring about unity again, and France took the lead. America also got a foot-hold in Europe with its financial aid by means of a so-called Marshall Plan, and this is a good indication to us of what can be done with finances and with a strong economy, and to that end we must apply the economy of our country. But we must not apply it, as the hon. the Minister mentioned last year, for prestige projects in other countries such as our neighbouring states; we must apply it in those countries where the need is greatest. Where we can do so, we must send our own people to render assistance there in order to steer the economy of those countries in the right direction.

In the second place, next to our strong economy, it is perhaps also necessary for us to look at our trade relations and to expand our trade relations as far as possible. One of the previous speakers said here that we should expand our trade with South America. Mr. Chairman, our strength also lies in strong trade relations. It simply is the position in any sector of the business world to-day that when one has had business relations with a client over a long period, one tends to speak well of that client; one always mentions him to one’s friends one always uses him as an example, and eventually one develops a liking for that trading partner. That is why it will mean a great deal to us if we can expand our trade relations, not only to the African states, but also to other countries in the Southern Hemisphere. That is why I think that we should perhaps consider establishing a Common Market in the Southern Hemisphere—a kind of Euromart such as they have in the North to-day. This could mean a very great deal to us.

In the third place, it may also benefit us to consider our diplomatic relations. The hon. Minister made it very clear to us a moment ago that our diplomatic relations were constantly being kept up to date and that it was perhaps not necessary to exchange diplomats with countries which are already well-disposed towards us and with which we are already co-operating. This is perhaps true as regards most of the African States in our immediate vicinity. But when one has one’s representatives in another country, then they are on the spot the moment they are required; they can continually circulate among the people and state our country’s case there. [Time expired.]

It is pleasant to note that in this debate a better spirit prevailed on the Opposition side. The conduct of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as compared to his conduct in previous years, was a pleasant surprise. We also had a speech here by the hon. member for Sea Point. I do not want to blame him, because he cannot move on any level other than in the morass. But in this debate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Yeoville approached the question of our relations with countries abroad with much more calm and sincerity than was the case in the past. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned two important aspects here. First of all he said that since we detached ourselves from London, our foreign affairs have been much better off. In other words, he said by implication that the relations between South Africa and other countries have improved a great deal since we became a Republic. I want to congratulate him on having admitted here that our becoming a Republic, which gave South Africa an identity of its own, has resulted in good relations with other countries. Secondly, he congratulated the hon. the Minister and his Department on the improved relations between South Africa and African States. That was a fine gesture on the part of the hon. member, and it is true that a very great deal is being done by the hon. the Minister towards improving political relations between South Africa and African neighbouring states in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of the whole of Africa. But, Sir, let us have no illusions about this. What are the possibilities in the future, and what were these good relations based on in the past? I want to make the statement here that it would have been impossible to establish better relations between South Africa and our neighbouring states if our own national economy had not been fundamentally sound. After all, that is logical, Mr. Chairman. After all, it is logical to say that we cannot establish sound foreign relations if our own national economy is not sound. I want to make the statement here today that our own national economy in South Africa is based on one major principle. This principle is human rights; human rights which are often misinterpreted or distorted. As a result of the distorted interpretation of human rights and misconceptions about them, they are being used against us abroad. I want to make the statement to-day that all of our success abroad is based on the recognition of human rights, and not the disregard of human rights. That is where we differ. The hon. member for Houghton believes that we are not granting recognition to human rights; on the contrary, our whole policy, the policy of separate development, is the policy of stimulating evolution, is in the interests of human rights. In a country where one has to deal with various ethnic groups, who are moving on various ethnic levels, this policy affords protection to human rights. Protective action does not only mean granting people the right to vote. We know what would happen if everybody were to be granted the right to vote in South Africa; we know what happened in the rest of Africa when people who were not yet ripe for the vote, were given the vote all of a sudden. If we were to do that, we would violate everything which is noble. To grant all of a sudden so-called human rights to a person who is not ripe for them yet, would mean that the future of an ethnic group would be violated completely. What is the real position in South Africa to-day? I come into contact with many tourists and I consider it my duty, as I believe the other hon. members also do, not only to entertain dignataries but also to make contact with tourists visiting South Africa. That is my impression, and it is gratifying to see that most of these people from abroad realize immediately that the policy of separate development implemented here, is in fact the policy of protecting human rights. They realize that this is the very policy which affords ethnical groups protection. This policy is in sharp contrast to the policy advocated by the hon. member for Houghton. The policy she advocates will create chaotic conditions, especially for those ethnic groups which are as yet unfit to cope with human rights. As I have said in this House before, the Whites were placed in South Africa for a purpose, i.e. to act as the guardian of the other ethnic groups and the other colour groups. I am convinced that with our policy in respect of foreign affairs we shall be able to meet the future with much greater confidence as our own national policy is being developed and as we are able to prove to the world more and more that we have nothing to be ashamed of. This developing of ties of friendship with neighbouring states is of great importance to the Republic; not only to the Republic of South Africa, but also the Western world. Africa can never be separated from the West or from the East; Africa will always have to serve as a bridge between the East and the West, and for that reason it is essential for us to convey the message of the southernmost point of Africa to other states in Africa. Our message consists in our believing in a national destiny and in the rights and the human rights of every individual. It is important for this to be done and for this to be implemented. I want to contend myself by saying that in our own country criticism is to a certain extent being exercised in regard to our outward movement. However, this criticism is of a temporary nature, and as people realize that this is in the interests of every white person in South Africa, as people realize that this is in the interests of the emergence of Africa, as these people appreciate the far-sightedness evinced by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the necessary recognition to this policy will be granted in the future. I want to put it this way, i.e. that I can already see the objections against the so-called outward movement becoming fewer and fewer and disappearing, since our policy is based on the non-abandonment of any principles of our national economy. This is effected on the basis of honest and sincere action taken by a government which believes in the destiny of our nation, a government which acted in Christian manner in the past and which will continue to do so in future. That is why it is rather pleasant to see that there are indications of a breakthrough on the Opposition side, that the Opposition is beginning to realize that we have a message to convey in Africa, that the distinctive identity of every national group in South Africa is a basic principle which has to be accepted.

But it is your own people who are objecting to the outward policy.

The hon. member for Orange Grove should only accept this Grant every national group in this country its own identity.

But, surely, it has that.

If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout accepts that, he should cross over to this side again. But the hon. member still does not accept separateness; he still does not accept separate development.

What do you grant the urban Native?

I grant him the right to his own family in his own homeland, I grant him everything that has already been done for them. This afternoon it was once again said here, that “nothing gets done”, but a great deal is in actual fact being done. Any tourist visiting South Africa can see that. How is it possible that tourists have nothing but admiration, whilst this is not the case with people in our country? The hon. member for Houghton drives about in Rustenburg with an Indian. She never goes to a white person in order to ascertain the true state of affairs. I find it astonishing that people who were born here and grew up in this country, cannot appreciate the fine things which are being done in the interest of human rights.

I hardly have the time to react fully to the hon. member for Rustenburg. However, I should like to refer to his closing remark when he said the United Party at long last was showing an appreciation of the outward policy of the Government. But, Sir, that to me comes as a very amusing statement because I thought it was we who had been pressing for an outward movement for God knows how many years. The hon. member for Potgietersrus in his opening remarks said he had seen a lot of honey dripping from the lips of politicians in this House as far as the portfolio of Foreign Affairs was concerned. But I hope he appreciates the fact that as far as we are concerned, there are two portfolios in regard to which we should like to present a united front. One of these is the Department of Defence, and the other the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is in this spirit that we have been dealing with the affairs of this department all along in withholding criticism wherever possible, although there are occasions where we have to be outspoken about the activities of this department.

But I should like to speak to the Minister’s Vote itself. In the early part of his speech this afternoon, the hon. the Minister dealt with the United Nations, repeating what has been said, i.e. that it was the talking box or the Hyde Park Corner of the world. Then he made what can be considered to be derogatory remarks, not about particular member countries, but about blocs of member countries. My personal judgment of the United Nations is that regardless of whether or not we regard it as good, mediocre or bad, nothing is to be gained by making derogatory remarks about any member country or about any bloc of member countries. We must accept that the United Nations as an organization is the biggest international organization and that we have to live alongside and inside it. Every country enjoys the prerogative of having its own view and has the right to criticize us if it wants to, the same as we can criticize them if we want to. But this is not the forum to do that.

As far as the Budget for the Minister’s Department for the coming year is concerned, I am surprised that we have not doubled the amount, now that the heat of the attacks from outside has subsided. I would have thought that this was the right time to extend our representation abroad by establishing reciprocity with those countries with whom we do not have reciprocity and by enlarging our delegations abroad. But instead of that we find that the Budget of the Minister’s department for the coming year has in actual fact decreased.

Let us have a look at our representation abroad. In Germany, with a population of plus/minus 40 million, we have three diplomatic offices, one in France and two in Italy. These three countries have by and large the same population. In Japan we have one. There is a question I should like to put to the Minister in this connection. Why is it that there is always a preponderance of representation in Germany? Is it because West-Germany is a better trading partner than France or Italy or Japan? Is it because of the fact that we think they have greater influence in Europe and in the Common Market? Is it by virtue of the fact that we particularly want Germans here as immigrants? Are they better than the French or the British?

You should put that question to the Minister of Immigration.

I am putting this question to the Minister who is responsible for establishing three diplomatic offices in Germany and I am asking him pointedly, why have we more offices in Germany than we have in France, or in Italy? Why have we such a preponderance of offices in Germany? And what about Japan? Japan is one of the industrial giants of the world and has a population of about 100 million. Yet there is only a consular office in Tokyo. Has the time not arrived that apart from diplomatic representation in Tokyo we should open another office in the industrial heart of Japan, say at Osaka? Japan is a good trading partner and what is more it is not applying sanctions against us. Does the Minister not think that Japan deserves greater representation than we have there at the moment?

As far as the Indian Ocean is concerned, the Minister gave me the impression that he was unwilling to deal with it because the Prime Minister had dealt with it. We all know that it is a delicate matter.

That is not correct.

If that is the ease, I shall be pleased if the Minister could give us more information than the hon. the Prime Minister was prepared to give us about negotiations which might have taken place about establishing representations with, for instance, the Republic of Malagasy. In our opinion this island constitutes an extremely important zone in the Indian Ocean.

A number of hon. members have expressed their gratitude and appreciation that at last we seem to be getting nearer to the States of Latin America. The hon. member for Algoa became quite lyrical about our association with Brazil. But I wonder whether he is acquainted with the population setup there, and with the problems they have, problems which are similar and even greater than ours. But I wonder whether he also knows that there is no colour bar in Brazil. But as far as trade is concerned they can be wonderful partners. We are only too pleased to know that we have representation in Brazil and that we have had that for a long time. The ties are however getting closer as far as Brazil is concerned. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that Chile, Peru and Panama all have consular representatives in this country. They are countries well worth considering when we think of expanding our diplomatic representation. I should also like to point out that Denmark, Norway, Mexico and Salvador all have consuls in this country, whereas we have no representation in those countries whatsoever, certainly not on the diplomatic level. That is what made me say that I think the time has arrived now, in this particular Budget and in this particular year, now that the heat is going off slightly in regard to the continuous and vicious attacks that are being made on this country, to expand on our diplomatic representation.

I now want to deal with the African continent and the new emergent states within that continent. Many independent states have been created in Africa over the last five years. Tn this respect my approach is different from the approach of an hon. member on the Government side who asked whether more loans and financial assistance could not be made available to some of these new independent states. Maybe the hon. member has not heard or experienced the truth of the old proverb, namely, that the moment you start lending a man or a country money you make a wonderful enemy of him or it. That is as true as far as nations are concerned as it is true as far as individuals are concerned. What to me is terribly important, whether we like it or not. is that these independent countries with either good or mediocre administrations whatever the case may be are way behind South Africa as far as technical, scientific and all other developments are concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I just want to react to one point that was mentioned by the hon. member for East London (City). He referred to the point made by the hon. member for Algoa in regard to improved relations with Brazil. The hon. member wanted to know whether we were aware that Brazil’s official policy was integration. Now I should like to ask the Opposition this question: What exactly does the hon. member mean by that? Surely, we are not interested in what the domestic policy of another country is. We also have relations with Malawi. We have relations with other non-white states. The only thing we are interested in, is whether the other country is prepared to maintain friendly relations with us or whether they are prepared to refrain from interfering in our domestic affairs. In that case we, too, shall maintain friendly relations with them and refrain from interfering in their domestic affairs. That is the approach we have. But apparently the Opposition does not intend to support that approach.

In the course of the debate reference was also made to the relations between South Africa and the United States. Along with other speakers on this side of the House, I also want to express the hope that a positive attempt will be made at establishing better relations, on an official level, between the U.S.A. and South Africa. It is not for nothing that there have been strained relations. We are only too aware of the views expressed by people such as Soapy Williams, Arthur Goldberg, Ernest Gross, who was in close contact with the State Department, and Philip Jessop, who was the official United States representative at the World Court. In addition there was the O’Hara Committee which drafted a very negative report on South Africa. Then there was the participation of a senior American Defence Force official in advising the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which drafted a plan of war against South Africa. These are things which gave rise to the relations between South Africans and the United States being strained in the past. But recently we saw that on his visit to Europe the new President of the United States intimated that America’s attitude towards Europe had changed. The attitude is no longer one of their having to play the role of big brother there and having to determine the policy for the entire Western world. Now there is a policy of the acceptance of national pride, an acceptance of the right of every nation to be itself and to assert its own rights. On that basis we can also maintain better relations with the United States. We are prepared to admit that the nature of our problems in South Africa is quite different from the racial problems of the United States. There is simply no parallel between them. In South Africa we do in fact still have different nations, each of which has a distinctive identity and a distinctive culture. The Negroes of America no longer have a culture or an identity of their own. The only difference between an American Negro and an American white person is in fact one of colour. But in the whole cultural make-up of those people there are no longer any differences. For that reason we admit that there is simply no parallel between the racial problems in the United States and those of South Africa. There is no need whatsoever for us in South Africa to hide our heads in shame as far as our policy is concerned. Nor is it necessary, as is sometimes said by the Opposition, for us to alter our policy slightly so as to win the favour of countries abroad. It is absolutely unnecessary for us to alter any facet of our policy. Our policy has been and can be justified in all its facets. That is why we expect that we should take more positive and more dynamic action in the world under the present circumstances. We must state our views and make them known without deviating one inch from our principles and our proven policy. That is what I take our outward policy to mean.

I want to plead that as part of the positive steps we take in order to improve our image abroad, we should establish here in South Africa very close contact with the foreign representatives who are here. In this respect I want to make an appeal specifically to nationalist supporters and to Afrikaans-speaking people, i.e. to establish close contact with the foreign staff. Owing to the language problems experienced by many of the foreign representatives in South Africa, it is to be expected that they will maintain closer contact with English speaking people as well as Opposition supporters. To my mind this is a challenge to us to make closer contact with those people by doing so on the social level and conveying our views to them in a logical and dispassionate manner. There is a great deal we can do in order to make our policy more acceptable to people abroad. It is not as though we want to force our policy upon them. However, by doing this we shall create a better understanding of our policy abroad. I am convinced that as we succeed in bringing about a better understanding abroad of the reasons for our policy, we shall also develop better relations and cause the tension to diminish, and that we shall in all respects have better relations between South Africa and most of the other countries in the world. But what is important, Sir, is that we must at all times intimate that we are not prepared to sway before pressure brought to bear upon us from outside. We are a country wjth a pride of its own, a calling and a responsibility. What is particularly important, is that we must intimate that, even though we have a policy of separate development, there is a world of difference between our policy and the policy of persons whose sole concern is, for instance, to bring about segregation in the United States. Our policy is not one of imperialism. We do not have a policy of suppression or of withholding development potential from the various peoples in South Africa. In fact, I would go so far as to say that South Africa can be an example to the world of a country which really upholds human rights, in the full sense of the word, for human rights will never be realized fully unless there is complete acceptance and recognition of separate identities. Our policy of recognizing separate identities, the positive policy of trying to recognize the diversity and nevertheless to develop in that diversity the national pride of those people and their economic potential as well, is to my mind a positive contribution towards really placing human rights on a sound basis. In that respect South Africa has made much more progress and has been much more successful than is the case with many other countries in Africa and the rest of the world, including America, Europe and Asia. I am convinced that South Africa can in fact at this very stage play a much more positive role. Let us go out and put our case. We can only achieve success by doing so.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs deserves the gratitude of the whole of South Africa for the most diligent manner in which he continually endeavours to make contact with friendly countries wherever it is possible for him to do so. There are persons, not only on the Opposition side, who claim that the ties of friendship which can be established with countries abroad, can only exist on the basis of diplomatic relations. But I want to suggest that that is not the only basis on which this can be done; there are also other spheres in which these relations can be established. You know, Sir, until very recently some of the English-language newspapers were still making calculations to ascertain how many South African diplomats there were in the rest of Africa as compared to the number of South African diplomats in the time of the United Party Government. I want to suggest that the all-important criterion for the promotion of good foreign relations does not rest on the establishment of diplomatic relations only. To my mind one of the most important contributory factors is also the question of commercial relations.

Throughout the world, even in countries which do not maintain diplomatic relations with us, commercial relations can mean an infinitely great deal to South Africa. In fact, I want to make the statement here to-day that a better understanding simply must develop later on if there are good commercial relations between South Africa and other countries, even if no diplomatic relations exist. For instance, we already have the stable, almost indissoluble ties with our traditional countries of origin, such as the Netherlands, Britain, France and Germany. These ties date back to the earliest times. Commercial relations existed long before diplomatic relations were established between us and those countries. That is exactly what is still happening to-day. This is a policy which is being pursued so vigorously and with so much wisdom by this Government, by this hon. Minister and his Department. In fact, I want to make bold to say that after the Sharpeville incident, when our enemies descended upon South Africa in their attempts to isolate South Africa from the outside world, it was in fact these traditional commercial ties with other countries and the attempts at extending our commercial relations to new countries as well, which carried us through that difficult period of crisis. I do not want to go into this too deeply, but I just want to say that I am glad that in his speech this afternoon the Minister emphasized that he would zealously continue to extend these ties still further. I am sure that he will achieve great success in doing so. Mention was made here this afternoon of the tremendous commercial potential which exists for us in South Africa and in the Far East as well. In fact, in my opinion the sea routes around the Cape and the South African harbours are going to become increasingly more important, and at the same time they will to an increasing extent boost our international relations with those countries whose ships call regularly at South African harbours.

The position of the sea route around the Cape is not only of importance to us in as far as defence is concerned. The position of our harbours in South Africa is not only of importance to us in as far as our commerce is concerned, but also of extreme importance for the establishment of more extensive and better international relations with South Africa. I need not point out to hon. members the important role our South African harbours played when the Suez Canal was closed and countries such as Britain and other Commonwealth countries, as well as European countries, had to make use of the sea route around the Cape. In my opinion this will continue. In this way our South African harbours and the sea routes around the southernmost point of Africa will serve as a very important and powerful means of bringing about and extending better contacts for South Africa in its foreign relations as well.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I want to make mention of the faot here this afternoon that here in our South African harbours we have the facilities for receiving all these ships and people who want to visit South Africa and see for themselves what the country looks like, and also to see what South Africa has to offer in the sphere of commerce. Let me mention a few figures to hon. members merely to show them how important the South African harbours are and the facilities we have for maintaining our commercial relations. From 6th June, 1967, when the first ship was diverted from the Suez Canal route to Durban, until February this year—these are the latest figures I could obtain—no fewer than 5,379 cargo ships with a gross tonnage of 48,057,168 called at the various South African harbours. Hon. members can therefore see what a tremendous contribution the fact that we made our harbour facilities available was towards effecting international contacts for South Africa. Over this period, 1,181 tankers with a gross tonnage of more than 25 million were handled in our harbours. I want to add here that Durban, which is our biggest and busiest harbour, does of course lead the way. Over this period from June, 1967, to February 1969—and these are once again the latest figures I could obtain—3,125 cargo ships and 534 tankers were handled in the Durban harbour alone. All of these are vessels which were diverted to the Cape sea route after the closing of the Suez Canal. I want to assure hon. members that the competent and effective manner in which the additional sea traffic has been handled by South Africa, has made a tremendous impression on countries abroad.

This increase in shipping traffic, as a result of the Suez Canal crisis, together with the normal number of ships calling at our ports, has been handled in such a competent manner that it has won nothing but the highest praise throughout the world. This has indicated in an invisible but very conclusive manner that, in the first place, South Africa can pull its weight in the Western world in a time of emergency, such as we had during the Suez Canal crisis. In the second place, it showed that South Africa is not just another insignificant little country at the southernmost point of Africa which may be written off, but that it plays a very strategic and important role in the traffic between countries. An unstable and unpredictable international state of affairs prevails in the Middle East at present. Over the past few days we have once again seen that it is expected that another crisis may erupt there at any moment.

In view of that there is not the slightest sign of the Suez Canal being reopened in the immediate future. I therefore want to make the prediction that in future the various nations will have to avail themselves more and more of the shipping and harbour facilities of South Africa. Of course, the question that arises now is whether the South African harbours, such as Durban, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London and even Walvis Bay, are adequately equipped for handling this steadily increasing passenger and cargo boat traffic in order that this increased contact between these various foreign nations and South Africa may be maintained. I want to say that our reply to that is in the affirmative. We can do it. During the two years in which we had this additional traffic, we handled it very smoothly and without delays. International shipping lines spoke most highly of this. As far as our existing harbours are concerned, we have the facilities for allowing these people to call at our ports and in this way to gain insight into what South Africa can offer in the sphere of commerce and so to promote our foreign relations. However, that is not all. In the future one of the best deep-sea harbours in the world is going to be developed at Richards Bay.

Order! The hon. member may not read his speech any further. His time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the last two speakers. I should like to make a few comments on the remarks made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He was quite serious, I believe, when he stated that his party and his Government was a party and a government of human rights. I wonder whether the hon. member has really read the Declaration of Human Rights; whether he has read the works of John Stuart Mill, of Thomas Jefferson and Locke on human rights. I wonder whether he has heard of such human rights as universal suffrage, of no distinction on the basis of colour, and of no detention without trial. These are human rights. I think the hon. member should read these declarations before talking too much about the very close association between his Government and human rights as accepted by the rest of the civilized world.

I agree, however, with his idea that there should be more contact, particularly at a social level, between members of his party and representatives of other countries in South Africa. It is a splendid idea. I am quite sure that they will learn a great deal in the process. It might lead them to find out why there is this problem the hon. member for Umhlatuzana mentioned, why there is difficulty for instance in relations between the United States of America and South Africa in many spheres. He might perhaps learn that the attacks that have been made by members of his party on a fine institution such as the American Field Service might be one of the factors contributing to which he regards as a lack of understanding between the two countries.

However, what I wanted to deal with was actually the question of foreign aid in so far as it affects the hon. the Minister’s Department. Amongst others, foreign aid is provided for in two items in the Vote. The first one is the item Foreign Affairs Special Account of R½ million per year. The other one is the Assistance to and Co-operation with Foreign Countries, R450,000. I do not wish to say anything about the Foreign Affairs Special Account. which was established by an Act of this Parliament with the agreement of both sides of the House in 1967. The R½ million per year is used for special purposes, which we do appreciate.

Nor am I necessarily dissatisfied with the other item, namely the R450,000 we are giving for technical and other assistance to other countries. I believe this is basically a good idea. We on this side of the House do not oppose foreign aid, provided it can be established that it is in the interest of our own country. I believe that this fact should be established to the satisfaction of all. Secondly, we believe that foreign aid should be given, where it is given, for a clearly defined purpose. Although it may be difficult to control, there must be some supervision in regard to the spending of such foreign aid. I believe that the Government has been quite careful in regard to what has been done under this heading. If there is criticism to be made, it will be on account of the fact that we might not have had the full story in regard to all items as we would have liked to have had.

We are fortunate in being one of the “have” nations and not one of the “have-not” nations. In other words, foreign aid can be used by us as an important instrument of policy. We have done it to a certain extent in regard to matters beneficial to South Africa. I can think of assistance to improve the water supplies from neighbouring countries to South Africa, the medical assistance mentioned by the hon. the Minister, the joint research with regard to tropical diseases, the combating of plagues such as the locust plague, and the combating of terrorism. Expenditure along these lines we believe to be justifiable.

It may be asked why I raised the matter of foreign aid. I do it for two reasons. The first reason is that I believe that Parliament can and should have more information in regard to the spending of these funds for foreign aid. I appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister this afternoon indicated several instances where money was being spent for technical assistance. He did so without mentioning the countries to whom aid in that regard was given. I believe that it is probably right not to mention the particular countries. He stated that he had a very long list of these instances and that time precluded him from mentioning them all. I trust that at some future occasion he will have the opportunity of giving more instances of such assistance to other countries outside South Africa.

Why do we need more information? I think the reason is, firstly, that Parliament votes the money. While we may accept the principle of foreign aid, it has been shown in other countries of the world, for instance, in the United States of America, that millions of dollars, in that case, can on occasion be squandered uselessly in regard to foreign aid if there is not proper supervision by Parliament in some way or other. I agree that there are arguments against giving further information. One of these arguments is that the recipients of foreign aid must not be embarrassed, as can very well happen. I think the hon. the Minister circumvented that problem very well this afternoon, when he did give the instances without mentioning the particular countries which were being assisted. On the other hand, there might be strategic or defence reasons why the information cannot be given. Those reasons too, I appreciate. However, what I do not like is that behind a phrase such as “It is not in the public interest”, more facts cannot be disclosed. That makes the hon. the Minister the only judge of what is in the public interest. After all, Parliament as a whole is a responsible body. We believe that the hon. the Minister can and should give us more information. We will not demand excessive information from him. We only want more information.

The second reason why I raise this matter is that I believe that foreign aid as such should be channelled through the Department of the hon. the Minister to a much larger extent than at present. As he knows, foreign aid is being given by the Department of Defence, the Department of Agriculture and other Departments too. Of course, when I use the term foreign aid, I use it in a very broad sense. I do think that it should be channelled to a larger extent through the hon. the Minister’s Department so that actually he should have the final say. I am not very much afraid of other Government Departments handling these matters. However, I am dubious about certain public bodies who only send an annual report to Parliament, and who become amateur diplomats in the international field. I think the hon. the Minister knows to which particular body I am referring. I trust that an attempt will be made to see that he will have greater supervision over sometimes well-intended attempts which are made in the sphere of foreign aid to help other countries, but which might have an effect entirely contrary to the one originally intended.

That is all I wanted to say about foreign affairs. There is only one other matter I should like to mention in the few seconds left to me. I would like to know why we really have to spend such huge amounts on new residences for our ambassadors abroad. I agree that they should be well housed and even better housed than most, but the information I have is that at the present moment there are three such ambassadors’ residences being built, each one at a cost of approximately R250,000, and I think the House would like to have more information in regard to that.

The hon. member for Orange Grove really addressed his questions to the Minister, and consequently he will forgive me if I do not comment on his speech. I leave that to the hon. the Minister. I should like to come back to what was said by two other members of the Opposition. One is the hon. member for Yeoville who, in my modest opinion, hit the nail on the head when he said that the policies of all three parties were in point of fact unacceptable to people in the outside world. By making that statement the hon. member brought all of us who are in this House to-day into one camp as far as foreign affairs are concerned, so that in reality we are at one as regards the standpoint and the attitude, of the outside world towards South Africa. To me it is a very important standpoint which the hon. member adopted, because it is in fact true that our policies, be that the policy of separate development of the National Party, or the policy of race federation of the United Party, or the policy advocated by the Progressive Party, are not accepted as such abroad. The outside world accepts only one policy and that is the policy of one man, one vote. One must realize that people in the outside world look at us through completely different spectacles. They are looking at us from their own milieu, from the point of view of their problems and their solutions. This is the real reason why people in the outside world do not find our policy acceptable. Our policy is one which has its roots in Southern Africa and its solutions are ones which have been worked out specifically for the circumstances prevailing in Southern Africa. One can understand that just as unacceptable as the overseas policy is to us, according to our norms, so would our policy be if one were to apply their norms. What is in fact of importance in this regard is the following. I want to refer to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. He asked what was being done to put the case of South Africa in the outside world. When one asks oneself this question, the first question which springs to mind is the following. What do we want to convey to the outside world; with what do we want to acquaint them? We cannot acquaint people in the outside world with all the details of the complexities of our specific problem. We cannot convey to them all the involved solutions we have worked out here and have discussed with one another across the floor of this House. All we can in fact convey to them is—and if we could make them understand this we would in point of fact have progressed as far as it was possible to progress—that we have specific problems in Africa and that we have worked out solutions to suit our circumstances. If people want to understand this and if they want to understand furthermore that we are. in fact making a very sincere attempt to find solutions to our problems in Southern Africa.

Order! Hon. members should not coverse so loudly.

I say it is important for us to get the people overseas to understand above all the sincerity of our actions. It is important for them to understand that however the problems and the solutions may look to them from their point of view, we are sincerely engaged in finding solutions here in Southern Africa. If we can also succeed in making them understand that we have a stable economy here in Southern Africa, they will realize that we are of strategic value to them, that we occupy a business position in the world of which they may make use. If we can also convey to them that we are of military strategic value to the Western world, we would have progressed a long way. If, in addition, we could get countries abroad to understand that we are, because of the fact that we have been in Africa for so many hundreds of years, pre-eminently the people who are able to offer the under-developed countries, including Southern Africa, assistance in a way which will mean the largest degree of progress to those countries, when we succeed in making the people overseas understand all these things, then, in my opinion, we would have made them understand everything we need make them understand.

The next question is whom we are to bring to an understanding of these factors. Should we make a large scale diplomatic or an organized information effort, or what should we do? In considering this problem, one realizes that there are a few categories of people in the outside world. The first category is also the largest; 80 per cent of the people fall into this category. They are the men in the street, and the men in the street know as little of Southern Africa as I do of Chile or Bolivia. As I am standing here, I do not have the slightest idea of what political parties there are in Bolivia, or of what the problems of those people are, nor do I have the slightest idea of the solutions of those people. In the same way 80 per cent of the people in the outside world cannot understand what is happening in South Africa, because they do not have the slightest idea where we are. As a matter of fact, they are not even interested. They are occupied with the essence of their own existence. They are doing their everyday routine work. They have heard vaguely of South Africa and of apartheid and they have a vague notion that they do not like it, but that is all. If we want to reach those people, we shall have to utilize mass media, and in that case they are only interested in the sensational of those media. The heart transplant in Southern Africa had fantastic value as far as they were concerned. That made Southern Africa real to them. I have found abroad that a man like Mr. Gary Player, the golfer, is much better known abroad because of the sensational game of golf he plays than any involved argument on our problems and our solutions.

The second category of people one finds in the outside world, is the politically active people, and there they usually are socialistic, leftist or even communistic. Those people are enemies of South Africa and are making propaganda against our country day and night, with the result that we may say what we like, but we shall not reach them at all.

A third category of people one finds in the outside world, is the informed professional people and businessmen. They usually have business interests in South Africa and are indeed friends of South Africa. They are people who do not want to go into all the complexities of things; they only want to know whether ours is an economically stable country and whether they may invest their money here; very often they are people who invested money here before. They are the people who say, “I know South Africa and South Africa is quite right because it is acting in accordance with its local circumstances”. These people who are so well-informed, are people whose friendship we should retain.

Then one finds a category of people, the category I should really like to deal with this afternoon, and in this regard I should like to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether it is not possible to invite to South Africa the category I am now going to describe. They are our compares in Europe; they are the members of parliament and people of the various parties, the people who in reality make the policy in their own countries. I want to confine myself to Britain in particular, a country I had the privilege of visiting last year and where I had the privilege of having discussions with people of my own kind, members of parliament and British government officials, and on that visit it was possible for me to ascertain what knowledge those people had of South Africa. I must say that I was surprised to find how little information a Labour member of the House of Commons really had about South Africa. I found, in the first place, that these people were willing to learn; they were willing to give one a hearing. Most probably they would not agree with us at all, even if they were to come to South Africa, but they are open-minded enough to be able to realize that they would be seeing things they had no knowledge of before. If we were to bring them here, they would apply their own norms and they would still tell us that they disapproved, but they would not oppose these things to the extent they are doing at the moment in their ignorance. I am of the opinion that it would be of great assistance if we were to bring out those people on a large scale, people who did not agree with us, but people who would see for themselves the circumstances prevailing in South Africa, the local race pattern. the large number of different black races in this country, and the economic stability of the country. [Time expired.]

I shall reply in a moment to a point made by the hon. member for Prinshof, but before coming to that, I should like to put two further questions to the hon. the Minister. One is this: I see that women are now being trained as diplomats and that the first two have been appointed. For a party which does have two lady members in the Other Place, but has never succeeded in having a woman elected to this House, this is a big step forward, but I should like to know from the Minister what progress is being made in this regard and what the chances are of having women in the diplomatic service of South African in the future. Then, after the visit of the Portuguese Prime Minister to Mozambique, some doubts were raised about the Cabora-Bassa scheme and South Africa’s participation in it. I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to give us any clarity in regard to the matter.

This matter should rather be raised under the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs.

My reason for raising it here, is that Foreign Affairs is taking part in the talks.

We do come into the picture.

Very well, I am satisfied. Then I shall get the information later. The hon. member for Prinshof spoke a very true word here when he said that most people in the world took no notice of South Africa and hardly knew where it is. This is quite correct, but it contains a lesson. I think most people in the world are finding it difficult to make a living and they do not really want to worry themselves about South Africa. But the lesson it contains is this, that we should try to avoid issues which shock people and which place South Africa in an unfavourable light, and which come to the attention of people who would normally not concern themselves about South Africa. I want to mention a practical example. We had two highly sensational immorality cases in South Africa recently. In one case two married persons were charged with immoraility. You can appreciate what damaging reports appeared on the matter in the overseas Press. It came to my attention that a Head of State of a country which has representation in South Africa was so shocked that he personally wrote a letter to his representative in South Africa inquiring whether it was possible that things of this nature could take place in South Africa, and the representative told some friends that the good work he had done in creating better relations, had been destroyed overnight. This is a lesson to us in South Africa; we should see where we can eliminate things which may bring South Africa to the attention of and shock persons who normally are not very keen to get involved in our affairs. This is a very important lesson, and a very great responsibility rests on the Government. No one will say that we cannot bring about improvements in this regard. We have had a good deal of talk of an improved position, but if we look at the position in which South Africa still finds herself to-day, then we have formidable obstacles to overcome in the world. We still have an arms ban against South Africa by all the important countries of the world, including former allies of ours. The one on which we have still been able to rely, very recently had a change in government and we are not quite certain where we stand. We have a seat as a member at the U.N., but it is a seat in an organization where all the machinery is being employed for hostile action against South Africa. We have the position that all the major powers in the world subscribe to and propagate the view that our presence in South-West Africa is illegal and that we should get. out of that territory. If the situation were to arise again that the world’s attention was diverted from other difficulties and that it once again focused its attention on the position in South-West Africa, it could become a flashpoint once again. However ineffective boycotts may be, we still have the position that official boycotts against us and our citizens are still in force in large parts of the world. We are being physically attacked on our borders, and however limited that physical attack may be at present, it is openly supported from behind by leading countries in the world. One Western country recently went so far as to say that it fully sympathized with the terrorists and would give them practical support. I see Professor A. H. Murray recently expressed the opinion in an article that we are in fact “engaged in a war of a modern form and world dimension”. This is the view he takes of terrorist attacks. No matter what improvement we may see in our position, the obstacles we have to overcome in our struggle in the field of foreign relations are still enormous.

We must not flinch.

No, certainly not, but we should have no illusions either about the nature of the struggle to regain a position of normality in the world. Mr. Chairman, surely this is what every good South African would like to see, namely that South Africa should regain the position of having normal relations with the rest of the world. I know that members, like the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, will rise here and reply rightly that we should not allow anyone to dictate to us. Of course. No country dare allow any other country to dictate to it. We subscribe to this wholeheartedly, but the matter is much wider than this. A nation is like an individual. As individuals, the hon. member there and I are members of a community, and if we want a decent place in that community, we have to conduct ourselves according to certain rules, otherwise we are ostracized from the social life of our community. It is very simple …

But with the retention of our honour.

Of course. One abides by rules for the very reason that it is important to one’s honour and personality to receive recognition in the community. The choice lies entirely with oneself. Now, a nation is in the same position in the community of nations. Certain ideals come to the fore strongly in the world from time to time. We can of course choose what we want to do. The choice is ours; nobody is dictating to us. But what we must realize is that the world will become increasingly impatient with discrimination on the basis of colour, particularly if that discrimination is a law of the Medes and the Persians. The position is as simple as that. We can be sure that that impatience is going to grow, that it will increase. It is an illusion to think that discrimination on the basis of colour will fare better in future. We will never be able to convince people and the difficulties are going to increase, for the reason that the position of the non-Whites in world politics is growing stronger by the day. The Secretary General of the U.N. is a non-white person; non-white nations are now in the majority at the U.N.; and soon one will find that in countries like America and even Britain the non-Whites will be playing important parts in military and diplomatic posts as well.

What is your solution?

The position is going to become more and more difficult for us. We need not allow others to dictate to us. The place we want to occupy in the community of nations, is a matter of our own choice; we can make that choice. That is why I said at the beginning that we will have to begin at home. We will have to ask ourselves whether we are prepared to pay the high price for some of the views we hold.

Our principles.

No one departs from his principles; this is not what we are asking, but the big question remains whether we cannot eliminate many things which shock unnecessarily. The hon. the Minister and his Department will agree with me. Why did the hon. the Minister find it necessary to announce at the U.N., as he did in fact do, that it was the policy of the Government to get away from all discrimination? This was also said by the previous Prime Minister. We know we have to do it. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked here whether we could not eliminate certain things in order to create a more favourable world view of South Africa. I do not think we need have any doubt that whatever we may do will not eliminate that unfavourable opinion held by certain powers in the world, because those powers are urged on by certain motives which we cannot remove. These motives are, inter alia, to gain possession of South Africa for certain Black states in Africa and for the communists behind them, and whatever we may do will bring about no change in this situation. We have only one course open to us and that is to let the world see that we adhere strongly to our principles, that we do not budge one inch from our principles, and that we not only adhere strongly to our principles, but are also implementing them by taking a firm stand both militarily and spiritually as a nation and as a state. When I say that we take a firm stand spiritually, I mean that we should also stand firm morally in the point of view we adopt. Sir, who would suggest that the policy of separate development in South Africa, which affords every ethnic group the opportunity of developing politically towards its own nationhood, cannot be justified morally? There can be no objection to it.

Sir, we are grateful because our Government is doing its best and is making use of every opportunity to make friends with African states that are prepared to be friends with us. But when speaking of African states we must not forget that Rhodesia is also an African state, and I should like to say a few words in this connection, because the question has arisen whether by this time Rhodesia should not or cannot be recognized as a sovereign independent state. I am speaking here on behalf of myself; it is my personal opinion that I am expressing. I am quite convinced that Rhodesia is a sovereign state not only de facto, but also de jure, and that it can be recognized as an independent state. It is not necessary to recognize a state in order to legalize it, and I do not want to insist that this should be done, but the question arises whether it is not in our interest that Rhodesia should be recognized as an independent state now that it has maintained its de facto independence for three years and now that Britain has furnished proof of being unable to bring Rhodesia back under her sovereignty.

Order! The hon. member must be very careful when discussing constitutional matters concerning our neighbouring states.

Yes, Sir, I am being very careful, but I do not want to be so careful that I cannot break a lance for Rhodesia. I think the time has come to break a lance for Rhodesia, which has maintained itself as an independent state for three years now. According to international law a state is entitled to recognition if it maintains itself de facto and a state is independent de jure if it is independent de facto. Therefore I want to emphasize that Rhodesia is already independent at this stage and should be treated as such, and let the world know this. I am quoting here what was said by Brierly, for example, in “The Law of Nations”—

Pitt Cobbett in “Leading Cases on International Law” says—

He points out that—

The right of recognition comes into being at a certain stage. Brierly also points out, for example, that—

That is to say, recognition. Oppenheim, in his “International Law”, says that recognition is justified the moment it is clear that the new State is existing safely and permanently, which is indicated—

Baty, in “The Canons of International Law”, is of the opinion that “the new State needs only to exclude the old Government from some definite area beyond reasonable hope of return”. Hall, in his “International Law”, states—

I am emphasizing these facts because in our relations with states in Africa, we should not lose sight of Rhodesia with a view to the continued existence of white civilization.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage, before replying to the questions, I should like to extend my very sincere thanks to all hon. members on both sides of the House for the most constructive contributions they made here today, for the suggestions and stimulating ideas to which all of us listened with interest and which, we realize, are based on very thorough study. At this stage I should also like to express my sincere thanks for the spirit in which this debate was conducted to-day. I can give hon. members the assurance that my Department and I will study the Hansard reports of this debate very carefully and try to learn from them, and I am also sure that what was said here, will be read and considered with great interest and benefit in countries abroad. I even want to thank the hon. member for Houghton, because she afforded me the opportunity to explain that I could not mention here everybody who helped and co-operated towards granting assistance to our neighbouring states. I only referred to a few of them, and the list which I read out was therefore not a complete one. For instance, I could have said a great deal more about the excellent work which Professor Chris Barnard and his team and other scientists are continually doing abroad for South Africa, but I do not think that this is the occasion for doing that here to-day, nor is there time tor doing so. I want to emphasize that from my own point of view and from that of my Department, this has been a very profitable debate.

I should also like to express my gratitude to my colleagues in the Cabinet and their departments for the sealous manner in which they are helping me and my Department with these aid programmes of ours and in our efforts to co-operate, not only in Africa, but also in other parts of the world. I am glad that my colleague the hon. the Minister of Transport is present here to-day, since I want to extend a special word of thanks to him, and also to the Government, in view of the fact that it has been decided to introduce the very important air service to New York via South America. This air service has already, in the short while since it was introduced, proved that it is going to be a great success, not only financially, but also in other ways. I want to predict that this air service will enable us here in South Africa and also our neighbours across the South Atlantic Ocean to discover each other. I have already had the privilege of paying two visits to South America, and I can tell hon. members that a very pleasant experience awaits those of them who intend to make the acquaintance of our neighbours over there. I should also like to express my gratitude to the Secretary of my Department, his staff at the head office and also abroad—our officials there as well as their wives—who are fulfilling an important task in the interests of our country and who are serving South Africa very faithfully.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout wanted to know how the ladies we had appointed to the diplomatic staff were doing. Unfortunately this attempt, which was an experiment, failed. It failed because our taste was too good. We selected our ladies so well that both of them have already resigned in order to get married. I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and I have often said this in public, that a long and difficult struggle still lies ahead for us, but I believe that we are on the winning side. I believe that we are gaining ground and I also believe, and this also emerged in this debate this afternoon, that if we do not adhere firmly to our principles and if we were to abandon important principles in order to gain the favour of others, we would then enjoy no respect in the world. Then we would lose that respect which we are enjoying already and which is not always acknowledged openly and we would be regarded as traitors to our country for whom nobody in any part of the world would have any respect.

Is it not possible for us merely to adhere to our good principles and to abandon the bad ones?

The principles of the party which sent this Government to Parliament are proven ones. They have been proven and tried over a period of years and they are very sound. The hon. member for Kermpton Park referred to the possibility of granting recognition to Rhodesia. A matter such as this is not something which can be discussed across the floor of this House, no matter how one feels about it and irrespective of what the legal position may be. Therefore I do not intend to discuss it any further.

The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about the particulars of the technical aid we are granting to neighbouring states. I can give the hon. member the assurance that technical aid is, of course, not kept secret. The hon. member himself furnished reasons why at times it is perhaps not such a good thing to broadcast all these matters. I want to give him the assurance that all aid has to be paid by the Department out of this R425,000 which he sees on the Estimates, and that we consequently have the final say in the matter. From the nature of the case we have to use the money very sparingly. There is, therefore, no lavish expenditure, because we simply cannot afford it. I think that in due course, as these matters crystallize and I shall again be able to have reports published in regard to my Department’s activities, we shall in fact find a formula for making more particulars available. Of course, hon. members are always free to ask when they are keen to have particulars in regard to certain projects, as, incidentally, the hon. member for Orange Grove has already done. As regards the cost of embassies and chancelleries abroad, I can tell hon. members that I am also shocked at the enormous amount we sometimes have to spend. A few years ago I received a tremendous shock when we had to pay almost R½ million in Tokyo for a piece of land with a building on it. But it was not necessary for me to rise and justify it in this House, because the then Minister of Finance, the late Dr. Dönges, had been there not long before, and before I could explain the matter, he rose and explained to the House that it had been a bargain. That was indeed the case. The cost of houses abroad is exceedingly high. In most cases it is much higher than it is here in South Africa. Incidentally, the Department of Public Works handles the purchase and the maintenance of buildings abroad. This is a new arrangement which was introduced last year. Before any buildings or premises are purchased, the Department of Public Works sends its architects and experts abroad in order that they may make a very thorough study and a survey there.

The hon. member for East London (City) expressed his astonishment at the fact that the amount requested for this Department this year was so small. I think it reflects favourably on the Minister and the Department that they are able to accomplish so much with so little money. One explanation for the fact that we cannot simply duplicate everything—and I want to say this to the hon. member in all sincerity and friendliness—is that my Department cannot simply produce ambassadors and senior diplomats by the dozen, like a sausage machine. This is a very real problem. We have excellent people, and there are, in particular, very good young people in the Department as well, but one cannot simply appoint ambassadors and heads of missions indiscriminately. That is one of the explanations for this. Another explanation is the fact that the opening of an embassy in any country is not a unilateral step to which one Government can proceed without the consent of the country concerned where the embassy is to be opened. I think that I should now leave this matter at that, and not elaborate on it any further.

I mentioned four countries which have consulates here, but in which we do not have representation.

No matter what may happen in future, it is not possible for me to anticipate matters now by making one-sided speculations or insinuations, etc. I think the same hon. member also referred last year to our relations with Israel. At the time I told him that we were duly attending to this matter. I can now tell the hon. member that Israel has now appointed a very senior diplomat here as head of their mission. He bears the personal rank of ambassador, and he is their chargé d’affaires here in South Africa. We are continually in contact with Israel. I do not want to elaborate on this any further. All I can tell that hon. member, is that these steps cannot be taken precipitately. However, these matters are receiving attention all the time. Of course, there has been expansion as far as our diplomatic representation is concerned. For instance, we recently opened an embassy in Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay. An ambassador has been appointed there. We have also entered into diplomatic relations with Bolivia. We have also had expansion in the sphere of consular representation. More than a year ago we opened new missions in Paraguay, Malawi, Hong Kong, Finland and also in Taipeh. However, that was in the previous year.

As regards our representation in Europe, I think the hon. member referred to Germany, France and Italy. I want to furnish the House with the figures in respect of diplomats, However, I want to say first of all that such a mission does not consist of diplomats only. There is quite a number of additional staff, such as scientific attachés, cultural attachés, information attachés, etc. But, as far as the diplomatic representation is concerned, there are nine diplomats in Paris. That is a large number. Then there are 47 additional members of staff, some of whom have been recruited in Paris to perform work in that embassy.

In Germany, where we have three missions, i.e. the embassy and two consulates, we have seven professional diplomats and 66 additional members of staff. In Italy, where we also have an embassy, as well as a consulate-general, we have seven diplomats, apart from the additional South African and locally recruited staff. Consequently the picture one gains from the White Book is perhaps not quite representative of the true state of affairs.

The hon. member for Sea Point spoke about the possible source of goodwill in the Orient. I want to agree with him and point out to him that in many cases the apparent hostility in the Oriental countries is quite artificial. For instance, there are many foreign Ministers from the Orient with whom I have regular contact and with whom I am on very friendly terms. One of them pays regular visits to South Africa when he visits Africa. He usually visits me here in South Africa. He is coming here again soon. I also want to point out that we are granting technical aid to the Middle East as well. Let me mention one example. For instance, it has been decided by the Government, at the request of an important country in the Middle East, that we shall help them in regard to mining. It has been decided to second two South African experts to that country. One of them will help them with the revision of their legislation relating to mining, and the other one will grant them technical aid in regard to mining.

The hon. member for Prinshof wondered whether it was not possible to invite more people, such as members of Parliament, etc., to South Africa. People from countries abroad, from various walks of life, are in fact being invited. My colleague the Minister of Information usually sees to that. As far as inviting members of Parliament is concerned, this is also attended to by the Government on occasion, but this is really a matter for our Parliamentary Association. My information is that this matter is in fact receiving the attention of our Parliamentary Association.

The hon. members for Middelland and Yeoville both referred to the visits of our Parliamentary groups to countries abroad. They furnished us with very interesting information, and painted a very encouraging picture. I should like to convey my personal gratitude, and also the gratitude of my Department, to all members of these Parliamentary groups which went abroad. I also want to express my thanks to the Government for having made such missions possible financially. The fact that members of the Opposition were included in these missions, was really valuable. These groups did very important work for our country, for which South Africa is deeply indebted to them. I want to point out, of course, that this is not a matter which falls under my portfolio. It is a purely Parliamentary matter. It is nevertheless a privilege to me and my Department here in South Africa and also abroad to assist wherever we can.

I can assure the hon. member for Houghton that every effort to assist our neighbours is appreciated, by the Government and by our public as well. We must, of course, be on our guard against becoming over-ambitious and undertaking too much and starting things we cannot keep up. This is not only a word of warning to the hon. member for Houghton. It is a general word of warning. The hon. member may rest assured that all proposals in regard to aid which are referred to me, will be given proper consideration. I did not refer to the particular group which the hon. member mentioned, since I was in fact only referring to the attempts at co-ordinating. I merely mentioned a few examples to illustrate my point. In this regard I want to express the hope that the particular group to which the hon. member for Houghton referred, as well as all other groups, organizations and bodies which are interested in aid, will also follow the example of groups to which I referred in this debate earlier on, namely that they will liaise through the official channels.

The hon. member for Middelland told us how certain speeches made by members of the Parliamentary team and certain particulars in regard to their actions, were read into the record of the Senate or the Congress of the United States. I cannot resist the temptation of trying to read something into our record as well. Reference was made by the hon. member to increasing appreciation on the part of many bodies and persons in the United States of America. Mention was made of increasing appreciation and interest and the fact that many of our American visitors no longer come to South Africa, as they did in the olden days, in order to gather ammunition to be used against us, but that they come here out of real interest and that they are prepared to learn from what we are doing here. In this regard I want to read out a short passage taken from a work entitled “South Africa Looks Outward” by Professor Walter Jacobs, and with that I want to conclude. Professor Jacobs is Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland. The article deals mainly with our Africa policy. I quote—

Then he refers to certain problems which we will have to overcome in our efforts to bring about better relations in Africa, and goes on to say—

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 26.—Commerce, R3,250,000, and S.W.A. Vote 10.—Commerce, R27,000:

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the item in the Estimates in regard to the Commission of Inquiry into the Companies Act. This commission has been sitting for many months now and I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate when this commission will complete its work if it has not done so already and whether he intends tabling the commission’s report in this House. While dealing with the matter on the tabling of reports I also want to ask the Minister whether he will indicate why we only received the report of the I.D.C. yesterday. As far as this House is concerned, the report was received only yesterday. I obtained my copy last December. As far as the House is concerned it would seem as if someone was asleep in the Minister’s Department and that his conscience was pricked when he found that Commerce and Industries was due to come up for discussion to-day. It was therefore immediately sent over to the House yesterday. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some reply to that.

I now want to make certain remarks in regard to foreign trade. According to the Estimates export trade promotion services in 1968-’69 amounted to R4,407,500. This year it was reduced to R590,000. There must be a special reason for that. While dealing with the subject of foreign trade, I notice from a Press report that the hon. the Minister is going to take a trip to Australia at the end of this session. I wish him success on that trip. We are also pleased to see that he has the support of many members of commerce and industry which are going to help him on that trip. I had the experience last year of visiting Australia, New Zealand and the Far East. I hope that during the course of the Minister’s visit he will compare the experience of the Ministers over there. I think one or two of them, without mentioning names over the floor of the House, could teach the hon. the Minister one or two lessons on winning the co-operation of industry as regards the question of the development of industry in some of the Australian states. They performed a fantastic job particularly in Western Australia. I think the hon. the Minister can learn from them how they have got overseas concerns to invest in Australia on a permanent basis without many of the difficulties that we have in this country in getting our industries established. With that we will deal later on when the Industries Vote comes up for discussion. While dealing with trade promotion, we had the added difficulty this year that industrialists and commercial houses who intended developing trade in the Far East have to add the sales tax to the cost of all their exports. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister if it is the intention of the Department to recommend that as far as export is concerned the sales tax will be waived. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is the intention that the sales tax will be imposed. If the sales tax is imposed, I submit that South African industrialists are going to find it harder to get the customers and the trade which is required in the outside world. Overseas trade is tough trade, as the hon. the Minister very well knows. It is not only a question of price; it is a question of negotiation. But price is a very important factor in deciding whether the order will be placed from the firm overseas or not. As the hon. the Minister knows, one cannot dump goods outside the country; goods have to be sold on a competitive market. The industrialists have to prepare for the overseas market, and they have to ensure that their goods are of an adequate quality, that the goods are properly packed, that they are well-presented and the price is a price which is competitive in that market. Here we find that every industrialist who is affected by the sales tax and who enjoys a stake in the export market today will have either to absorb that sales tax and some will not be able to absorb it, or pass it on to the consumer. I think this is a matter which concerns every industrialist who is concerned with overseas trade. I hope the hon. the Minister in the course of his reply would indicate what he has to say in that regard.

Another item which comes under the Minister’s control is that of price control. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could show me in the Estimates where the staff for price control come in the Estimates. I think he will find it rather difficult to identify them because in the course of his reply to a question of mine a week or two ago, he indicated that the staff engaged in the price control have other duties as well. He also replied that the staff numbers about 50 to 60 for the whole of South Africa. Does the hon. the Minister really want us to believe that we can have effective price control with that number of staff? Because of the price control situation, what is really happening is that some decisions are being made unfairly. These decisions are made unfairly because it is possible for those firms which are inefficient to get a price increase which will assist them, while firms which are efficient and who keep their costs down, find it difficult to get a price increase. On certain articles, I do not want to identify the articles, neither do I want to identify the people concerned, you find the state of affairs where firm A has a price determination from the price control office. This takes quite long because of the depletion in the numbers of staff. The Department has to investigate all the figures and the accounts and then only it comes to a decision. Well, it is not long before firm B hears that firm A has had a price increase and then it also applies for an increase as far as their goods are concerned, especially when their goods are the same goods on which firm A were allowed to ask an increased price. Firm B might find that, just as firm A, they have increased labour costs and increased costs of certain raw materials and they then also demand a price increase. They then put all their papers together and send them to the Department and eventually they get a reply declining the price increase. The reason might be because the Department feels that the balance sheet and the accounts supporting that application are such that they do not justify an increase. And yet I know of cases where the Price Controller has indicated to firms concerned that they are only interested in statutory increases in wages. When a firm says that they have to increase their technical staff, the Price Controller says that he is not interested in technical staff.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

When business was suspended, I was dealing with price control, and I pointed out to the Minister that the public were not certain what the Minister’s policy was in regard to price control. I pointed out that you could have the position where a firm which is efficient could give one price for the article sold, and another firm which is inefficient could have a higher price. I wanted to know what criteria were adopted by the Minister in determining the price, because recent decisions have indicated that the department, while it will recognize wage legislation, in other words statutory wage increases, the department will not recognize other wage increases. They will recognize statutory increases in cost, whereas other increases are viewed with suspicion. On the other hand, the Minister of Finance in his Budget proposals promised the country that the Minister of Economic Affairs through his price control organization would control prices. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Pinetown expressed his misgivings here about the possibility that we might have to pay a sales tax in respect of export goods. The Budget Speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance does not make it clear that such a sales tax will not be levied on export goods, but this is stated quite clearly in the report of the Franzsen Commission, and, after all, the Budget is based on the report of that Commission. In paragraph 173 of the report we find the following—

Neither is this the only criterion I apply when I reply to the question put by the hon. member for Pinetown, because, after all, we all know that no sales tax is levied on export goods even in those countries in which sales tax has been in force for many years. As far as I know, there is only one country where this is done, namely West Germany, which imposed a 4 per cent levy on its export goods six months ago, but this was done for a completely different reason than collecting revenue. This was meant as a substitute for the revaluation of the German mark. In all the other cases manufacturers of countries do not pay sales tax on export goods. For that reason I feel myself quite at liberty to tell the hon. member that he need not worry about this. Arrangements are already being made by our Department of Customs that this sales tax will not be levied on export goods.

The hon. member also expressed his concern as to whether the hon. the Minister and his Department will be able to apply price control. I want to repeat and emphasize once more that we need not be afraid that an army of price control officers will have to be appointed to ensure that dealers do not add more than the amount of the sales tax to the price of the goods. I believe so strongly in the corrective power of the marketing mechanism that I can say we shall definitely not have to appoint a whole army of officials to enforce price control. With those remarks I want to leave the hon. member for Pinetown at that.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity of congratulating the Minister and his Department on the excellent progress made in our export efforts. Most intensive and continued efforts are required for our export goods to gain a foothold in world markets. But the Minister has appointed an Export Promotion Council of which he himself is the chairman, and which is doing excellent work to promote our exports abroad. In addition, the Industrial Development Corporation, through its financing of exports, has boosted our exports considerably. I see in the report of the Industrial Development Corporation that as much as R33 million was spent by this organization in respect of the financing of our export goods during the past year. Through this scheme our exporters are enabled to give credit to importers in other countries. Without these efforts and without the financing which was undertaken by the Industrial Development Corporation, we would definitely not have made such good progress with our exports. I find that the latest figures as regards our exports read as follows: During the period of 11 months, from January to November, our exports increased from R1,233.9 million during the comparable period of the previous year, to R1,389.2 million, that is an increase of R155.3 million, or 12.6 per cent and that in spite of a poor maize crop. What is particularly encouraging as far as our export figures are concerned, is the substantial increase in respect of manufactured goods, factory goods. As I have said, that did not come by itself, but it required a tremendous effort on the part of the Minister and his Department. Unfortunately there are still some exporters who do not do their share and who do too little to advertise their products abroad. I also want to point out that our exports to certain countries on the Continent increased a great deal, and in this connection I just want to point out that I saw in a circular I received recently in connection with our grape exports that 160,000 cases of grapes were delivered in Germany in the course of one week as against 200,000 cases delivered in the United Kingdom.

I also want to express my gratitude to the Minister and his Department for the successful completion of the latest biennial revision of freight tariffs of the South African Conference Lines in that he succeeded in having our freight tariffs to Europe reduced by 5 per cent. In these days of increasing costs it is quite encouraging that the Minister and his Department have now succeeded in negotiating a reduction of tariffs for us for a change.

I should also like to say something about the possibility that Great Britain might join the Common Market. On the retirement of the French Chief of State and his replacement by somebody else, certain people in our country began to fear that Britain might quite easily be admitted as a member of the Common Market. The result of this would be that we would forfeit our preferences in respect of agricultural products in terms of the Ottawa agreement of 1930; moreover, we would not only forfeit those preferential tariffs but we would be placed in a negative position as well, because if Great Britain were to become a member of the Common Market the other Common Market countries would be able to export agricultural products to Great Britain free of duty, while we would have to pay the tariffs applicable to countries which are members of the E.E.C. For that reason I want to ask the hon. the Minister to instruct his overseas representatives, particularly those in Brussels, where the headquarters of the E.E.C. are, to watch this matter very closely otherwise we are going to suffer substantial losses owing to causes quite beyond our control.

The hon. member who has just sat down has referred me to the Franszen Commission’s report. I am well aware of the recommendations contained in that report. What I am interested to know is what the Minister is going to do about it. As far as the question of costs is concerned, it is not only the cost of the manufacturer, and the hon. member for Paarl should know that.

The industries which he represents are concerned not only with their own costs, but also with the costs which they include in their products as the result of their manufacturing process. They will have the cost of the canned fruit but they will also have the cost of the labels, and there we have to do with the printing industry. The printing costs will carry a proportion of the sales tax, and that proportion of the sales tax will not be known to the canning industry unless the printing industry discloses the amount of the tax and that added percentage of the sales tax is a percentage which the printing industry is reluctant to reveal to its customers, because they are entitled to charge 10 per cent or 20 per cent, whatever the figure may be, depending upon the classification. They are entitled to charge that as an item of cost. The final processes may be absorbing various amounts of the sales tax. If they are going to compete in the export market, they will have to deduct that, as the Franzsen Commission quite rightly suggests. But what I am concerned about is this: On the one hand the Minister has a small department with a small staff which is employed part-time in fixing prices for certain industrialists who come under the price control determination, where the Minister has indicated that he intends to enforce price control, and on the other hand we have many thousands of businesses all over the country who are concerned with the question of the determination of costs. We also have this state of affairs that the Minister of Finance has told us that the Minister of Economic Affairs is going to control prices, and we find in many of our commercial organizations, particularly in the case of smaller firms, that they adopt the attitude, “When in doubt, add the tax,” and the public are being called upon to pay. We are finding that time and again in representations which have been made to us since the introduction of this tax. I want to know to what extent the Minister can assure us that he has the position thoroughly under control. Has he got the position under control, has he the staff or is this a great big bluff? If all the Minister has is punitive powers, then how is he going to exercise them? Because there is no point in the Minister of Finance telling the House that the Minister of Economic Affairs has these powers if they are only being exercised in a few minor cases.

Sir, I realize the Minister’s difficulty. He has a very onerous task. But it is not fair to give the country the impression that the Minister has the whole matter under control when those of us who are connected with the outside world know what is taking place and that the control of prices is a very intricate and difficult matter. Up to now we have no legislation before us; we only have the Minister’s Budget speech. We know that the percentage of taxes and the question of costs are matters which will have to be covered by legislation. How are “costs” defined? The Minister will know from his experience in industry that there are certain items of variable costs, where costs are directly connected with production. If you sell at a fixed price, then if you double your production, then you halve your fixed costs; if you treble your production, you bring your fixed costs down by a third. When you sell, the effect on variable costs, gives another picture. All these matters which will have to be taken into consideration by the Minister. Has he got the staff; has he got the organization and does he know what he is tackling? From what I have seen and from the answers to questions which I have addressed to the Minister, I doubt very much whether the Minister has the organization and the staff, no matter how willing they may be to control the situation. I feel that the public are entitled to know whether there is going to be adequate control or whether it is a great big bluff, and only a few minor offenders will be convicted while the rest get away with it, to the disadvantage of the ordinary public.

Sir, the Government is not entitled to say that the public is going to be protected unless they have the undoubted assurance from the Minister that protection will be forthcoming. I suggest that before the Minister replies, he should make absolutely sure that he has adequate control and that he can assure the country that there will be adequate price control and that he has the whole situation in hand, because members of the public are very concerned about this. Sir, let the Minister go in a non-ministerial capacity to the various leading shops in the city and in other cities of South Africa, and he will find that while there are a certain number of people who are observing the law and playing the game because competition is forcing them to play the game, other people in the outlying areas are taking advantage of the public. The Minister need have no doubt about the position. He need only take certain household articles and make a test for himself. When the public find that they are being exploited, the grouses go on, and when they are told by the Minister of Finance that the matter is under control, and if it is not under control, the discontent will increase. I hope the Minister will give us some indication that he has the position under control, because his answer to my question the other day indicated that he has inadequate staff to tackle this problem.

I would also like the Minister to tell us to what extent this is a free-enterprise country.

What a question!

To what extent is there going to be a free market? Sir, I am very glad to hear the ex-Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration saying that …

There is no such person in this House.

You see, Sir, the other day the Minister of Bantu Administration said that he took a very serious view of the threat posed by the development of shops, not owned by Africans, on the borders of African areas. Sir, is the policy of the Minister of Economic Affairs that no person can trade on the border of an African area or near the border of an African area? If he supports the Minister of Bantu Administration, will he tell us how far is “near” because the public is entitled to that information. If a man has a trading store and he finds a week or so later that the Government in its wisdom or unwisdom has decided to establish an industry there, is this man entitled to be squeezed out and to be victimized because he has a shop near the border area? Will the Minister tell us whether that is the policy of the Government? I had a letter the other day from an organization overseas asking what the prospects were of investing money in South Africa. They indicated that they had 10 million dollars to invest in this country, but they wanted to know where they could invest and how and what the conditions were, and when I indicated to them what information I had at my disposal with regard to border industry requirements, they said that there was nothing else for them to do but to come out and to make a personal inspection, because it was quite obvious that the requirements and limitations were such that they would have to consider seriously whether they could come to this country.

Order! Is the hon. member not raising this matter under the wrong Vote?

I am raising the matter here because under Commerce we have this state of affairs to-day that industries can only sell in certain areas in South Africa. I want to know from the Minister of Economic Affairs whether one is limited to certain areas as far as distribution is concerned, because I have a permit here which restricts a wholesaler from selling to anybody else but a wholesaler in a Bantu area.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs how far his authority goes when it comes to commerce? Does commerce only go to the borders of the Bantu areas and is the rest of South Africa freezed? [Interjections.] That is all I should like to know. It is all very well for the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration to interject. Firms are concerned with sales to as wide as possible a market. They are concerned with selling in the whole of South Africa and South-West Africa. They are also concerned with any country outside the Republic of South Africa and South-West Africa with regard to export business. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot reply to what was dealt with by the hon. member in his speech just now. In the first place, he put certain specific questions to the hon. the Minister, for example whether the Minister had sufficient staff at his disposal so that control could be exercised over prices after purchase tax had been introduced? In the second place, he put certain questions of policy to which the Minister will reply in due course.

I want to deal with the position of the small dealer in South Africa to-night. The small dealer has to compete with his competitors, who are financially powerful, the chain stores, and so forth, to-day. In the first place, I think our small dealers can actually get in a position where they can compete with their stronger competitors. They can do this by making sure that they render efficient service and by applying the latest business methods. In this way they may counteract the competition. As regards the purchase of stock, the small dealer sometimes finds himself in an unenviable position since his bargaining power in this regard is not so strong. For this reason I want to appeal to organized commerce in South Africa to-night to join forces in order to enable the retailer trade in South Africa to have a better bargaining power as regards the purchasing of its stock. We are thinking in terms of organized commerce, the Suid-Afrikaanse Handels-Instituut and the Federated Chamber of Commerce. It is time these two associations joined forces in order to put the small dealer in a stronger bargaining position when making group purchases. We find to-day that our consumers’ co-operative societies already belong to a consumers’ wholesale association. In this way they buy large quantities of stock at the same time to enable their members to buy their goods at reduced prices. It is also necessary for the large chain store industry in South Africa to be checked. The only way this can be done is to make it possible for the retail trade to buy in bulk at cheaper prices.

The hon. member for Carletonville made this request two years ago.

I want to make a plea to-night for further assistance to certain small dealers. The plea I want to make is that the State should grant this assistance only under exceptional circumstances. Before making this plea, I cannot refrain from paying tribute to the small dealers, particularly those in our rural towns, who helmed the South African farmers through the period of drought we had in South Africa. Something which has probably not been emphasized sufficiently, is the fact that the retail trade in South Africa had made a substantial contribution in assisting our farmers during the major financial crisis they had to go through. For that reason I plead that special assistance be given to these small dealers under exceptional circumstances, for example during periods of drought.

Hon. members know what the position is. One has to pay cash at the chain stores, but when one wants to buy on account it is usually the dealers in the rural areas who have to give credit. Stock is purchased on short-term credit, while debtors pay their debts over a long period. There were cases where shops in our rural areas had to give their clients credit for periods up to 18 months. This had to be done as a result of severe setbacks suffered by our farmers. I should like to see that loan facilities be granted whenever we experience such conditions of disaster. Such loans have to be granted conditionally in those areas that are declared drought-stricken areas. The loans have to be granted subject to certain conditions over which it will be easy to exercise control. The conditions will be for a certain area to have been declared a drought-stricken area and it should also be possible for proof to be given that the number of debtors of the retailer has increased a great deal.

During the recent period of drought we had cases where the debt burden of these people increased by 100 per cent. I cannot say just now what the average figure for the rural areas in South Africa is. In my own home town the average increase amounted to 50 per cent. A further condition which may be laid down, is that the retailers have to provide the necessary surety. One final condition which is also of great importance, is that these people should be able to obtain the money cheaply. In other words, a low rate of interest should be charged on the loans given to these people. This suggestion is not only in the interest of our country as such; it is also in the interests of our farmers as well as in the interests of food production of our country. I want to express my gratitude once more to the retail trade of South Africa which assisted us by financing us during these periods of drought and during these periods of disaster we as a farming community had to go through.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vryburg raised the question of the small trader. This is not an easy problem, because on the one hand we have a situation where if we protect the small trader, we may do a great deal of harm to the general public as a whole. On the other hand, if we want to protect the public and allow them to buy from the chain stores at lower prices, we may do some harm to the small trader. This is a vexed problem not only in this country, but in most of the developed countries of the world. There have been a number of very interesting surveys which have been prepared on the continent, and particularly in the United States. Organized commerce is not unmindful of this problem. Assocom took a decision a very short while ago to set up a special section which would be able to help and advise the small trader. This matter has been raised in the House before. I will not say anything further about it, because I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister will not act in a hurry on this matter. The problem is much too involved.

I want to come back to the question of our external trade. I think we are all concerned despite the figures quoted by the hon. member for Paarl, to find that there was a drop of over R15 million in our export figures for the first three months of this year compared with the first three months of last year. Therefore, we are pleased to see from the Estimates that the hon. the Minister has expanded our trade representation abroad, particularly in South America. What concerns us is that this expansion of our trade representation seems to be ad hoc and not part of an overall plan. For example, I raised the question of trade representation in South America in 1965. I was told at the time that there was really no trade to be done between ourselves and South America and, in any case, the South American authorities had very little foreign exchange and their own currency was very unstable. But four years later, in 1969, we find that the Minister has decided to send a trade representative to the Argentine, a trade representative to Brazil and I understand it is also contemplated to send a trade representative to Lima.

This is an enlightened outward policy!

I have told the hon. the Minister before that there are other areas where we ought to have trade representation. For example, there is Scandinavia, where the position is that our trade representative in Sweden is responsible, not only for Sweden, but also for Norway, Denmark and Helsinki (Finland). I believe the position to be that the trade representative in Greece is responsible for our trade representation in Iran. It is quite a distance. Iran is a country that buys anywhere in the world. There is no problem of currency. They buy the best product on the best market. I am not suggesting to the hon. the Minister that he put everything right at once. We know the pace of the Government, But what at least we would like to see, is a planned, phased programme, so that the hon. the Minister will know what his objective is, what he wants to achieve, in order that he may achieve it over a period of three, four or five years.

Now I want to come a little nearer home and continue where the hon. member for Pinetown left off. That is the question of the sales tax and its impact on exports and more particularly its impact on our relationships with the old protectorates, who, as the House knows, are members with us in a Customs Union. From reports that have appeared in the Press it appears that there is very considerable resentment in the three newly established states against South Africa because of the likely impact the sales tax will have on these countries. The feeling appears to be that, as members of the Customs Union, there is little these states can do. But as they said in the Times of Swaziland, “It is a very odd way for a strong, rich nation to help its undeveloped neighbours”. The Franzsen Commission dealt with this question of the sales tax with regard to Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. This is what they said in paragraph 220

What we would like to know from the hon. the Minister is whether the principle of a sales tax was discussed with the three newly established states before it was imposed in South Africa. According to a report which appeared in Die Burger on the 26th April, the Government of Botswana is stated to have said that the three countries have not been consulted. I understand that negotiations are taking place with Eotswana and Swaziland, as was mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs this afternoon. We would like to have from the hon. the Minister a progress report on how these negotiations are proceeding.

There is another aspect of the matter, namely the question of Rhodesia. Rhodesia has the advantage over us now in regard to sales to Botswana and the other territories because there is no sales tax in Rhodesia. The question is, are we to be left at a disadvantage? We should like the hon. the Minister to clarify the position. We should also like to know how we stand with Rhodesia generally. A considerable amount of Rhodesian imports are bought from merchants and not from factories. Therefore the sales tax is not rebatable. In the same way our purchases from Rhodesia may now also be affected because of the sales tax. Rhodesia might well feel that she is being exploited in the matter, but of course she has very little choice. I would ask the hon. the Minister to clarify what I know is a very intricate situation. We should like to know whether the sales tax is having a distorting effect on our trade relations with Rhodesia, both in regard to imports and exports; because the whole position is getting confusing. The trade agreement with Rhodesia comes up for renewal next year. We should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether he is going to continue negotiations with Rhodesia on this point, and most important, whether he is going to have discussions with organized trade and industry before the new agreement is concluded.

One other matter that was raised here, is the question of price control. There has been an awful lot of loose talk. If the hon. the Minister wants to impose price control or check any rising prices through price control, he has to impose either a general price control on all commodities in the country or a price control of the majority of commodities in the country.

It is all bark and no bite.

That is exactly what it is. How the hon. the Minister is going to stop people from increasing their prices as a result of the sales tax through price control, I should like him to tell the House.

The hon. member for Pinetown has already discussed the shortage of staff. But it is not only the question of shortage of staff; he has to set up an entirely new price control organization. He, either, has to impose price control generally on all items—I doubt if the Minister will do that—or, he has to pick a series of items and then impose price control. As the hon. member for Pinetown has rightly said, he not only has to impose it, but he has to see that it is carried out. This is a task I do not envy the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a few comments in connection with the retail trade as it is being practised in the Republic to-day, with special reference to the code of trade as we are experiencing it in practice to-day. With your permission, Sir, I want to submit representations to the Minister on the basis of one single practical example, representations in the interests of the protection of the public as I see it. I was given proof of one single case where a client took his motor-car to a garage to be checked with the specific instruction to attend to the power-steering of the motor-car. After the work had been done, the client concerned received an account for R82, of which R53 was charged for checking the power-steering while R28 was in respect of other repairs which had been carried out but for which no specific instructions had been issued by the client, in other words, repairs which were not asked for. After the client concerned received his motor-car back, he drove it for a distance of precisely 1,200 yds. before he found that absolutely nothing had been done to the power-steering of the car. This is a very serious matter. Personally, I am in favour of the small dealer, the family business—for example, the family butcher or the family shoe-maker, who makes a point of keeping his clients on account of the special service he renders. But one gets tired of all the appeals that are made for protection, for assistance and a thousand and one other considerations. The small dealer in this country mainly needs only one measure of protection, namely the correct attitude towards the public as far as the motive of service is concerned. In this country a trading licence is issued to an individual as a privilege subject to the unwritten agreement that such individual is to perform a public service, and that he may not use such dealer’s licence as a permit to exploit the public in a reckless way. It is time that this matter be viewed soberly and in a practical way. After this client had travelled 1,200 yds. with his motor-car, he took it to another garage and told them that he was dissatisfied because the first garage had done certain work to his car he did not ask them to do. He then asked the second garage to go into the matter. I want to give these documents to the Minister. The second garage investigated the matter and fully repaired the power-steering of the motor-car at a cost of R7.63.

Perhaps that dealer was a supporter of the Nationalist Party.

R7.63 compared with R53, and then we are complaining about a manpower shortage! We throw up all kinds of smokescreens! Can the position be any different when our manpower is used as inefficiently as it was used in the first case I mentioned? What else should we expect? But, Sir, this is not all either. One of the things that was done to this motor-car and in respect of which no instructions had been given, was the fitting of a water-pipe to the radiator. The water-pipe was fitted to the radiator upside-down.

The owner of the garage was a supporter of the United Party.

Yes, I accept the owner must have been a supporter of the United Party. After the motor-car had travelled 1,200 yds. the fan of the radiator damaged the water-pipe completely. As a result of that it cost the owner of the motor-car R72.86 because the engine became overheated and the woman who was driving the car did not notice it.

The owner most definitely was not a supporter of the United Party. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sea Point will be surprised when he sees the names. He will have difficulty to swallow his remarks about being “verkramp”. Sir, the purpose of this speech is to point out that it is time for the Minister and his Department to give serious consideration to persuading the Motor Industry Employees’ Trade Union to draw up a code for itself and to protect its good name as employees in this industry by eliminating cases such as these.

Order! Is the hon. member not dealing with the wrong department now?

No, Sir, I am dealing with Commerce.

It sounds to me as if this matter concerns a factory.

The next thing I want to recommend is that, if the Motor Industry Employees’ Trade Union does not succeed in doing that, the Employers’ Association should consider drawing up a code so that the public may be rendered a service. If none of these expedients is successful, I wonder whether the time has not arrived for the Minister of Economic Affairs to consider means in terms of which a dealer’s licence may be cancelled. It should be possible to do this if documentary proof of this nature could be submitted to either the Employees’ Trade Union or the Employers’ Union. It should be possible for this kind of dealer to be suspended from the trade for the purpose of protecting the public. There are various boards of this nature which can take disciplinary steps in the professional world, and one wonders whether it has not become necessary for this to be introduced in the commercial and industrial world so that a dealer’s licence can be endorsed or cancelled if proof of this nature could be given to the effect that they do not have any code of ethics as regards their attitude towards commerce and the service they render to the public. I want to appeal to the Minister in all seriousness. The argument may be advanced that anybody is at liberty to refuse to be exploited. However, when one is undertaking a journey one does not know the dealers in another town. One goes to the agent or to the first garage which is the most attractive and the cleanest and then one is treated in this way. I conclude by making this serious appeal to the Minister to try in the interests of the public and in the interests of effecting a saving of manpower in South Africa to bring about greater efficiency and a better code of ethics in commerce and industry as that ought to be practised by dealers and licencees. This is not a permit for the purpose of exploiting people but it is an official sanction to render the public a service. [Interjections.]

Before putting the Vote further, I want to point out to hon. members that there are tow separate Votes, namely the Commerce Vote and the Industries Vote. At the moment only the Commerce Vote is under discussion. Hon. members should confine themselves to that Vote.

Mr. Chairman, in view of your ruling, I hope I shall have the opportunity of saying something to the hon. member who has just sat down under the Vote “Industries”. I want to turn to another matter altogether, namely the question of mergers. In a speech on the Part Appropriation Bill in February, the hon. the Minister dealt with the question of mergers, and this is what he said (Hansard, 1969, col. 1057):

Order! If hon. members want to converse, they should please converse a little more softly.

The Minister went on to say that in case, in terms of the Monopolistic Conditions Act, he did not have sufficient powers to deal with these matters, he had asked his Department to go into the matter and advise him further. We know that when the hon. the Minister asked his Department for a report on this matter, what he had in mind was what has commonly become known as the Mergers Bill which. I understand, was circulated to interested parties some time ago. The fact that this matter was raised by the hon. the Minister during the Part Appropriation debate is a clear indication that the Minister himself feels a growing concern for the protection of the public from harmful monopolies. I use the word “harmful” specifically and purposely, because I do not know that I am going to agree with the Minister’s Mergers Bill if it is submitted to us. There is very little doubt that the hon. the Minister’s speech, and the preparation of the Mergers Bill, stemmed to no small extent from the proposed take-over of the South Africa Associated Newspapers by the Argus Group, which was very promptly stopped by the hon. the Minister even after the transaction had actually been completed.

Therefore, we found it somewhat surprising when we learnt last week that the Schlesinger Organization together with Sanlam, which we understand owns 90 per cent of the Ster Film shares, had acquired the entire South African interests of Twentieth Century Fox. Now. we have heard nothing from the hon. the Minister. When the Argus Group wanted to take over S.A.A.N., the hon. the Minister, in a very short while said, that they will not be allowed to. However, when Twentieth Century Fox was taken over by the other film distributor in this country, we heard nothing from the hon. the Minister. I believe the hon. the Minister must make up his mind as to where he stands. He must not blow hot on the one issue and blow cold on the other. The hon. the Minister may very well say that it is in the interests of South Africa that the film industry in South Africa should be in the hands of South Africans.

Yes.

Yes, it might be correct for this reason but not where we have the creation of one of the biggest monopolies we have ever seen in the history of South Africa, a merger, which makes other mergers seem like normal business transactions which most of them are. I want to know from the hon. the Minister, has he had the report from his Department that he referred to in his statement in the previous debate, and did he give his approval to this take-over of Twentieth Century Fox? If not, what is his attitude and why has such a long time elapsed before we have heard anything from the hon. the Minister? This take-over can have some serious implications for the public because practically the entire film industry in South Africa is under one single control. It means that competition in the cinema industry has been reduced to negligible quantities. The public will now have to take as their entertainment, without any element of competition whatsoever, what they are offered, where it is offered and at the price at which it is offered. In other words, it means that the public may now have to accept limitation in the films shown, they may have to accept the fact that the present city cinemas will be closed down in the heart of the cities because of their site values and it may happen that the main showings of new films will be in renovated suburban cinemas at higher prices with films running for a greater length of time; a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Constantia in one of our previous debates. We already have this position in Johannesburg. In the past suburban cinemas used to show two or three films a week and the price of admission was low. What is happening to-day? What can we expect to happen now? We can expect that the suburban cinemas are going to show films for a much longer period and that the prices are going to be much higher.

I know the hon. the Minister is going to tell us, as he has told the hon. member for Constantia, that prices of cinema tickets are subject to price control; another famous case of price control. It is quite true, but price control is based on the yield on the capital invested. This is obvious from the increase of the prices of cinema tickets the hon. the Minister has given over the past few months. So when the cinema owner upgrades his cinema at an additional capital cost, he then comes to the hon. the Minister saying that he has to put up the price for his tickets. He then gives the hon. the Minister the figures of his investment and the hon. Minister works out the yield and then he allows the prices to be raised. However, a good businessman will always invest more capital in a venture if he knows that from the actions of the hon. the Minister the return on his capital is going to be more in quantity although it is the same in rate. It is very good business.

Together with the Press and the radio the cinema is one of the major means of formation of public opinion. The hon. the Minister has found that a merger of part of the Press in South Africa, which might have created a partial monopoly, was not in the public interest. I should like to know the hon. the Minister’s views on whether a merger of some 90 per cent of all the cinema houses in this country is also not in the public interest.

We shall never get television now.

That is the next matter I wanted to raise. Television is the fourth great medium of conditioning the public. If television comes to South Africa, and it is going to come, a great deal of the showing time of television is going to be used by the showing of films. Where will the films which they will show come from? From the single monopoly that has now been created. When you examine this whole process which has taken place and on the information that we have, and the hon. the Minister may have other information, it is quite clear that the public is going to get the raw edge of this deal. I think the public is entitled to answers from the hon. the Minister on two points. In the first place, why did he in the case of the newspapers prevent the so-called formation of a monopoly and why in this case has he not taken any action or made any mention of the formation of a monopoly in the film industry? Secondly, has the hon. the Minister satisfied himself, as it is his duty to do, that if this merger continues, the interest of the public will be fully protected? That is the hon. the Minister’s task.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown referred here to what I had previously had to say in regard to the Monopolies Act. I can give him the assurance that negotiations were held with the private sector after the legislation had been submitted to them. Those negotiations have made a great deal of progress, and as far as the Department is concerned, the draft legislation has been approved and it will probably be submitted to Parliament within the next week or two. Thus there will be ample opportunity of conducting a debate on the envisaged legislation. The hon. member referred here to the take-over of 20th Century-Fox. The hon. member stated that I had had nothing to say about that, whereas I had insisted, when there was mention of a Press take-over, that a stop be put to it. I want to say at once, as far as the takeover of the Sunday newspapers by the Argus group is concerned, that there was opposition throughout the entire community. Independent English newspapers were concerned about the fact that one group would control 80 per cent of the English newspapers; there was concern in Press circles; the Association of Journalists objected to it; there was opposition by the Afrikaans newspapers to the fact that such a powerful medium, which influenced public opinion in South Africa from day to day, should be controlled by one group. On these grounds the Prime Minister stepped in, although there was no legislation to prevent such a take-over. They were prepared to abandon the idea because there was such tremendous opposition to it. Now the hon. member is asking me: “What about 20th Century-Fox?” The hon. member asked me whether this take-over had taken place with my consent. The fact of the matter is, however, that they do not need my consent; at this stage there is no legislation which makes provision for matters of this kind. The hon. member says that I said nothing. What I did in fact say on the radio that evening was that there were various kinds of take-overs, and that this take-over was of an overseas undertaking by South African undertakings. I also said that sometimes it was a partial take-over in the shape of a partnership, and that sometimes it was a complete take-over. In this case it is an overseas undertaking which had gained a strong footing in this country, and which was now being taken over completely by South African interests. I also said that if the matter was viewed in that light, such a take-over would be welcomed. I went on to say (translation)—

Therefore I did not stand aloof, and I am aware that there is a concentration here. Here we do not have that position as far as the general public is concerned, and it cannot be compared with the attempted take-over by the Argus group. There was general countrywide opposition to that, which was not the case with the present take-over. This is quite a different matter. The fact of the matter is that there are other organizations here as well, and new ones may be formed, and it is not a foregone conclusion that Ster and Fox will continue to exist as separate organizations. [Interjections.] There may be capital interests. I have a letter from them here in which they state that they have by no means settled the issue. They do not even have the same shareholders. The Schlesinger organization has no interest in Ster. Therefore they are not completely identical and it is not yet a foregone conclusion, but I have already said that we will watch the situation. There are cases where there are monopolies which are recognized by the Act as it stands at present, where they are not contrary to the general interests, and they are not harmful. The fact that there may subsequently be a degree of integration does not mean to say that prices will increase as a result. It is possible that it may have the effect of decreasing costs. I want to point out that bioscope prices are controlled, and that price increases were granted, but they were granted because it was found in 1966 that prices were being increased, and we then froze the prices at the level at which they stood, and after 1966 prices remained frozen until last year. Then certain bodies pointed out that they could not come out everywhere. And what was then granted was not a general increase. The matter was gone into from place to place. I have here a long list of investigations showing how the increases were granted at various places after the financial results of each of these undertakings in the various cities had been taken into account, and after the improvements which had been made, etc., were taken into account. As far as they were concerned, therefore, this matter was gone into thoroughly.

They are all working at a loss, I suppose.

Do you expect to go to bioscope and have them pay for you to come and sit there?

Now reference was made here by the hon. member for Parktown to the fact that we have a customs union agreement with the former Protectorates and that we did not negotiate with them when we introduced the sales tax. I want to inform the hon. member of the correct facts. The facts are that we have a customs union agreement with them and we are at the moment negotiating its renewal, as these states have gained their independence. The present one must therefore be replaced. But it was not customary in the past to inform them in advance of our tax proposals. But here we have effected a very important structural change. Sales tax has been introduced, and it has been introduced here in order to enable the Minister of Finance to bring tax relief for the income tax payers who were heavily burdened. That was why it was done. But precisely because we felt that what we had here was a basic structural change, those Governments were informed in advance that we were going to take these steps. They were not aware of details. Our officials who went to see them did not say to them: Here are our tax proposals. But they did say to them that we were going to introduce a form of sales tax, and a general indication was given of what commodities, what classifications, would be affected. All three states were therefore informed in advance. We explained the purport of it to them and how it would affect the population in general. The customs as well as the excise duties which we collect are paid into a pool, and because they have no customs on their borders those states participated, under the former customs union agreement, in that pool: they received a percentage of that income. It was also put to them that if they also introduced a sales tax it would go into one pool and that they would receive their share of it when the formula was calculated. If they did not participate in it, it meant that goods manufactured there, or subject to tax, would have to be taxed on our borders. But on this question of the division, of the new formula, negotiations are at present in progress. This is one of the few points still outstanding. In the formula provision will therefore be made, if they agree that a sales tax should be made applicable to them as well, for them to share in this pool. We know their economy is quite different to ours. They do not have, to the same extent, the market economy that we have. This tax will therefore have less effect on their population than it will have on our average population. But we also know that as far as the buying power of Bantu consumers is concerned, it is only a small portion of their buying power which is expended on those commodities on which taxes have been imposed. It will therefore have little effect on them. [Interjection.] There are few industries there, and the levy will thus have little effect there. But it can also be to their advantage, and this matter is still under discussion and I am convinced that we will reach a compromise there as far as they are concerned.

What a lot of nonsense!

The hon. member also referred to our representation and particularly the extension of our trade to South America. We have our offices in Buenos Aires as well as in Rio, and an office will shortly be opened in Lima in Peru which will also be staffed, and then there will be three. He said our trade was of modest proportions but it can grow. The point is that our total trade with South America is of modest proportions. Our imports from them amounted to R10 million, and our exports to R5 million. This amounts to R15 million. When one bears in mind that our total trade is approximately R300,000 million, we realize that the total of R15 million is a very small percentage of our total trade. The hon. member said that he had on a previous occasion focused attention on the need for closer trade relations with South America, but as long ago as 1961 this Government sent a mission to South America to make a survey there of the possibilities. We were therefore aware of them, but this is a trade which expands slowly. Our offices have been expanded, and studies have been made. Safto itself, which promotes our trade, has paid numerous visits there, and market surveys have been made of those countries. This new air route brings new interest from that quarter. I think that we can therefore look forward to a period of expansion, not only of trade but also of technical advice. We already form part of a South American investment bank which is helping to finance those countries. We have already insured considerable projects with our export insurance there, but we also have export credit provision by the I.D.C. through South African undertakings which have tendered in South America for construction work there. Therefore the technical assistance, the financial assistance, as well as the commercial assistance and investigations are all things which are already under way, and I therefore think that our relations with South America on the economic level will become stronger. During my visit abroad I shall also visit Brazil and Argentina. My visit to Argentina will be an official one, when I will also have the opportunity of making closer contact there with a view to promoting our trade relations.

The hon. member referred in addition to the Scandinavian countries, and to the fact that there was only one man there. It is correct that there are quite a number of cases where one man has to deal with more than one State, but we are faced with a manpower shortage and we must also take into account what kind of market there is in these territories. The United Kingdom still comprises our greatest market, virtually one-third of our trade. With Europe it is approximately 25 per cent. Trade with Asia, and also with Africa, has expanded considerably, but in the Scandinavian countries there was consumer resistance. There was co-operative resistance to purchases, but there are also indications that our trade with them is expanding in important respects, and our representative there is doing good work. The hon. member referred to a decrease in our exports during the first three months. The reason for that is basically because our many exports have decreased. Our mealie production is not as high as it was previously and this is basically the reason why they have decreased, but the encouraging factor is that there are increases in the export of our manufactured goods and our commercial commodities in general.

The hon. member for Vryburg referred to the small business undertaking, and particularly to the retailer. As far as the retailers are concerned, they are a source of care and concern, not only for the Government, but also for the Chambers of Industry, as well as the Afrikaans? Handelsinstituut, which is giving considerable attention to their problems. Recently the Afrikaans Handelsinstituut wanted to establish a retailers’ distribution bureau after it had instituted a thorough investigation during the previous year, and longer, into the problems of the retailers. Towards the end of April the director of Assocom also notified me that, with a view to assistance for the retailers, they had appointed a panel of experienced businessmen to be of assistance to the small businessman in any problems he may have. Apart from other interviews which they had, we had interviews with them through the mediation of the Secretary for Trade in regard to this specific problem. The problem was not one of financing as such, but of advice, that is, what they must do to solve their problems. An investigation has already been instituted abroad into the organizations which exist there for the support of the retailer. At the moment a thesis is being written by a doctoral student at the University of Potchefstroom, also based on the experience of other countries and the methods they are using to assist the retailers. One of the larger firms has its own form of assistance which it is rendering to retailers. We also had interviews with them in order to see whether those schemes cannot be expanded. The Secretary for Trade has already intimated that the Government is prepared, if it has to, to consider legislation for the establishment of an organization, or to consider the alternative of supporting the private sector financially in order to help these retailers. I am therefore convinced that, based on these investigations which have been made by organized trade bodies, as well as by the Department, some or other form of organization and assistance may possibly be considered in the near future. The hon. member referred to the financing problem, particularly in drought-stricken areas. The Government has previously considered rendering assistance to the dealer in such drought-stricken areas and for that reason provision has now been made, in the first instance, to the effect that the farmer should receive more credit. He is the person who is affected by the drought and in his buying power which is consequently restricted; and rather than help the dealer it was decided to increase the credit facilities of the farmers so that their buying capacity could be increased. That is why the banks were instructed at that stage, a few years ago, to be more liberal as far as credit provision to the farmers was concerned. As far as the Land Bank itself was concerned, there was also consolidation of outstanding debts with existing debts at reasonable rates of interest. In the drought-stricken areas provision was made for loans to farmers, amounting to as much as R100 per month, to enable the farmer to purchase the necessaries of life. Certain provision was made even for non-Whites. So in cases where the need was really great, provision was made, through this form of financing, for the farmer in order to strengthen the retail trade.

The hon. member for Randburg referred to the poor service which was being provided by garages. In the first instance, it is a problem of mechanics. In general there is a shortage of mechanics, but in many cases the quality of those available is not of the standard one expects. This matter has also been taken up by the Motor Industries Federation which suggested to the Minister of National Education that they erect training centres in the large cities where these people could then be trained. This is an indication that they are thoroughly aware of the lack of facilities for the training of these people. But this is an aspect which should be dealt with by my colleague.

I want to come to an aspect which is closer to my Department, and here I am referring to the type of complaint the hon. member mentioned in his speech. We have the closest co-operation with the Motor Industries Federation and all complaints we receive are forwarded to them; they investigate the complaint and then take steps themselves. The hon. member can let me have the details and then I can submit it to the Motor Industries Federation. I think the hon. member mentioned the case here to demonstrate the general dissatisfaction which exists in regard to this type of service. The public must take note of the fact that where they have complaints of this nature, they should refer it to the Department and the complaints will then be investigated by inspectors of the Motor Industries Federation, with whom we co-operate very closely.

The hon. member for Paarl referred to the freight tariffs which have been decreased. This was achieved after long negotiations with the Conference Lines. The fact that they are aware that some of our export industries are having a hard time and that they are finding it difficult to compete—and here I am thinking of the fruit, the canning, the citrus and other industries—compelled them to agree under the circumstances, not that there should be a reduction on southbound freightage, but to grant concessions in regard to northbound freightage of our most important export goods. We were therefore able to obtain that concession.

The hon. member also referred to the possible entry of Britain in the European Common Market. We know that it is her stated policy to persist in her application. She is already doing so. It was France, in particular, who objected to her admission, and which made certain demands, inter alia that Britain should first restore her economy because they did not want a weak financial partner. That of course is still one of the problems Britain still has to overcome. The fact that General De Gaulle is no longer there, has given rise to renewed speculation as to whether Britain’s chances of gaining entry have not improved. All we can do therefore is to await developments. We shall know within three months who General De Gaulle’s successor is, and only then it will become apparent whether there is going to be a change of policy. We have already pointed out the problems which are going to arise for some of our exporters in case Britain should gain entry. The preferences we have been enjoying and which favoured our exporters could possibly disappear, either immediately or gradually. Britain will be compelled to leave the Common Market tariff on some of our exports, which will have a prejudicial effect on us. We also know that the European Common Market countries follow the policy of encouraging their own production, particularly of agricultural products such as apples, grapes, etc., and even canned products, which can in the long run have a prejudicial effect on us. I think that all these problems have already been defined reasonably clearly; it is simply a question of to what extent Britain will be allowed a period of time in which to adjust, and whether we will also be granted this. The representations of this Government have already been made to the European Common Market countries, as well as to the United Kingdom, and our representatives not only in Brussels, but also in other capital cities are keeping a careful eye on trends and on how the negotiations are going, and they are keeping us informed.

The hon. member for Pinetown asked what progress the Commission on the Companies Act had made. The position is that the task of this Commission is far greater than was initially supposed, because the terms of reference of the commission are not only to revise the Companies Act and to report on the problems but also to draw up a new Act. Mr. Justice Van Wyk, the Chairman, is in fact engaged in doing this on a full-time basis. But it subsequently appeared that the members who had to support him in this task did not see their way clear to spending so much time on the work and some of them subsequently resigned, and at this stage it is virtually a one-man commission. We have considered appointing other members to replace those who have resigned, but it would have been a further problem for them to make themselves conversant with the matter. The report is in two parts. The one part is virtually complete. It consists of over 500 pages. The other part will consist of more or less the same number of pages. Mr. Justice Van Wyk is also working on the new Act. A little less than two years ago we gave him some assistance in the shape of the services of a former registrar of companies, but it appears that the drafting of the Act is not progressing very rapidly, and we are at present negotiating with an assistant legal draughtsman to assist him in completing this work. He has informed us that he thinks he will be able to complete the work before the end of this year. I must also say that another factor has presented itself, to which we drew his attention, i.e. that since the European Common Market was established attempts have also been made by the European Common Market countries to make their companies legislation uniform. We asked him to consider this as well and to incorporate the recommendations of the E.C.M. countries into our new Act. Our new Companies Act will then not appear to be an amendment of the existing Act, but virtually a completely new Companies Act. I hope that this legislation will be available towards the end of this year.

The hon. member also referred to the report of the I.D.C. which was only laid upon the Table yesterday or day before. It had appeared at the end of last year already. The I.D.C. only made this report available to us this week. We made inquiries in this regard because the report should have reached us earlier, and we were then informed that a new person was working in that section of the I.D.C. and that he had neglected to let us have the report in time. We pointed out that it should be done with more expedition in future, and I hope that hon. members will not again be inconvenienced by the report being submitted here at such a late stage. I am sorry; it was an oversight on the part of the I.D.C.

In addition the hon. member asked why the assistance for overseas trade had been reduced from R4 million last year to R100,000 this year. The reason is as follows: The assistance for which we made provision was devaluation assistance and it was announced as a once-only form of assistance which would only be granted to exporters last year. The total amount which was spent on export assistance was a little more than R5 million. There are still one or two smaller claims which have to be dealt with, and for that reason provision for only R100,000 is being made this year, but it is assistance for export losses.

The hon. member also referred to Australia and said that we could learn from Australia. The hon. member has been to Australia and he knows that their economy is in many respects the same as ours. They are perhaps more advanced in some respects and we are more advanced in others. They have already sent an economic mission here, and we are now sending an economic mission to Australia. The economic mission they sent here was in addition to the trade missions they sent here. Our mission to that country is not a trade mission in the ordinary sense of the word either; it is an economic mission and they have been instructed, to acquaint themselves by way of discussions, visits, etc., with the main directions in which the Australian economy has been successful, what the development lines in the Australian economy are, and in what respect we can adjust ourselves to them and can co-operate on a commercial basis. This is a strong representative mission which we are sending there; it is the first of its kind. This is the first time, as hon. members will note in the Estimates, that R50,000 is being provided for this purpose. I hope that we may perhaps be able, before the end of this financial year, or next year, to organize similar missions. I think that the experience gained in this way will help us a great deal as far as our future actions are concerned.

Reference was also made here to the question of the sales tax in so far as it could have a prejudicial effect on export. The fact of the matter is that sales tax is not being levied on goods which are being exported. It is intended to be an internal tax. The question was, however, to what extent we could ensure that certain prices would not be affected. Mention was made here of the fact that there are labels on tin containers which are being manufactured by one firm, while the container itself is manufactured by another firm. There are not many manufacturers of these goods. I think that with the necessary co-operation on their part it need present no problem. Our entire canning industry is undergoing a difficult time to-day. There is not a single sector which is not experiencing difficulties, and precisely because that is the case, the Department has recently had to negotiate with certain of these manufacturers in order to keep their prices as low as possible and not to burden our exporters with the sales tax. We know what prices they are charging, and it will not be an impossible task to keep an eye on the position in this regard. The hon. member can rest assured that the canners themselves will see to it that they are not burdered unfairly with this tax. We know from experience that they will see to it that they are not burdened with unnecessary tax.

The hon. member raised a further important aspect. He asked whether we had enough staff to ensure that we could control prices. In the first instance I just want to make it clear that although we still have price control in South Africa to-day it is being applied on a very restricted scale. The classes of goods which are still under price control are seed potatoes, bioscope prices, building material, lucerne, fertilizer, mineral waters, steel products, cigarettes, coal, sugar, milk and fishmeal. These are the only goods which are still under price control. In addition there are a few others, such as tyres and petrol in regard to which there is an agreement that the prices will not be increased unless a prior agreement is reached with the Department. As far as other goods are concerned, there is no price control because there is enough competition to make price control unnecessary. We have virtually done away with import control so that imported goods can compete with locally manufactured goods as well. We therefore have very strong mutual competition, and it is this mutual competition which is keeping the prices of these other goods low. Actual price control is therefore being applied on a restricted scale only. The hon. member asked whether we had sufficient staff to do the work. We indicated in the reply we gave to a question here that we have our administrative staff to do this work. We have price control offices in the office of Inland Trade, and then there are the weights and measures officials outside. Last year more than 20.000 investigations were instituted by our staff in terms of price control regulations. In more than 18,000 cases they found no contraventions. There were in fact contraventions in 1,700 cases. In 600 cases warnings were issued, and more than 700 cases were handed over to the police for prosecution. More than 500 persons were found guilty, and the fines they had to pay amounted to approximately R8,000.

Does that only apply to the articles which you mentioned a moment ago?

This applies only to articles which are under price control and to articles the prices of which have been frozen. The inspectors are there to do this work.

There is a further aspect, and that is the question of the sales tax. I think this is really where the objection lies, viz. that as a result of sales tax there is now a levy on many commodities, and that exploitation can occur. After the sales tax was introduced the Department was very busy instituting investigations into the complaints submitted to the Department. We kept an eye on matters, and there are virtually no more complaints. Very few complaints are at present reaching the Department, whereas at first there were a good deal. These complaints were investigated, and it appeared that there were isolated cases where there was a misunderstanding and those levies were not correctly interpreted and that taxes were levied where taxes should not have ben levied. Those bodies rectified the position immediately and where overpayments had been made to them they were prepared to pay them back. At this stage the public is reasonably well informed in regard to this problem. I believe that by placing this sales tax on a long series of articles the burden imposed will not be a heavy one, because market mechanism and competition is there when these articles are sold. The buyer to-day knows that he must buy selectively. He is doing this, and takes note of the prices, and does not merely buy what comes to hand. In the case of this series of goods where there is no price control or price freezing I believe that the market mechanism will rectify these matters. The Department has also negotiated with organized trade, namely with the Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the Afrikaanse Sakekamer. They have sent out circulars to their members in which they request them not to levy the full imposition and the costs which may arise on these articles, but that they should bear part of the costs themselves. Whether this is going to happen we must wait and see, but I think that the sellers will not overburden the public with these levies because he is dealing to-day with a buying power which can proceed selectively in the purchasing of their goods. The buyer is not dependent upon one man, and if he is exploited, he can very easily go to the other sellers.

Mr. Chairman, this evening I want to speak about the deceit and misrepresentation which, to a large extent, prevails in commerce to-day. We are living in prosperous times, where everyone is hard at work making money and, in many cases to-day, the buying public unfortunately has to suffer as a result of misrepresentations that are made.

I should like to mention a few examples of these misrepresentations. One can, for example, walk into a shop to-day and see goods advertised at a very low price. The housewife buys these goods and, after opening them up, finds that the articles are of a very poor quality. For example, one buys a tin of canned peaches and when one opens it one sees that the tin is three quarters full of syrup and only contains, in addition, three or four peaches.

This is just like United Party policy.

Thus one finds many advertisements which advertise such articles by making impossible statements. Some advertisements, for example, claim that if a person who is bald were to apply a certain ointment or drink a certain pill their hair would grow, but the baldheaded men increase in number and the hair does not grow. These are all misrepresentations. The Minister has already replied to the question of purchase tax and I know that his Department is taking positive steps to prosecute offenders in cases where the public has been exploited. I want to mention the example of an article costing R100 and on which the purchase tax is R10. The seller then calculates the sales duty but also includes the R10. This is illegal and I am glad that the hon. the Minister has given us his reply about that matter. I am also glad to hear that many sellers have already been caught and that this problem is going to be eradicated.

However, this evening I want to speak about another matter in respect of which the public is being exploited on a large scale. I want to ascribe this misrepresentation to the motor vehicle trade. I want to make it very clear that I am not accusing the manufacturers of motor vehicles, but I am accusing the distributors. A motor car is no longer a luxury article to-day. It has become a necessity for the worker, and the matter which I want to mention concerns the disconnection of the speedometers of those motor cars which are transported by the distributors or the dealers from the factories, whether they be in Durban, East London or Port Elizabeth, to Johannesburg or Cape Town, or from Cape Town to Johannesburg. No motor vehicle dealer, and there are many, may tamper with the speedometer of a motor vehicle. It is a criminal offence to turn back a speedometer of a motor vehicle which registers 3,000 or 4,000 miles. I see one of the hon. members opposite shaking his head. I shall refer to him at a later stage. If the speedometers of motor vehicles are tampered with, the person involved can be charged in a court of law and prosecuted. I therefore want to ask where the distributors come by the right of transporting motor vehicles from Port Elizabeth to the far North and there offering them to buyers with a low mileage of two or four miles on the speedometer when those motor vehicles have, in fact, already travelled 1,400 or 1,500 miles. Motor vehicles are manufactured according to certain specifications and I know of the Volkswagen, for example, which has to be serviced after it has travelled 500 miles. How do the distributors bridge this problem, How is the oil drained off from these motor vehicles after 500 miles if the vehicles are on the way to Messina, for example? Motor vehicle dealers will say that the vehicles are under guarantee, but I know of an hon. member in this House whose motor car engine burnt out after the motor car had travelled a mere 8,000 miles, and it will cost him nearly R400 to repair it. This happened because this motor car was not initially subjected to the specifications laid down by the manufacturers and engineers. The hon. member for Langlaagte touched on this matter some time ago while the Transport Vote was under discussion. The Deputy Minister of Transport replied that the matter belonged under the Economic Affairs Vote. We spoke of the absurdity of someone buying a beautiful Mercedes in Johannesburg or Pietersburg and then driving slowly in order to run the car in. In the meantime that car had travelled from East London to Pietersburg. It had already been run in. The owner is unaware of the fact. Is this not a misrepresentation? I can assure hon. members that that motor car was driven at a speed of not less than 60 miles per hour. The hon. member for Salt River said that all motor vehicles driven in convoys were fitted with a tachometer. I want to ask him to-night to show me one such motor vehicle. I am not lacking in experience either, because I am also in the motor vehicle trade. Show me one such vehicle which is fitted with a tachometer. Not one of the new motor vehicles is supplied with that instrument because it is a very expensive instrument. I shall mention this matter again under the Bantu Affairs Vote in order to give the House an indication of the irregularities taking place. Hon. members will still be able to remember what a Deputy Minister said in this House. His words are recorded in Hansard, column 4607, where the Deputy Minister was replying to a question by the hon. member for Langlaagte, saying that he regarded it as a second-hand car. I am making a serious appeal to the Press this evening to listen to my request. The A.A. and Rondalia appealed to dealers to add a clause to their sales contracts indicating in what manner the motor vehicles had been transported from the docks to the place of sale. The A.A. asked for such a clause, to indicate to the buyer, “This motor vehicle was transported by road. It has already been run in”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the hon. member for Stilfontein speaks from his own experience, particularly with regard to this question of the transport of motor vehicles, the disconnection of speedometers, and so on. I think we will leave it at that.

The hon. member for Randburg also referred to this question of motor garages and cars. I want to quote from Die Burger of this morning, the 7th May, where under a headline “Loots Vra Minder Vulstasies”, the following is said:

Let me say to hon. gentlemen that it is obvious that the non. the Deputy Minister is looking after these affairs. I am sure that I can leave them quite safely in his hands.

I want to come back for a moment to the hon. the Minister who in his reply referred to the question of the suggested takeover of South African Associated Newspapers, which was stopped by the Government. Whether it was done by the hon. the Minister or by the hon. the Prime Minister, makes no difference. It was done by the Government. He said it was because of the concern that was expressed by independent English-speaking newspapers, journalists and Afrikaans language newspapers. He went on to say that, of course, the takeover of the film industry by two local concerns was something which he could accept. And he gives as the reason the fact that this was an overseas concern’s interests in this country which were being taken over by two local concerns and that this hid all the faults. He said that because this was a local industry taking over the interests of an overseas concern he should, therefore, not interfere and that there was no necessity for him to interfere. He also raised the point of no complaints. But I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I am sure that there were many other business interests in South Africa not already directly interested in the film industry, which would have been only too happy to take over the interests of the Fox group in this country. However, I am glad to hear that he has a Bill already prepared with the concurrence of commerce on this question of mergers. I hope that that Bill is going to take care of such a position and that it will empower the hon. the Minister to watch the position to see that it does not deteriorate to the detriment of the public of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister also referred to the sales tax. He referred to the fact that he was sure competition would keep prices within reasonable bounds. The hon. member for Stilfontein also spoke about retailers and the malpractices, as he put it, which are taking place. In regard to the sales tax I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that there are taxes on many articles which will have to be absorbed by the retailer. How does the retailer recover five per cent on a five cent bar of soap, something which costs him 4½ cents? How does he recover five per cent on that? He does not recover it. He absorbs it. How does he recover 10 per cent on a 2½ cent or 5 cent bar of sweets? Once again he is being forced to absorb it. How does the retailer calculate what the sales tax on an article is when an article arrives in his shop at from anything between 20 and 80 cents. It is impossible for him to arrive at it. Let us be practical about this matter. I am not going to white-wash all the retailers in this country and say that there are no retailers that are no going to profit illicitly by this tax. But these irresponsible statements which have been made by the hon. member for Stilfontein as well as the allegations by the hon. the Minister, namely that retailers are going to do this, must I think be viewed in their proper perspective. There are many retailers who will have to absorb these taxes and who in fact will lose. It is absolutely impractical to expect every retailer to mark up every item he gets into his shop, according to the ridiculous list which the hon. the Minister of Finance presented for sales tax, and to take into consideration the amount of sales tax which has been paid on that article. In many instances he gets it third hand through a wholesaler. He does not know the cost on which the tax was based. He does not know the amount of the tax. I think that these irresponsible statements can only lead to a diminution in the confidence of the public in the retailer. If this Government did what we asked them to do, namely to put the sales tax only on luxuries, this could have been done. But when it is put on every day small cost price commodities which are handled daily by retailers, it is impossible for these retailers to do so.

There is also the question of retail price maintenance. Let me say that we on this side of the House welcome the statement made by the hon. the Minister recently in regard to retail price maintenance. We are sure that, where this is a condition of supply of goods from the manufacturers, it will only lead to a better deal for the public, and we welcome it. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether his department has considered what the position is going to be in cases where minimum prices have been fixed. I refer to such things as dairy products, wheaten products, and bread. A minimum price has been fixed for such commodities. Is the Minister going to be prepared to relax that as well, Is he going to throw this open to the retailers and the chain stores, and the big supermarkets as well? Is he going to create the position where we will see the biggest rat race in loss-leaders that has ever been experienced in this country? Will we find that not only chickens will be sold at a loss, but that bread, butter, and wheaten products will also be sold at a loss?

Who is the lost leader? Albert?

I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what his policy is in this regard. While talking about retail price maintenance, another question arises.

Order! A Bill dealing with that subject is coming before the House. I am sure the hon. member does not have to discuss this matter now.

We have not seen that Bill, Sir.

On a point of order, Sir, is there such a Bill before this House?

No, there is not. I am just suggesting that this matter can be discussed when it does come before the House.

Sir, this comes as news to us. All I know is that there has been a publication in the Gazette in this regard. That is all I know of it. This is absolute news to me. I am very glad to hear that such a Bill is coming before us, and that we shall have an opportunity to discuss this matter properly then.

I thought the hon. member said that such a Bill was coming before the House.

No, not on this matter, Sir, I was talking about what the hon. the Minister had said about mergers, and not about R.P.M. Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss another matter with the hon. the Minister. I hope I shall be able to get some injury time out of this. I should like to raise the question of voluntary retail price maintenance, which is applied by many manufacturers. Here I think particularly of one instance, namely soap powders. Soap powders are purchased by retailers to be sold at a certain price. In Natal, there is for instance a price of 32 cents a box. Generally this price is marked on the box by the supplier. But throughout the year there are special offers. Usually such a box may cost a retailer 25 cents. He then sells it for 32 cents, which is a legitimate mark-up. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with me. Two such boxes are then banded together and they are sold for 50 cents. They are marked to be sold for 50 cents. This then costs the retailer 40 cents instead of 50 cents. I have gone into this matter, and I have found that there is no day in the year when a housewife cannot walk into a large supermarket to-day and buy soap powder at a reduced price, as a special offer. I think the time has come when a fair price should be fixed by the manufacturers and by the retailer, so that the consumer can be given a fair price throughout the year, instead of having to shop around, looking for special offers.

What is a fair price?

What is a fair price? Only the manufacturer can decide what a fair price is. I agree that this actually falls under the other Vote of the hon. the Minister, but I am dealing with this matter from the point of the supplier and the retailer, who supplies products to the ultimate consumer. I should like to ask whether it is not possible for something to be done to reduce permanently the price to retailers. If the retailer wants to make a special offer on a certain item, let him go ahead and make his own special offer. These special offers should not come throughout the year from the manufacturer.

Mr. Chairman, proceeding from what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) said, I want to touch on the question of the exploitation of the consumers: in South Africa in general. I want to say at once that I was delighted to hear the undisputed facts which the hon. members for Randburg and Stilfontein mentioned with regard to the question of the exploitation of the motorist by some garage owners in South Africa. The time has arrived when we can no longer close our eyes to the important role which the consumer plays in South Africa. I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has already replied to that to a certain extent, but to-night I want to go much further. I want to advance a much stronger plea to him for much more drastic action. I shall come to that in a little while. Last year already during the discussion of his Vote, I touched on this whole question of the misrepresentation of products, the exploitation of the consumers by means of the sale of defective articles, and the provision of poor services by some unscrupulous businessmen. I feel so strongly about this matter that I hope to have the opportunity, if this will be at all possible, of exploiting this entire matter next year in a proper debate on a private motion. I know that the Government is sympathetic as far as this matter is concerned. Some time ago I had the privilege of reading a speech which had been delivered by the Secretary for Commerce, Mr. G. J. J. F. Steyn, to a meeting of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce on this specific matter. I want to congratulate him on that speech. That was one of the best speeches in the interests of the consumers in South Africa I had ever read. As I have said, this matter has become an urgent one in South Africa as a result of the flourishing economy and manufacturing industry and as a result of the much higher standard of living to which we have become accustomed now. As a result of these things it has become much more difficult for the consumer to distinguish amongst the large variety of commodities and services available to him at the present time. To this I want to add that at present we are faced with advertising on an enormous scale which also contributes towards misrepresentations. In addition there are attractive packing techniques and self-service methods with bargains which are dangled in front of the eyes of the poor consumer like a carrot. All these things make it very difficult to-day for the consumer to make a choice and to decide whether or not he is in fact buying a bargain. I want to waste no time in asking the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the appointment of an expert commission to go into this entire matter and to ascertain what legislation for the protection of consumers we have on our Statute Book. This commission will have to investigate whether the existing legislation is functioning properly and whether such legislation affords adequate protection to the consumers. If not, it should be possible of this commission to make recommendations in regard to ways and means of affording further protection to the consumer public. If necessary, we should go as far as introducing legislation in this House. I am aware of the fact that we already have legislation in this regard, i.e. the Trade Marks Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Monopolistic Conditions Act, as well as other legislation. But I want to point out that all this legislation was drawn up when quiet conditions prevailed in our economy and before our economy started to flourish. My impression is that it has now become essential, because of these elements of high-pressure sales techniques and other methods, to reconsider the effectiveness of this legislation and to see whether this legislation cannot be consolidated. After such a commission has reported, the hon. the Minister should consider establishing a National Consumers’ Council on the same basis as that of the Economic Advisory Council in order to protect the public against exploitation which is unscrupulous and reckless at times and against some swindlers we have in the South African business world to-day. I am convinced that the commission will in fact be able to present a report of this nature. Therefore I want to ask the Minister to appoint a statutory body. In other words, it should be a body which would not be an advisory body only. It should be a body with statutory powers, one which receives a subsidy from the Government and which will fall directly under the Minister of Economic Affairs. Members serving on this body should be representatives of consumers’ organizations and consumers’ interests, such as the various consumers’ associations like the Housewives League and the Suid-Afrikaanse Vrouefederasie. Such a national consumers’ council will be able to render major and important services to South Africa, provided it is a statutory body. I am convinced of this. It may, for example, with the assistance of outside organizations and on the basis of its own investigations acquaint itself fully with the problems of the consumer in South Africa as well as the steps to be taken for solving such problems. It should also be provided that such a national consumers’ council, which should be a statutory body, should Table a report in the House of Assembly every year.

There is a great deal of uneasiness in this country about this exploitation, as my friends, the hon. members for Randburg and Stilfontein, indicated here to-night. After my speech here last year, various requests came from my constituency politely asking the Minister to see what he could do about this matter. Today the consumer is confused. There are so many articles on the market that he finds it difficult to make a choice.

It is not something new at all to give attention to the consumer. Our Government is giving attention to all sectors of the population. Ours is a Government which has achieved a great deal and has made a name for itself because of the way it attended to and is still attending to the interests of the farmers. I want to say to-night that the time has arrived for this Government to attend to the interests of the consumers as well, particularly the consumers in our cities. I know the hon. the Minister will do so. That is why I am advocating this body here to-night. A body like this is nothing new. In Sweden they have a body called the Council on Business Practices. The object of this body is to investigate malpractices and misrepresentations such as the ones hon. members mentioned here. Last year the Trade Description Act was piloted through the House of Commons. At present this is known as the Shoppers’ Charter. I feel that it should actually have been called the Consumers’ Protection Act, because that is how good it is. I want to make a very serious plea to the hon. the Minister to-night to give attention to the possibility of appointing such a commission to investigate this entire wide field of the exploitation of the consumer. This commission can ascertain whether existing legislation is still effective and whether it is not possible to proceed to this statutory body which will fall directly under the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, so many members on the opposite side quoted from the speech of the secretary of the department that it is, indeed, a compliment to him. However, I think it is a little unfortunate that he could not charge for the use of his speech, because so many members on the other side of the House have made use of it.

I should like to raise another aspect of the question of mergers, an aspect which has not been raised thus far in the debate. This concerns the effect on staff of the mergers and take-overs with which we have been plagued in South Africa during the last few years. It so often happens that very loyal members of the staff, people who have given many years of loyal service to their companies, find themselves innocently dismissed from their positions, having been retrenched by the take-over or merger. Unfortunately, this happens usually to the older employee who is already past the age of 45 years. Of course, that is the age when it is most difficult to find other forms of employment. No one can necessarily be blamed for this taking place in our economic life to-day. However, I do believe that the hon. the Minister should give this matter some very serious thought, because I am associated with the committee that deals with the people over the age of 45 who cannot find employment. I can assure the Minister that most of the applicants are people rendered jobless as a result of mergers. They have lost their occupations through their company having been taken over by or it having merged with some other company. I believe that this is a matter which we cannot afford to treat lightly and I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s comments on this matter, because the position will tend to get worse and not better as more and more mergers take place in South Africa.

I should now like to direct the hon. the Minister’s attention to a matter which I raised in the House by means of questions some weeks ago, namely the whole question dealing with the Hellenic Lines issue. The department set out instructions in regard to Hellenic Lines. I think it would be as well for us to look at some of the details of what happened in this respect. The department sent a delegation to Greece some two or three years ago in order to stimulate trade. As a result of this delegation the Greek Government obtained the services of Hellenic Lines between Greek ports and South Africa. They started operating this service with some success. But unfortunately they found that if they only traded with Greek ports, the service would be uneconomic to themselves. They had to go further afield and also trade with ports on the Italian coast as well. When they did so, they immediately came across difficulties with the Conference Lines. From that all sorts of troubles stemmed. At one stage Hellenic Lines made application to join the Conference without success. I believe that the department behind the scenes has been involved in this issue for a long time. I think the department cannot escape blame since they encouraged trade with Greece and quite rightly so. Greece then persuaded one of their largest shipping lines to serve South African ports. Immediately when they started doing so, they came across difficulties with the Minister’s department. This issue was further confused when the Minister’s department issued instructions that anybody shipping by Hellenic Lines ran the risk of action being taken against them by the Minister’s department. In this respect I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to some of his words in this House. In saying so I believe that his actions were not in the true spirit of free trade between South Africa and other countries.

He is dropping his notes.

You should have come and picked them up if you were polite! At one stage the Minister made a statement that importers were completely free to decide for themselves from which countries they would like to buy with their authorized import permits. It was not the Government’s policy to interfere with their choice of imports. The policy followed by the Government in regard to the Republic’s import and export trade was closely related to its basic principle in terms of which it is strongly opposed to all forms of trade boycotts. Despite this, the Minister’s department issued an instruction which, amongst other things, said that the Government regards the destructive activities of Hellenic Lines in such a serious light that it will have to consider punitive action in the form of withholding of further import permits. At the time that this was being sent out by the secretary of the department, the Minister was telling this House that we happily traded with every nation on earth. I think he said with a degree of boastfulness that we even traded with Communist China. I find that this is strange when one reads what the department said to certain importers and stevedoring companies, that if they were to tranship or ship by Hellenic Lines, they ran the risk of losing their import permits. The matter is further confounded by the fact that Hellenic Lines themselves did all that could be expected from them to meet the department’s request. Despite this, however, pressure was being exercised on importers into South Africa using this shipping line. At one stage, under pressure by the Conference Lines aided by the department, the Ministry of Commerce in South Africa sent letters to all importers in South Africa stating that they must not under any circumstances have any of their cargo carried by Hellenic ships. If this was done, the Ministry would cancel the import licences of the respective importers. As I have said, I find it particularly strange in view of the Minister’s earlier remarks to the effect that we in this country abhor boycotts of any sort and that we shall trade with anybody who is prepared to trade with us. From Hellenic Lines’ point of view they made application to join the Conference, as they should have done, and this was refused on more than one occasion. Before Hellenic Lines’ intervention in this shipping route, only twelve sailings took place from the ports concerned in the Mediterranean, while in 1968, after they started sailing from those ports, the sailings increased to 37. I think too that we must remember that Greece is probably the only friendly nation we have in the Eastern Mediterranean and that it is the only non-Communist country in that part of the world. Despite this, I feel that the department’s attitude in regard to Hellenic Lines was something that needs a good deal of explaining. Here they sent a delegation to Greece … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Natal mentioned the fact that so many of the members have made use of the speech of the Secretary for Commerce this evening that he himself can no longer take credit for it. But, if the hon. member for Port Natal had taken the trouble to read this speech he would have learnt something from it. I do, incidentally, have the speech before me and if he wants to borrow it he is welcome to do so. Every person wants to improve himself economically in life. It affords him security and he is thereby able to strengthen his position. It is also the law of nature and we have nothing against that. When a person tries to enrich himself at the expense of another, this personal advantage begins to take a wrong turn. I am now not speaking of a person who, perhaps doing business, walks into a trap with his eyes open, or of a person who perhaps conducts poor business transactions, because such persons have only themselves to blame for that and no one else. I should like to associate myself with the hon. members for Turffontein, Stilfontein and Randburg, but I should like to pay special attention to the advertisements which we read in the magazines and newspapers to-day. However, I must make two facts very clear. Firstly, the majority of the advertisements which we read in the magazines and the newspapers are very good advertisements. They must be there and give good guidance to the country’s citizens. The advertisements teach the citizens of the country what to buy, where to buy it and what to do, and I want to make it clear that I have nothing against that. What we are, however, opposed to, are these misleading advertisements which bring the public under a misapprehension and exploit them. Secondly, I want to state another fact, and that is that we must not blame the newspapers for these advertisements which are placed, because they do it on a business basis. The newspapers and magazines cannot accept responsibility for the conclusions, or for the purchases, resulting from these advertisements. The newspapers should actually be safeguarded against those advertisements which they place on the instructions of the dealers or the manufacturers. Quite a few of the progressive countries in the world have already begun to take action in this connection against the manufacturers and the dealers who bring people under a misapprehension. It has already been mentioned in this speech by Mr. Steyn which he made to the Chamber of Commerce in Johannesburg. He went into the matter at great length, but unfortunately time does not allow me to do justice to the entire matter in my speech. Various countries have left it to commerce itself to take steps to lay down norms for establishing an ethical standard for these advertisements. The best example of legislation is to be found in the legislation of England, where the Malony Committee investigated this matter and recommended legislation in that connection. Mr. Steyn also mentioned this in his speech, and I quote:

Therefore we should now very much like to plead for the Minister to act in this same connection in the Republic of South Africa. It has by this time become necessary, since the public are being exploited by misleading advertisements. Millions of rands are spent annually in advertising. This could in the first place perhaps lead to inflation because it is carried to excess. In the second place it misleads people because they buy things which they actually did not want to buy. In actual fact this also facilitates an unreasonable spending of money, money which could have been used profitably in other ways. In this respect it is therefore also very misleading. I should like to mention a few examples of advertisements which come to people’s attention daily. I want to quote a few examples from an article which appeared on the 13 th September, 1968 in The Financial Mail. I shall quote you a few examples from a translation of that article:

Now, anyone who can learn a language within 24 hours must be more than a genius. And yet there are people who fall for these advertisements and who apply. Here is a very interesting example and I think that Opposition members would do well to listen to it. I quote:

Well, this conflicts with all the laws of nature. Yet there are many ladies who, as a result of these advertisements, order this apparatus in order to improve their figures. I quote further:

Qualified is here written in quotation marks. When a person takes his motor car to the service station, those people are usually not qualified. Then there is another example:

Many people who wanted to buy that dining room suite were disillusioned to find that it had already been sold and that the dealer only had another in stock which was sold at a higher price. There are many advertisements of this type. Then there are offers of land for sale; especially these uneconomical pieces of land about which a person is told that he should buy it and that within 18 months or two years he would get his money back over and over again. With all due respect, how can those advertisers prove what will happen 18 months hence? And yet one finds some people who immediately send their deposits and trust in the advertiser, while they are merely being brought under a misapprehension and are being grossly exploited. These advertisements mislead people particularly by the beautiful words used. I have here an advertisement where a certain kind of toothpaste is advertised. The advertisement reads “Like Movie Stars. Make your teeth radiantly white, instantly”. I also know that there was an advertisement for a certain toothpaste which supposedly removed tobacco stains from teeth. People used it until their gums were raw and the tobacco stains were still there. There are also advertisements which guarantee that people will stop smoking if they use a certain pill or preparation, but there is an hon. member in this House who has assured me that he used that preparation for 30 days and that he is now really smoking with a vengeance. In this way the public is grossly exploited. I therefore want to ask that the hon. the Minister appoint the commission, which the hon. member for Turffontein requested, to investigate this whole matter. There are many other aspects which could also be covered. We need only think of advertisements in shop windows and over the radio, and even advertisements and suggestions made by pedlars who go from house to house. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down has continued in the same vein as other speakers, namely telling us of the grumblings of the general public and asking the hon. the Minister to assist them by putting these matters right. To-night very serious allegations were made against probably the second largest industry in this country, namely by the hon. member for Randburg and by the hon. member for Stilfontein. I want to say at the outset that the hon. member for Randburg did thousands of artisans in the motor trade in this country the greatest disservice by condemning them as he did and also by condemning a large number of business houses which have outstanding trading records by blanketing the whole of the motor trade for the alleged sins of a few. I am sure that the artisans concerned will be interested to hear of what the hon. member has said here to-night and so will the traders. I think that to make use of this House to highlight what has happened in a few cases is not altogether fair. Nevertheless I am pleased to hear that the hon. the Minister will investigate these charges. I hope that when the hon. the Minister has completed his investigation the results hereof will be given the same publicity as the speech made by the hon. member fox Randburg. I think it is wrong to seek cheap publicity, but the artisans outside will not forget these allegations. There are thousands of them and they should hear of this. One cannot come to this House and condemn the whole of the motor industry and all the artisans with it. One cannot make a blanket condemnation as was made by the hon. member for Randburg here to-night. Those people should know what he thinks and what his party thinks of them. Some of the finest business houses in this country were condemned offhand. I want to tell hon. members on the other side that the ethical standards, and the hon. the Minister knows this, of the Motor Industry Federation are very high. I am not ashamed to defend them. The hon. member for Stilfontein shakes his head. He agrees with that hon. member. He condemns the motor trade for selling cars as new which he says are second-hand.