When the House adjourned yesterday. I was busy showing why only the National Party can be entrusted with the great and challenging future tasks the fulfilment of which can be demanded from the Government of this country in the seventies. I pointed out that the safeguarding of white survival, the preservation and protection of the South African way of life, and the process of building a nation are a few of the most important future tasks. Allow me to add the further development of the Bantu homelands and the further expansion of increasingly better relationships between the different population groups in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration indicated to us yesterday what tremendous progress has already been made with this great task. I myself had the privilege of visiting various Bantu homelands during the past recess, and I can testify to the wonderful development which could be seen everywhere there. I can also testify to the sincerity, goodwill and benevolence with which the people of those homelands regard the Government of white South Africa. The development of the Bantu homelands is a magnificent and self-sacrificing task, and to-day I want to pay tribute to the white officials and the information Officers who, from day to day, are with great devotion and self-surrender providing information and guidance and helping not only to develop those areas, but also to develop the people in those areas. Without that, there can be no development of those areas. Mr. Speaker, no matter what spectres the United Party sees on the road of parallel development, we on this side of the House believe that it is the only morally acceptable, morally defensible and practicable plan according to which White and Black can live together and exist together in a peaceful way in this country. If separate development should fail, as that side of the House likes to indicate gloatingly, then we know that the only alternative is integration. Integration will mean that the white man will reach the end of the road in this country; it will mean that the white man will go to meet his certain destruction; and because the United Party is an integration party also as far as its policy for the development of the homelands is concerned, because it not only involves the uncontrolled influx of white capital in the homelands …

Not uncontrolled.

… and the fact that the white entrepreneurs will skim the cream from the homelands, but also means that integrated communities will be created in the homelands. This will destroy separate development for all time. Because the United Party is an integration party, the people cannot entrust it with this dynamic future task either, namely the task of developing the homelands and establishing and expanding better relationships between the various peoples.

Sir, a further task which I should like to mention here briefly, is the expansion of good neighbourliness between the Republic and the Other African states. Because we are of Africa, because we are in Africa and because Africa is in fact partly in South Africa, it is essential that there should be good neighbourliness between us and the African states. Sir, a great and strong country can hardly afford to live in enmity with its neighbours. How much more necessary, therefore, that a small country should try to surround itself with friendly neighbouring states? The further we can extend this belt of peace around us, the better. If we could extend it to the equator and even to the Mediterranean Sea, it would be so much better for us. [Time expired.]

We were treated yesterday to an excellent exhibition of some brotherly in-fighting between the two Nationalist Parties. I have no doubt that there are further bouts to be staged later to-day and tomorrow, and I think we might well run the danger of losing sight of some of the fundamental problems that face our country. I would like, with your permission, Sir, to return to one of these. I believe there is one area more than any other that gives a vivid demonstration of the Government’s inability to come to grips with the reality of the situation in South Africa, and that is the field of utilization and development of our human resources. I believe here we have an example of the Government’s complete incapacity to reconcile theory with practice and to bring practice into line with theory. I believe that here too we have an example of massive failure on the part of the Government to live up to solemn promises that they have made. That is why it is right that this Government should to-day stand indicted before the whole of South Africa, and that is why it is right that we should charge it, as we are doing now, with criminal waste of probably our most precious resource, our human resource.

Order! I think the word “criminal” should be withdrawn by the hon. member.

May I say “wicked” then? Although this whole Cabinet, as it sits here, is guilty and is responsible, I believe, however, that there is one more so than any other who should bear the full brunt of the people’s chagrin, and that is the hon. Minister who was so vociferous a day or two ago, the hon. the Minister of Labour, who is not with us at the moment. This hon. Minister’s approach to this matter is becoming, to put it mildly, curiouser and curiouser as the drama unfolds. He seems to be living in a dreamland, like Alice, that he has created himself. He is reported recently to have said that the crux of the manpower problem in South Africa was not so much an insurmountable shortage of skilled workers, but rather that the available human material was somewhat limited. Sir, that really puts the matter into perspective. That is tantamount to saying that there is no drought, but that we are just not getting any rain.

The Minister challenged me and charged me yesterday that I was trying to create a crisis in South Africa on the labour issue. Recently, in an interview with one of the Government supporting papers in Johannesburg, when questioned by them whether in fact a crisis situation was developing in South Africa on the labour front, he said: Oh no, nothing of the kind. He said that this was merely an impression which was being created by the United Party and certain leftist trade unions who are ably abetted by industrialists who are dominated by the profit motive. Now what a man would go into industry for if he does not want to make a profit, escapes me completely, but be that as it may, I can promise that I shall quote examples of labour shortages and I shall not take a single one which has any association whatsoever with the United Party or that bears in any way on what has been said by a leftist trade union.

Iscor recently announced that they have vacancies for 3,000 white workers. 3,000 white workers at Iscor constitute 20 per cent of their total white working force. I do not know how much the hon. the Minister knows about industry, but I can assure him that if you are running 20 per cent short, then there is a crisis situation.

They said they will have vacancies. [Interjections.]

Sir, the Public Service Commission is at the moment trying to fill 5,0 vacancies which exist in the Public Service in Central Government Departments. The National Transportation Board cannot spend the money that is voted it because it does not have the staff. Prof. De Vos of Pretoria University says that there are 800 vacancies for civil engineers that cannot be filled and that we have no hope of filling. I want to ask this hon. Minister, who is not with us to-day, whether he has in fact read the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. According to that report, as my hon. Leader has indicated, practically every head of department has indicated the severe shortages they have. In some cases the shortages amount to almost 50 per cent of their establishment. If that is not a crisis situation, what is? This hon. Minister has either not read this report, or else he fancies himself in the role of Horatio Nelson. With a telescope firmly implanted on his blind eye he sees none of the shortages that we see and none of the danger signals that everybody can see. All that he sees is the United Party and leftist trade unions.

If the hon. the Minister does not want to know what the leftist trade unions say, what do the rightist trade unions say? Now, you know that in South Africa we also have certain rightist trade unions, to whom the hon. the Minister has always been very well disposed. But with this new political alignment we now have in South Africa, I think the situation may soon arise where he is going to quarrel with the trade unions on the right as well. Then he will have trade unions to the left of him and trade unions to the right of him. Then he will really be in the middle. Mr. Lucas van den Bergh, who heads what is generally regarded as a rightist trade union in South Africa, is reported recently to have said: “In view of the acute shortage of skilled white manpower in some industries, the Confederation of Labour has agreed to non-Whites being employed.” He then set out the conditions. He is not likely to make that admission unless there is a shortage. But if the Minister does not want to listen to people outside this House why does he not listen to hon. gentlemen who sit there with him? There is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, Dr. Koornhof. We all know how carefully he weighs his words. He is reported to have said that “South Africa’s white population was totally inadequate for the country’s skilled labour needs.” If we move a little to the left, we have the words of another absentee gentleman, the hon. Minister of Sport. Before he heaped ash upon his own head, this hon. gentleman is reported to have said that in the period 1967-’73 it is estimated that the demand for skilled white workers in South Africa will exceed the supply by 40,000. He was merely quoting the economic development programme, in which they assessed a 6 per cent growth rate and they came to this conclusion. At least this shows that the hon. the Minister’s sentiments are right. If we move still further to the left there is the rumbustious Minister of Community Development, who also pronounced on this matter. I was interested to note that he did so without pledging his political reputation. That immediately shows that he was on firm ground. This hon. Minister referred to the “critically” low enrolment of engineering students in South Africa and said that “The increasing shortage of engineers will be a drawback to the country’s development”. But if the Minister wants to dismiss all the views of these hon. gentlemen as being of no consequence, surely he will take notice of what his senior colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, said some time ago. In November of last year he was reported to have said that “The country’s potential for continued growth was beyond doubt … but manpower and water were two very critical resources that demanded urgent attention”.

If he does not want to listen even to the Minister of Finance, surely he will take some notice of what his own labour group has said. The labour group of that party met in urgent session during the last session of Parliament. They met to discuss the manpower shortage in this country and in the notice convening this meeting which went out to members, it said amongst other things that they must consider the manpower shortage in South Africa and they must consider what to do about this severe bottleneck in the Civil Service as a result of the critical manpower situation. Do words mean the same to us? His own col leagues tell him that there is a critical situation. His own labour group meets to discuss the “critical” situation. The word “critical” is derived from the same root as the word “crisis”. Yet when the hon. the Minister talks to the outside world he knows none of these things and he blames everything on the United Party and on leftist trade unions. Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that this hon. Minister cannot solve the problem; he does not know that a problem exists. That is why the public and others have said that he ought to be sacked. If he does not like the word “sacked” then I will substitute the word “fired” because he should be fired. The hon. the Prime Minister should do to him what he did to the hon. member for Ermelo. Here however we immediately have the dilemma in which the hon. the Prime Minister finds himself because the moment he sacks him he will probably also start his own political party. So he is landed with him in the meantime.

Instead of coming to grips with this problem this hon. Minister is now involving himself in the field of higher economics. He goes around saying that the situation is really quite fair and rosy because the Government has decided on a 5 ½ per cent growth rate in its

E. D.P. This really is economic claptrap because no government anywhere in the world ever decides on a particular growth rate and no wise government would ever couple itself to one. You might have a drought or labour strife and your projected growth figures would then make you look extremely silly. All that has happened in this case is that the economic planners have indicated that with the existing labour resources South Africa cannot aim at a higher rate than 5½ per cent. They considered 6 per cent and 6½ per cent and they ruled them out on one ground only, namely the shortage of labour. That is how the situation should be put to the public outside. Let us see what a man like Mr. Jan S. Marais, who has a far keener understanding of the situation, had to say. Had he been sitting in that bench, we certainly would have had some activity in this field. He said among other things:

But what contribution has this hon. Minister made to the question of skilled manpower? I have scanned all the newspapers; I have read all the parliamentary reports, and the only thing I can come across is this incredible piece of advice he gave the motor industry recently when he said that if they could not get enough apprentices they should consider reducing and lowering the educational entrance standard. Now, this entrance standard in many cases is only standard 6. What level does he want us to sink to? I have tried to indicate that this hon. Minister cannot solve the manpower problem, because he does not even know that the problem exists in the first instance. I have tried to show that even if he does come around to it, he does not know what its ramifications are.

But I want to point out, thirdly, that even if he met these first two norms he is in no position to solve it, because he and his Government are shackled to that holy cow called job reservation. Now, Sir, somebody somewhere at some point of time in a moment of extreme political myopia conjured up this dangerous stratagem of job reservation. Others who are even more shortsighted have bandied it around since then in the form of a parrot cry. I think now that job reservation has been in vogue for quite some time it is necessary that we should do some stocktaking.

I want to give hon. members some figures and I want to show them how job reservation “protects” the white man. I think the field that we can appeal to, Sir, and that we can look at, is probably the garment industry; because if job reservation cannot protect white men, perhaps it can at least protect white women. In the garment industry we employ essentially white women.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Could the hon. gentleman tell this House whether the United Party would abolish job reservation?

I am trying to make the point that job reservation gives the white people no protection at all, and I am going to indicate it now. Hon. members must just listen to it. One of the job reservations that was made was No. 8, which was made in November, 1960, and which had special application to the garment industry. In this job reservation it was stipulated that the racial ratios which obtained at the time had to be maintained. The racial ratios, to the best of my knowledge, at that time were 19 per cent White, 37 per cent Coloured and the remainder Bantu. Those percentages had to be maintained. But then the stipulation went further. It said that in all further additions or accretions to the garment industry, the following ratios had to obtain: 25 per cent White, 37½ per cent Coloured and 37½ per cent Bantu. The figures that I have are from the Transvaal, where in any case nearly half of our people live. What is the position to-day in the garment industry in the Transvaal? It was stipulated that 25 per cent of them had to be White. At the moment only 9 per cent are. The Coloureds had to be 37½ per cent; they are 32 per cent. The Bantu had to be the remainder. The Bantu in the garment industry in the Transvaal number nearly 60 per cent to-day. That is the “protection”, Sir, that job reservation gives to our white workers.

But let me look at actual numbers. When this reservation was made in November, 1960, the number—I am referring here to women, because, as I said, at least one must assume that it can protect women—of women employed in the garment industry in the Transvaal was 3,100. The total to-day is 1,600. This is the protection they have enjoyed. Half of them have lost their jobs. The number of Coloureds has gone up from about 5,900 to 7,700, but the Bantu women in the garment industry have increased from 4,000 to 12,000. So the Whites have been reduced by half and the number of Bantu has increased three times; that is the protection he gives them. I can go on quoting examples such as this one, but there is another classic one. In this system of job reservation certain jobs are reserved exclusively for Whites. There are, for example, “markers in” and “choppers out”. I will take choppers out. This job was reserved exclusively for Whites. The composition in this particular category at the moment is 30 Whites, 120 Coloureds and 350 Bantu. Out of a total of 500 people in this particular category 30 are therefore White, only 6 per cent.

What is your point?

The hon. gentleman asks, what is my point? My point is that here is a job that is reserved exclusively for Whites, but at the moment only six per cent of the people doing that job are White. Job reservation is a mirage because it gives no protection. It is an illusion and the only thing it does is that it gives the White worker a false sense of security. Job reservation is the biggest hoax that has ever been played in South Africa. Last year Mr. Tom Murray, a respected trade unionist and a member of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council, invited the hon. the Minister to apply job reservation in the iron and steel industry. What happened? Here you had a unique situation, namely that of a responsible trade unionist inviting the government to apply its own policy. Instead of accepting this with alacrity the hon. the Minister had the fright of his life. Like all other organisms that lash out in all directions when they get a fright, the hon. the Minister accused Mr. Murray of irresponsibility. He asked where Mr. Murray thought he should get the Whites from to fill the vacancies. He also asked what he would do with 200,000 Blacks who would be displaced in that way. This is not irresponsibility on Mr. Murrays part. The boot is on the other foot. Job reservation is an irresponsible policy designed by an irresponsible government. That is what we should get across, to the country.

The Government say we are the integrationists. I will challenge any hon. member on the other side and I will prove to him that economic integration has occurred at a much faster rate during the last ten years than at any other time in our history. Economic integration cannot be worse than it is under this Government. The Government is giving our White workers a false sense of security. They say to them: We will protect you and we will protect your job. They then move industries to the border areas and this hon. Minister will surely not deny that his Government is committed to the border areas scheme. In fact, yesterday we had glowing reports from his colleague about how well it was going with this scheme. Why does the hon. the Minister not tell us that job reservation does not apply in the border areas? What is the government doing? They say to the workers that they will protect them, but then the industries are smartly moved to an area where no protection exists. What is worse is that non-White people are then employed in jobs previously carried out by Whites at a fraction of the rates of pay. They are therefore undercutting the Whites. I say to the workers of South Africa that if they were to go with this scheme and co-operate with it they are in fact conniving at their own destruction.

Why do you not tell us what the unemployment figures are?

I will deal with that. What I am trying to indicate is that job reservation does not protect any white worker. Mr. Speaker, in fact there are severe dangers attached to this job reservation scheme which the hon. the Minister has not mentioned. I will repeat these dangers. One of the first dangers, as I see it, is that it does not help to elevate the White man. It pulls him down. Instead of having other people who can push him up, he is now being held down by doing jobs which he in fact should not be doing. One must see one’s labour force as a triangle. The wider the base at the bottom, the higher the triangle can shoot up. But by limiting the number of skills that can come in at the bottom, they are not creating enough room at the top for both our white workers and our non-white workers. That hon. Minister talks about employment figures and unemployment. It is really silly to talk about unemployment in a growing economy. But what is important is to talk about underemployment. I suggest to this hon. House that in view of this job reservation scheme there is very considerable underemployment in South Africa. I want to suggest too that if proper use were made of the human resources that we have at the moment …

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

I am not answering any further questions. I am suggesting that if optimum use were made of the human resources in South Africa our national income could be increased by at least 20 per cent.

There is another field in which job reservation holds dangers. Whilst it does not protect the white workers it is imposing an artificial ceiling on the occupational development of non-Whites. It is a form of mediaeval guildism. If ever anything could create an explosive political situation, then this is precisely it. History has shown repeatedly that when you stifle the economic development of a group of people then they revert to the political weapon with much greater emphasis and much greater force.

There is a third argument that we should bear in mind, namely that it is vital in South Africa that we should increase our domestic consumer market. The more we can produce locally the more our unit costs will come down. The more our unit costs come down the more we can fight cost of living increases and the more we can run counter to inflation. It is essential that there should be a broadening, an opening of avenues also to the non-Whites because we must increase our domestic consumption power.

But I think there is a fourth argument that is important. We must open employment opportunities to non-Whites too so that we can increase our tax base. Why should the Whites in this country continue to pay for all these motorways, for all these hundred and one amenities that are being introduced to-day at tremendous cost? The non-Whites would wish to make a contribution to that too. However, they cannot do so unless we pay them enough. At the moment large percentages of them are under the poverty datum line.

We have a country where we could have a bountiful future. All that we always get from this Government are restrictions and inhibitions. South Africa could become an economic giant, but if we are not careful under this Government it will become an industrial pigmy. Our people want an opportunity to advance. All that our workers require from us are certain guarantees for job and income security. They do not want to be fobbed off with this nonsensical job reservation plan that has never even got off the ground and never will.

Our approach is different. We accept that there is economic interdependence between the various groups in this country. We say that if somebody had been foolish enough at the turn of the century to introduce job reservation and made it work, then our national income to-day would have been a fraction of what it is. Now the chickens have come home to roost. This Government is now being hoist with its own petard. This Government stopped the immigration of White people 20 years ago. And because we did not import sufficient White skills we have to use Black skills to-day. That is what they have done. We say in that booklet “the answer: you want it, we have it”. If that government had to write it the heading would read: “The answer: you want it—we do not have it, seek it elsewhere”. That is why we say we would protect the white workers by guaranteeing their income. That is why we say we will protect them through the rate for the job, which is an instrument used throughout the world. That is why we say we will have an appeal court to which workers can appeal if they think their jobs are being taken away from them. And that is why we say that the best long-term safeguard for our workers is in the training and retraining of our white workers. And what a dismal record that side has on this issue. When we had this measure before the House they voted against it on the advice of that hon. Minister. Sixty-two of them voted against it. It is all recorded in Hansard in col. 1663. I think we should send a list of the 62 names to every single worker in South Africa to show them how their interests are being protected by that side of the House.

That is our charge. This Government gives the workers of South Africa false protection. They talk about job reservation and as I have tried to indicate it is a six per cent coverage and protection they give. That is why I have every confidence in supporting fully the motion of no confidence put before this House by my hon. Leader.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am rising with a great feeling of admiration for this House and for what it produces at times. Yesterday afternoon was another occasion on which we witnessed a display of that nature, i.e. the ability of the hon. the Minister of Transport to show to this House and to the country without any hesitation the immense loathing he has for disloyalty and for deceit. But I have risen also because I have admiration for other abilities, including those of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. There is, for example, his ability to get rid of people in his Party outside this House. I have to congratulate him on another ability he has, and that is to hold the record as regards the number of statements issued. In addition to that I admire his ability, as he demonstrated that here this afternoon, to say very little with many and big words. I want to give an example of that. With a flourish, and to the amusement of his own people, he expressed the great truth here this afternoon that if one had trade unions to the left of one and trade unions to the right of one, one was in the middle. Do you know the reason for this verbosity, Sir? The reason is that the hon. member does not want to reply to the cardinal question whether that Party will abolish job reservation or not. I now want to make the categorical statement here that it is the policy of the United Party to do away with job reservation in South Africa. Now all of a sudden the hon. member is very concerned about the white women in the clothing industry. Basically his entire argument that the Bantu, too, wanted to pay for the roads and our main routes in our large cities was one to get the Bantu and their wives and children into the metropolitan areas. These are the abilities of the hon. member. That is why it is true to say that the working classes in South Africa have always rejected the United Party throughout the years and will once again reject it this year, because it is a threat to the white worker in South Africa. I have risen also …

Is that the Lumumba drum or the Congo drum?

Now the hon. member speaks of drums; possibly he is the only member in this House who can speak authoritatively on the subject of drums. I have not risen merely because I have admiration for the abilities of certain people, their ability to talk a great deal without telling the truth, but I have risen also because I have admiration for the experience of certain members of this House. We do not always realize that we have veterans here in this House. Take the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as an example. He is a Leader of the Opposition who introduced no less than his 18th motion of no confidence on Monday. Now that is real experience! It is only human for one to become bored with one’s own story, but look what wonderful abilities the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has. He gave no indication whatsoever of being tired of the story he has been telling for 18 years. He did so with as much pleasure as always. In addition there is another ability which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has. That ability is to lead a party to its death with a great deal of joy and happiness. I am now going to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the straightforward question whether he can honestly tell me that he has the slightest bit of hope in his own mind that he might win the election on 22nd April.

Yes.

Surely that is an immeasurable ability, a talent not many people have, i.e. to go into an election with so much joy and with so much hope whilst he knows full well that he will lose the election.

Whom have you ever inspired?

But I have already said the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a man with experience. If we are spared, he is going to introduce his 19th motion of no confidence this year. He is indeed someone South Africa must know and see as possibly the man with the most experience of what it is like to sit in an Opposition.

There are also other abilities one can see here. I am referring to the events we are witnessing here at the present time. What I am referring to is that the gossip party we have over there is going to be responsible for an achievement, too, the achievement of being the party with the shortest career in this House ever. At the moment that Party consists of four members only. That Party is in fact one which is going to gossip itself right out of Parliament. I firmly believe that the decency of our electorate will not allow gossip parties to affect the constitution of this House. No, this small Party will not change the constitution of this House. But let us examine a few matters now. The hon. member for Ermelo made a speech here and the hon. the Minister of Transport replied to him, inter alia, with regard to the sports policy. The hon. member for Innesdal said by way of interjection: “Why did you not tell us that people with Maori blood could possibly come here, too, as members of the New Zealand team?”

What did the Minister of Information say?

As though they had not been told that. They were told that on 11th April, 1967, as long ago as two-and-a-half years of the three years they complained about, and it was recorded in Hansard. They had been told that. The Prime Minister mentioned it twice. He said—

And he voted for that.

Yes. He not only voted for it but gave it his approval in this House and in the caucus. But at that time the hon. member for Ermelo still was a member of the Cabinet, and he did not utter a single word against the sports policy of the Cabinet announced by the Prime Minister, as recorded here in Hansard.

But there is another point we should like to have very clearly on record, and this links up with what the hon. the Leader of the House said. There are people here who say that for three years, under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, the National Party has been taking the wrong course and that for three years they have been unhappy. Surely if one is unhappy in a party, one leaves that party. But did that happen? The hon. the Prime Minister sent for the hon. member for Ermelo and told him in a polite and nice way: “Your services are being terminated; I no longer need you.” But he did not want to go. He had to receive a letter from the State President. Why did he wish to remain in the Party? Let the voters of South Africa ask themselves why the hon. member for Ermelo wished to remain in the Cabinet. But what is more, at the Transvaal congress these hon. members, the ones who are dissatisfied, were not the ones who raised these matters for discussion. That had to be done by the leaders, and when the sports policy specifically came up for discussion there was not a single speaker. The hon. the Minister of Transport had to go to the microphone and say: “But there are people here who are dissatisfied, and I am going to mention their names if they do not speak up now.” The hon. member for Ermelo was not the first speaker; he was the tenth. Why did they wish to remain in the National Party? In order to continue the policy of undermining they had been pursuing for three years. Why did the hon. member for Wonderboom wish to remain in the National Party?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I make the irrefutable deduction that they wished to remain in the National Party as long as possible to continue their evil work.

And there still are many more of them.

But there is something else. Yesterday the hon. member for Ermelo made great play here of the fact that the late Dr. Verwoerd was his hero and that things had been going wrong under the present Prime Minister. Now I want to make the categorical statement that the hon. member for Ermelo and his three other members are being blatantly untrue to the memory, the policy and the views of Dr. Verwoerd and to everything in which he believed. The untrue ones are sitting over there and the true ones are sitting here.

All of them?

The evidence is in Hansard. The standpoint of that Party is that Afrikaans should be the only official language in South Africa. That standpoint is untrue to the late Dr. Malan, the late Gen. Hertzog, the late Adv. Strijdom and the late Dr. Verwoerd. This is what Dr. Verwoerd said in this House on 18th September, 1958—

Mr. Speaker, who is betraying Dr. Verwoerd and the National Party—that gossip party or the National Party on this side of the House?

Why did you not sort all this out in your caucus?

Sir, I think we can leave the matter at that.

You are wasting our time.

I can understand hon. members opposite wishing to take their ally under their protection; I can understand that, but that is no reason for their wishing to dictate to me what I should say in this House. Sir, do you know why the United Party is so touchy? They know that if the things I am saying here become known amongst our people, their chances and the chances of their allies will be poorer. I wonder whether they will avail themselves of this opportunity to tell us whether they know anything about the activities of the U.P. candidate in Stilfontein, to whom the hon. the Leader of the House referred.

Mr. Wheeler.

Yes, Mr. Wheeler; he is, after all, their man.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow?

Within a few seconds I shall come to the aspects of health for which I am responsible, but in conclusion allow me to say only this with regard to the gossip party. I think the hon. the Leader of the House did his duty towards the electorate of South Africa in such a merciless way yesterday that we have very little to add to what he said. But I do want to say one thing: I do not lie to Uncle Ben Schoeman. Sir, in my own profession surgery is always something painful, but since the 18th century we have at least been using anaesthetics. Yesterday, however, it became clear to me that the hon. the Leader of the House had never heard of an anaesthetic! But I leave them to themselves. I just want to add this: These charges of yesterday and those which are still to come, charges proved with verse and chapter, will stand if hon. members in those four benches do not refute them with facts. It is encumbent on them to come back, because they have the opportunity to do so in this House. The days of gossiping outside and behind people’s backs are past; here we speak unambiguously across the floor of this House.

I should also like to reply to the hon. member for Rosettenville, who referred here to medical costs as well as the United Party’s plan to put a State-subsidized medical aid scheme into operation. But let me first say a few words in connection with the increased medical and dental fees which were announced recently. I should like to give you the history of that, Sir. You will remember, Sir, that I took over this portfolio 18 months ago at which time great unrest, uncertainty and mistrust had existed for a considerable time, for several years, between the sick funds on the one hand and doctors and dentists and their associations on the other hand, all to the disadvantage of the patient. I then brought all interested parties together, i.e. the representatives of the patients, the representatives of the doctors and the representatives of the dentists, and with the concurrence of all of them I came to this House with certain amending legislation. I want to point out that that amending legislation was passed unanimously by this House. In other words, I think it is only fair towards our patients to say that we as a House accept joint responsibility for the appointment of the remuneration commission and for the rules under which it functioned.

You will also remember, Sir, that at that time most of the doctors had contracted out. Therefore fees were much higher than those given in the tariff of fees. We must not forget that. Now the vast majority of doctors have contracted in again. Now they keep to the fixed tariffs. Hon. members will ask me why we announced an increase in medical and dental fees prior to an election. The reason for this is that it was not in my discretion as Minister or in the discretion of the Government to do anything else. Last year, and I think rightly so, when this dispute was taking place, we decided in this House that a remuneration commission had to be appointed, consisting of a Judge, a representative of the medical profession, a representative of the dental profession and a representative of the patients, i.e. the schemes. We decided that they, as a judicial commission, would examine the entire matter and would determine the fees and remuneration for dentists and doctors for the next two years. In terms of the Act I was obliged to appoint such a remuneration commission within a month after the coming into operation of that Act.

Secondly, the Act laid down that the remuneration commission had to report to me within three months.

Thirdly, the Act provided that I was obliged to publish the full recommendation, as it was, within a period of one month. It had to be final. In other words, not even the House, or I as Minister, or the Government would have any say in the matter. I think that was one of the most sensible steps this House had taken. Here I have the report in my hand. It consists of 480 pages. The work done by Mr. Justice Erasmus and his assessors within a period of three months was a gigantic task. But apart from the report itself, there are 6,490 items as regards medical practice. As far as dental practice is concerned, there are 1,003 items. Each one had been worked out in detail, and in each case it was determined what the remuneration should be. I say this House has taken a sensible step, because hon. members will agree with me that neither a Minister, nor a Government, nor a House of Assembly would have been able to do this work as it had been done by this judicial commission. This work resulted in the publication of this report and in a general increase in fees, but in certain respects also in a decrease. These fees were determined on a scientific basis, to use the words of the Judge. This is the first time in the history of South Africa that this dispute is not being bandied about in the streets, but has the authority of a judicial commission. I firmly believe that this is in the interests of patients in South Africa, and that is all that concerns me.

But another fact of this matter is that this report was released for all to see. Everyone may study the report and see on what basis this judicial commission determined these remunerations. When this commission meets again, it will be possible to review this entire matter. Therefore, everyone who has an interest in this matter will have all the information to enable him to give evidence and make representations. More than that, I think, I cannot do. Furthermore, this will more or less mean that the monthly contributions of a man who has a wife and children will be approximately 75c to R1 per month more. This amount will, of course, be reviewed after two years. Let me now make this point very clear. This relates to sick funds only. Our indigent are being cared for in any case. I want to bring it to the attention of every person in South Africa once again that in terms of the Act there is an absolute obligation on the doctor to inform a patient what fees he is going to charge him. The patient is entitled to that and makes use of that right.

Secondly, last year we simplified the procedure to a large extent by means of amending legislation so that if there is any dissatisfaction it is possible for any patient who feels himself aggrieved to go, without any red tape, to the Medical and Dental Council, on which laymen, too, serve as members in order to promote the interests of the patient and to hear and discuss his case justly.

Thirdly, I should like to bring the following matter to the attention of all people in South Africa. At present the opportunity exists for every man and woman to obtain sick fund coverage in some way. I want to make this appeal: Take this opportunity, because then you will have security for now and for ever and no anxiety about possibly high expenditure when illness hits the home. The monthly contributions are such that I believe that our people can afford to pay them. I have been doing so for the past 12 years and I have never regretted it, because I do not have the worry that I am going to suffer major financial setbacks if accidents or illness were to hit my home.

In a discussion of increased medical fees, and nobody wants increased fees except those who receive them, we really should turn an eye, too, to what is being done in South Africa. There is no fixed formula, but I have obtained the approximate statistics from the various provinces. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Treasury pays a subsidy to the provinces. The figure concerned came to approximately R84 million last year. This amount was paid from the State coffers solely for hospital and health services in the four provinces. A few other amounts should be added to that. To our hospitals for mental patients, institutions for mental defectives, hospitals for tuberculosis sufferers and other institutions an amount of R18 million, in round figures, was made available last year for those unfortunate members of our population.

Is there accommodation for all of them?

At the moment reasonable facilities are available for all mental patients and those requiring treatment. We have problems as far as tuberculosis is concerned, but also in this respect treatment has changed so that one can give this treatment without hospitalization. But to this amount of R18 million should be added subsidies from various bodies and persons concerned with the health of our people. These subsidies amount to R16½ million. An additional amount of R5¼ million should be added in respect of the medicines and aids required by district surgeons. As far as public health services are concerned, i.e. services rendered by local authorities, nursing services and health Officers employed by local authorities, the figure concerned is approximately R3 million. Therefore in round figures we have the amount of R42J million which, when added to the subsidy to the provinces of R84 million, gives us a total of R126½ million which was made available by the State for the sick in our country and the health of the people of South Africa. However, I think that something else should be added to this. Approximately 400 doctors qualify in South Africa each year. According to a very conservative estimate, each student who completes his studies costs the State between R12,000 and R15,000. This, therefore, is an additional amount of R5 to R6 million per year. In other words, last year the State spent approximately R130 million, in round figures, on public health, one of the most important matters for each of us sitting here. Now, in all fairness and without making a political issue of this matter, I think that the Government and my Department in co-operation with the provinces are not neglecting our people but are sympathetically and conscientiously giving them as much as we can afford. I think it has always been characteristic of South Africa that we see to this matter.

Now I come to the hon. member for Rosettenville and his proposal that there should be national medical aid schemes to which the patient, the employer and the State should contribute. However, I should like to point out a few matters to the hon. member. The first is that the number of sick funds in South Africa grew from 171 in 1960 to 316 last year. Last year the membership was 868,790. The number of dependants, the beneficiaries, including the wives and children, came to 2,156,002. These figures relate to Whites only. I think we have made a great deal of progress as far as insurance against sickness is concerned by means of sick funds without legislation or obligation, without the State having any financial obligation and without there having been any question of a State-aided medical service. We have made progress to such an extent that more than 2 million, more than half of the white population, already have coverage. Therefore in my opinion this is an inopportune time to suggest that the State, too, should establish a scheme. Let me put it quite clearly to hon. members that the principle that the State should subsidize a medical aid fund is part and parcel of this Government’s policy. This is being done with regard to the medical aid scheme of public servants. This is being done with regard to the Aid Fund of the Railways. Therefore, as far as this principle is concerned, there are no problems. This Government has never done so, nor do I want to express myself on this occasion as being absolutely opposed to the consideration of a subsidy for sick funds. However, I should like to make one thing very clear. I do not want to make this an election promise, because if I look at these figures and at the development in South Africa, I think this is an inopportune time. Therefore I cannot accept the proposal of the hon. member at this stage. I think the system is developing in a direction which we should encourage. I know that our agricultural and other organizations, as well as those of our ministers of religion, are establishing their own schemes. I think this is a healthy development in South Africa.

In conclusion I should like to announce, however, that in terms of the Medical Schemes Act it is possible for me to re-appoint a remuneration commission in the interim. My intention is to do so at an early date after consultation with the Medical Council. It is hoped that they will report to me within a month’s time on these high fees, because there are certain anomalies and printer’s errors which have to be rectified. I am going to re-appoint that commission, with the concurrence of the Medical Council, to investigate these matters from scratch. I hope this will give satisfaction. This is the most the Government and I can do in terms of the present legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. the Minister of Health will understand if I do not reply to him. He spent a few moments of his time having a little fun at the expense of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He spent a good deal of his time conducting some tribal warfare. The rest of the time he was replying to the hon. member for Rosettenville. So I think, Sir, you. will forgive me if I continue with my own speech, particularly as I have very little time at my disposal. I want to clarify my position at once. I have no confidence in the Government, I have no respect for the official Opposition; and I have no time for the Herstigtes. That, in a nutshell, is my position in this House. I want to say at once that I have listened for two days in this House and I have heard not one single word from any member of common humanity, compassion or care about the three-quarters of the population, the millions of voteless non-Whites over whom this white Parliament has complete and unfettered control. I have heard the United Party telling us about its determination to maintain white control over the whole of South Africa. I have heard Government speakers talk long and loud about the need for self-preservation. I have listened to plenty of robust vote-catching speeches on both sides of the House, and I have heard a good deal of time, as I have said, taken up by internecine warfare. It just occurs to me, Sir, I wonder what the uncommitted youth of South Africa feels about all the speeches that are emanating from Parliament on the eve of an election, speeches which have offered not one single spark of idealism to the young generation of this country.

Now, it would have been very nice to have been able to sit back and simply play the role of the spectator sportsman in all this internecine warfare, but I cannot. I am probably the only M.P. on the Opposition side who is not deriving a good deal of pleasure out of the verkrampte/ super verkrampte conflict which is going on in the country. I make no secret of the fact that I am extremely worried about what is going on in the Nationalist ranks. If this split had been engendered by men of good will in the National Party who finally reached the conclusion that the cloak of moral respectability, that is separate development, which Dr. Verwoerd threw around apartheid, is now ragged and threadbare and was not going to serve this country any more, I would have been overjoyed at what has happened. If men of intelligence in the National Party were taking stock of the credibility gap that grows wider every day between the theory of separate development and the practice of separate development, and if sensible men in the National Party were making their revulsion felt for the sufferings of thousands upon thousands of people who are shunted from veld to veld and out of the towns to live lives of hopeless idleness and misery in the resettlement villages, I would have been delighted. I would also have been delighted if some of the men in the National Party hierarchy had been expressing some concern about a policy that breaks up family life, which results in thousands upon thousands of men and women going to jail every year for statutory offences, which keeps millions of people living below the poverty datum line and which does very little to counter the frighteningly high rate of malnutrition in a country as prosperous as South Africa. I would also have been glad if they were worried about the thousands of Indians who are deprived of their livelihood and about the thousands of Coloureds who are deprived of their neighbourhood. I would have been glad if some conscience-stricken Nationalists had called a halt to white greed that has resulted in the Whites grabbing all the best beaches and residential areas and all the best trading areas for themselves. I would be happy if it begins to occur to just a few Nationalists that the peace and quiet about which we hear so much is spurious in a country with one of the highest crime rates in the Western world. South Africa is the country with the highest pro rata daily prison population in the Western world, a country where crimes of violence like murder, robbery and assault are on the increase every day. It is a spurious peace and quiet we are enjoying in this country. If doubts about these things had caused the split, a feeling of real hope could have been sweeping South Africa.

But, of course, none of the vital issues I have mentioned plays any part whatever in the disagreement between the amorphous mass of the National Party opposite me and the quaint quartet seated on my right. The issue is all about Maoris dancing with our daughters; it is about dining with black diplomats, mixed Girl Guide jamborees about which the hon. member for Ermelo was so upset yesterday; it is about whether we should risk the introduction of television and whether it is not going to undermine the moral fibre of South Africa. I want to say at once that I do not take umbrage at the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the desirability of television. Of course, it is palpably absurd to inquire into the desirability of the most modern means of communication which the world has been enjoying for 20 years. But I do understand why the Government has done it. You cannot tell people for 20 years that television is bad for them and then give it to them as an election present. This would be too obvious. There has to be a face-saver. Let the Government have a face-saver; after all the Government is only human, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. It is of course inevitable that we will get television, because South Africans are madly keen to watch South Africans play in international matches. The tragic irony of it all is that by the time we have television there will be no matches to watch in which South African sportsmen will be playing. It is a great shame that the Ashe issue came just before our general election. If only the South African championships had been played in June instead of in March of this year I think there is a considerable chance that Ashe might have got his visa and we might still be watching international matches on television when we get it.

If my worry is about the fact that real issues have not caused the split in the Nationalist Party, but spurious issues, my real worry is about what is going to happen to this country after the election. I believe the Nationalist Party has had a bad fright. I am afraid the hon. the Prime Minister is easily panicked. The very fact that he has called this election shows that he is easily panicked. What worries me is the direction that the Nationalist Party is going to take after the election. None of the speeches that I have heard during this debate has allayed my fears in this respect. Yesterday I listened to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I do not think he made a good speech. I think it was a very ominous speech because it displayed a grim determination to continue to take South Africa in the same direction of attempting the impossible, of separating the economy of the white man from the economy of the black man, of pushing non-Whites out of the white areas irrespective, in order to prove some completely fictitious set of figures. Let me give an example. The hon. the Minister boasted that because of the implementation of the Physical Planning Act something like 260,000 —I think he gave this figure—additional Africans had been prevented from coming into white areas. He said if you take a conservative estimate and you multiplied by five for dependants something like over 1¼ million Africans had been prevented from increasing the number of Africans in the urban areas. He pointed out moreover that the increase of Africans.in the urban areas had largely been from natural increases and, he said that was despite the fact that the Government is accused of breaking family life. If that is all that he knows about life in the urban townships, and he does not know that half the births in the urban townships are illegitimate births, he knows very little about his own portfolio. However, let me get back to this question of the 1¼ million people he has prevented from coming into the white areas. What has happened to those people? Where are they? That is what I should like to know. Where are these would-be workseekers who would have been employed by the extension of industry in the existing industrial areas had the hon. the Minister not prevented them from coming in? He does not tell us what has happened to these people. He does not tell us that he has condemned them to a life of poverty and idleness in the reserves. The hon. the Minister cannot tell me that all those people are employed in border industries. He knows that that is not so. He knows perfectly well too that the number of jobs created by border industries is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of jobs that existing industries in the white industrial areas are offering to non-white workers, and particularly Africans.

While I am busy with this hon. Minister, I would like him to explain something that my simple mind has not been able to grasp. Why is it all right, as he has told us, for Africans to be working in areas like Rosslyn, a border area, and Brits, a border industry, and sleep in the Bantustans nearby? I think the Bantustan that serves Brits is something like three or five miles away from Brits. Why is that all right, but it is not all right for Africans working in Johannesburg to sleep in Soweto which is a non-Bantustan and is about ten miles away? Why is white civilization not endangered by people sleeping three to five miles away from the white industrial area in Brits, but is desperately in danger if the hon. the Minister continues to allow Africans sleeping in Soweto to work in Johannesburg? I think the hon. the Minister ought to do something which was originally suggested facetiously by me, but now quite seriously, that he should simply convert Soweto into a Bantustan. Let him call it what he likes. I do not care. Three-quarter million people will then live in security, will have secured family lives, will be able to own freehold houses and will be able to continue to work in the industrial areas of the Witwatersrand which can now be called border industries.

[Inaudible.]

We don’t care what you call it as long as you allow continued development. And if he is worried about the hon. member for South Coast, as he no doubt will be, stomping around the country claiming that the National Party is grabbing white land and handing it over to the Bantustans, then let him exchange the exact area of land in any country district somewhere, out in the bundu, with no industrial possibilities whatever, for the exact area of Soweto. Everybody will then be happy. The hon. member for South Coast won’t complain, the hon. the Minister would have saved face because he has got another Bantustan where Africans sleeping in that area are working in bordet industries. I certainly will be very happy and so will every industrialist on the Witwatersrand, because they will be secure in their labour supply. Most of all, the Africans, three-quarter million Africans, living in Soweto, presently under the threat of insecurity and the removal of their de jure rights to be there, will also be happy. My fears, if not allayed by the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration, were certainly not allayed by the speech of the hon. Minister of Labour. And I think it is extraordinary how this hon. Minister always manages to disappear from the Chamber when one is about to talk about him. He did it yesterday, and he did it to-day.

The hon. Minister of Labour yesterday told us about the direction in which he intended to take South Africa as far as the labour policy is concerned. And what did we get from him? We got a lot of outdated nonsense, all about the industrial colour bar and a philosophy which is better suited to 50 years ago when South Africa was facing a poor white problem than in the 70’s when South Africa, we all hope, will have burgeoning economy and a growing demand for labour. I can only hope and pray that all the claptrap that I have listened to over the last two days is simply pre-election hysteria, and that when all the heat and dust of the election have died down and all the heat and dust engendered in the Nationalist brains by the Herstigtes have also died down …

What are your chances?

My chances are just fine. The hon. member need rest assured that I will be back, with him I trust, next session. I hope that when all this has died down that the Prime Minister will take the sensible line of leading himself, his party and South Africa into the stream of continued progress and economic development. I hope that he is not going to be so badly frightened by the hidden strength among the super verkramptes that he will continue to perpetuate the outdated philosophy which is designed to protect right-wing trade unions among which I understand there is support for the super verkramptes. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will have the courage to get off the back of the tiger that the Nationalist Party has been riding for the last 25 years and that he will re-educate his own supporters to understand that white prosperity and non-white advancement are not mutually exclusive but that they are synonymous, that admitting the thousands of non-White persons who are banging at the doors of our economy, anxious, willing and able to be absorbed by the intensified demands of a sophisticated industrialized society, is the best guarantee for the continued full employment of white people in this country. If he does not do this I see nothing but the road to a shrinking economy in South Africa, to ever-increasing isolation, to an ever-increasing proportion of our national expenditure having to be devoted to defence, prisons and police. In short, Sir, I see a cul-de-sac for South Africa if the Prime Minister does not take South Africa in a different direction. It is indeed a sad prospect, particularly for the younger generation.

Now, Sir, what about the official Opposition’s role in all this? It is of course hoping for some spoils, understandably, from the internecine warfare among the Nationalists. That is why they are very careful not to present a real alternative to the Government’s policy. As impossible as is the Government’s policy, so utterly inadequate is the official Opposition’s policy. The hon. Leader of the Opposition cannot seriously contend that in this day and age eight white representatives for 13 million Africans are going to serve the purpose or that six representatives for two million Coloureds are going to be sufficient or that two white representatives for ½ million Indian people are going to be sufficient, not to mention the population projections for the year 2000. If self-development is a fraud, then I am afraid race federation is a farce. There is no other way that I can describe it. What did the hon. Leader of the Opposition mean when he said that deserving Africans would be able to enjoy freehold? What makes people deserve to enjoy freehold? Why, if the migrator labour system is intrinsically bad, as he said, is it all right for people coming from two-thirds of the African population to continue to be migrant workers? That would mean that only people coming from one third of the population, that is the urbanized population, will not have to suffer the indignities and the evils of migratory labour. What about trade union rights? I want to know from the hon. member, who is the leader of the U.P. Native Affairs group, how are wages guaranteed? Does the state of the economy have nothing to do with wages? The hon. member for Hillbrow talked about the economic claptrap coming from the Government benches, but there is a good deal of economic claptrap coming from his own benches. There is no such thing as guaranteeing wages. If job reservation is no good, what about the Mines and Works Act? Is the Opposition going to repeal the Mines and Works Act? Are Africans going to be allowed to compete fully with the Coloured and the white people in the field of skilled labour? This is the question the official Opposition never answers. Are they going to allow full competition of Africans on a basis of the rate for the job with Coloured and with white people? By the way, if the rate for the job is of importance, what is the meaning of a minimum wage for white workers? Will the hon. member for Hillbrow at some time or other explain to the country what is a minimum wage for white workers and how does that tie up with the rate for the job? How does discrimination in the professional non-Whites’ rates of pay tie up with the rate for the job? This policy is as full of holes as a leaking sieve, and I am afraid I must say this policy offers nothing.

Do you stand for uncontrolled movement?

Yes, we have said over and over again that we are against influx control and that we will abolish pass laws. We believe that you can develop the reserves and you can have labour bureaux on a voluntary basis, and if you remove all restrictions on labour utilization in the urban areas, we can see no reason why South Africa cannot cope with the rural to urban movement of the African population as it is coping with the movement with the white population and as every industrialized country copes with the movement of population from rural to urban areas. It is only when you are colour-obsessed that this whole thing becomes a problem that nobody can cope with.

Since my time is about up, I finally want to say that I agree fully with the hon. Leader about the authoritarian trend of the Nationalist Party. Will the United Party say categorically that it is going to abolish the 90 Days Act, the Terrorist Act and all the other Acts that prevent every man having access to independent courts? That is what I want to know. The alternative that my party offers is the reality of South Africa as a multi-racial country where all citizens, irrespective of colour, are judged on merit and where there are no restrictions on the utilization of labour, no restrictions on the mobility of labour and where there is a franchise system which is based on qualified franchise, in a proper geographic federation. This is the only valid form of federation. In short it is a policy which offers equal opportunity for all people educationally, in the field of labour and in every other field. It is a policy of idealism and it is going to appeal to all the young, uncommitted, idealistic voters in South Africa.

I am not going to spend much time on the hon. member for Houghton. I would be glad if the hon. member who is now walking out would remain, because I want to reply to the accusations she made. I do not have much time to spend on the hon. member for Houghton except to say just this. She of course finds herself in the dilemma that the United Party is the halfway house on the way to her, but unfortunately she will not return; this is her swan song here, and now the United Party, at the halfway house where they now find themselves, will in the end simply occupy the position she now has. She simply did educational work for them. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on 22nd April we are having an election, and that election will be decided between the National Party on the one hand and the United Party with its allies on the other. It is interesting to note that between 1948 and this election there has been no election which the United Party fought without allies. They have always had allies with whom they jointly opposed the National Party. In this way they at present have an ally which I shall prove in a moment is preaching treason, which is encouraging and preaching treason in the constituencies as such. I shall produce proof of this in a moment, and they will have to reply to it. They are preaching this under the cloak of Calvinism, and I shall prove this as well.

But before I do that, I want to say that yesterday in this no-confidence debate, shortly prior to an election, the hon. member for Port Natal discussed road safety, and in his speech he said a few unforgiveable and irresponsible things. Later on, under the Part Appropriation, I am going to come forward with the necessary statistics to prove what the Road Safety Council and the provinces are accomplishing in accordance with the recommendations of the Road Safety Council. In addition I shall also then prove how the South African Act in fact simply proves that the Minister of Transport must lay the report of the Road Safety Council upon the Table here, and that he has no further jurisdiction, that he has no legislative authority, and that the provincial councils control road traffic.

You are evading your responsibilities.

I come now to the excuses. The first aspect I want to make clear to the hon. member for Port Natal is that the provinces are jealous of the rights which have been granted to them in terms of the South Africa Act, the powers which have been delegated to them, and with his speech the hon. member must go and inform the voters of Natal that what it implies is that we should simply abolish the provincial councils, because he is undermining their responsibility and their work.

Are you prepared to do nothing?

I shall show you what we have done. But what is he doing? He states here across the floor of the House that this Government is proud of the accidents which are taking place in South Africa. That is the disgraceful statement he is sending out into the world, that this Government is proud of it—“They are proud of the accidents in South Africa”. That is the sense of responsibility he has. But he goes further. He mentions here that over the Christmas season 350 persons were killed, and he drags into that the unfortunate accident at the railway crossing near Meyerton. In other words, he tries to make political capital here out of the sorrow of those people in order to gain a few votes.

You are talking tripe.

Order! The hon. member must count his words.

This is the third time he has made this speech. He published it for the first time in the Sunday Tribune of 11th January, 1970, and what did he have to say in the Sunday Tribune? You must take note of this, Sir. He mentioned the accidents, and stated—

Read what I said the following week.

This hon. member is saying to every driver of a motor car in South Africa: “You are a lot of road hooligans; you are committing murder on the roads because you regard yourselves as superior to the non-Whites.”

Tripe.

I want to make it very clear. If words have any meaning it means that he said to the people who have to drive voters to the polls to vote for him on 22nd April: You are a lot of road hooligans because you think, with your feeling of apartheid superiority, that you can run down and kill black people on the roads. That is what it means. He says: “What else can explain this senseless carnage?”. He asks what else can explain these road accidents but his own superior white skin which makes him think he can run down and kill people on the roads. That is the accusation he is levelling at everyone who drives a motor car in South Africa. Then he talks about “tripe”. I think it is the most irresponsible utterance I have ever heard. It is shameless. It is being said in order to announce to the world that there are more accidents in South Africa because apartheid affords one an opportunity of running people down and killing them. That is the “tripe” he is purveying. He is making that charge in order to calumniate South Africa. It is agitatory irresponsibility. He is doing this in the eyes of the non-Whites and the world simply in order to slander this country. That is the kind of patriotism he displays. Then he quoted certain figures. He stated that this Government was proud of the road murders. The speech he made was merely a Hyde Park soap-box speech, and as examples he wanted to mention the railway crossings. He proclaimed this untruth by saying that less is being spent this year to eliminate crossings than in 1927. I should like to know where he gets the figures from.

I will bring you the report.

In 1927-’28 a total amount of R7,000, or £3,500, was spent in eliminating crossings, and he can go and look it up. Now he claims that this is more than is being spent at present. At the time provision was made for R50,000 which they did not use. What is the position at the moment? At the moment we have two systems. Since 1960 alone we have already eliminated 127 crossings at a cost of R13.6 million. We have a further elimination scheme which is now being tackled by means of which 31 will be eliminated for an amount of R6 million. That is what is being tackled at the moment, and others will be tackled soon, and we are negotiating with local authorities and the provincial administration, because this involves road planning and town planning as well, for the elimination of a further 76.

How long will that take you?

Now the hon. member is saying to this House that we are spending less than in 1927, but compare the R7,000 with the R13 million. Such in his credibility. We have approved additional amounts totalling R1,794,000 for crossings which do not fall under group A, i.e. group B. That is the amount which we are spending without any contribution from other bodies of this amount R965,000 has already been spent in order to eliminate 114 additional crossings. In other words, 241 crossings have already been eliminated since 1960. Apart from that, we still have 4,000 crossings on public roads which still have to be eliminated. Of these 161 are protected by men with flags; 77 are equipped with improved protective devices such as flashing lights, warning bells and booms. I also want to give the hon. member additional details in regard to accidents at railway crossings. Despite the fact that we already have warning signs plus flashing lights at crossings we had 30 accidents in 1968 and 18 in 1969. In 1969 four of these persons were seriously injured and two killed, despite these protective measures taken by the Railways. We have warning signs plus booms and bells, and despite that we had two accidents last year and the previous year at these crossings, in which two persons were seriously injured. We have other warning signs plus crossing attendants at other crossings, but despite that we had 43 accidents in 1969 in which two persons were killed and eight seriously injured. The fact remains that the government has spent R13,600,000 during these few years, but the hon. member comes along and states in this House that we have spent less than in 1927, when only R7,000 was spent.

May I ask a question.

No, my time does not allow me to reply to questions. The hon. member can put his questions in the Budget debate and there he can apologize for the incorrect information he furnished here.

The hon. member went further and stated that the consortium had asked for an increased premium for third party insurance.

I asked you.

No, the hon. member out it emphatically to me that they had asked for an increase. He said “I suggest to the hon. the Minister that in recent weeks he has been asked to increase the premium charged by the consortium under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act” and then he made the accusation that we would not grant this because there was an election in the offing. Sir, in the first instance no increase was asked for.

Well, that is something.

The hon. member is the man who is agitating for the introduction of an increase. In the second instance, he should know that there is a premium committee, and if the consortium should ask for an increase in premiums, they submit it to the premium committee which then weighs up income against expenditure, against the unsettled claims and against the expected claims during the next few years, and then that committee makes its recommendation to the Minister. But for the sole purpose of making political gain he informs us here that a request for an increase has already been made and that it will not be granted because an election is in the offing. That is the sense of responsibility which that hon. member and his party display.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the other matter which I mentioned here, and that is these alliances. I have told you that between 1948 and the present the United Party has never fought an election in South Africa without an ally. The time at my disposal does not allow me to analyse those alliances; I just want to mention them briefly. We recall the days of the Torch Commando, the days of the Civil Rights League and the days of the Black Sash. The hon. member for Wynberg herself wore one in this House. We remember the days of the South African Congress of Democrats and the Labour Party. The United Party fought to the last man in this series of organizations, and on the 22nd April they will again fight to the last Hertzogite. Let me mention a few examples. I have here in my hand an agreement signed by the Leader of the United Party, the Leader of the Labour Party and the Leader of the Torch Commando, and in this agreement which they signed they made no provision for a colour bar in South Africa. Here I have their complete signed documents: they make provision here for the Torch Commando to be able to accept all colour groups as joint members in everyday life. That was their ally. The Labour Party made provision for the colour bar to be lifted in South Africa. That was their ally. That is one of the alliance agreements they signed. Under this agreement everyone is welcome. The next alliance I want to mention is the alliance with the party of Mr. Japie Basson, the National Union. Just as that hon. member ran away from the National Party and sought another home, he then concluded an alliance with the United Party, and in that alliance he was the man who shunted the United Party into the direction of a race federation. In this document they very clearly make provision for “sound race relations, cooperation in pressing questions and race federation”. Here they laid the foundation of the race federation policy upon which the United Party is still building. Sir, my time will not allow me to analyse their alliance with the Black Sash and the policy they announced. Likewise my time perhaps may not allow me to analyse the alliance with the Civil Rights League and this “octopus”, in which all the legislation is mentioned, because I said that I wanted to discuss the alliance which they have now concluded with the Hertzogites. [Interjection.] We shall see who returns to this House, that hon. member or I.

How did you win your nomination?

First of all I now want to analyse the methods of the Hertzog party. It is a party which seeks to sow suspicion, without ever facing up to the truth. No wonder they were presented with dark glasses. I note in yesterday’s paper that they have circulated a pamphlet to their candidates in which they accuse the Prime Minister of South Africa of being responsible for the Tsafendas incident.

Disgraceful!

This allegation must be used at their meetings, whereas the four members of the Hertzog Party sitting here know that a commission of enquiry went into this matter and they know what its findings were, but according to this article in the newspaper they are distributing a pamphlet to their candidates in which the Prime Minister is accused of having been responsible for the Tsafendas incident.

Quote from the pamphlet.

Sir, this party and the man who is now so courageous but who was too afraid to give evidence in court after he had told lies …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to make that assertion.

He did this outside the House, Mr. Speaker. I proceed.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entitled …

Order! I am dealing with the hon. the Deputy Minister. He is not allowed to say that.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER. I withdraw it. That hon. member, who cannot face up to the truth—and I am going to mention a few examples—is too cowardly to give evidence in a court on the things he said on a platform Here I have the report of the enquiry, No. 39. I quote—

In other words, they sucked it out of their thumbs—

Do you want it any plainer than that? But I am going to analyse this further for them. They distribute a medieval newspaper, under the name of Calvinism. The hon. the Leader of the House yesterday read a certain section from that medieval newspaper to hon. members and indicated how it was absolutely untrue.

Surely there was no Calvinism in the Middle Ages.

That is why that newspaper of yours is such a poor one, because it is not Calvinistic either. The conscience of the editor has been bought for R15,000 per year, guaranteed for five years, in order to placate his Calvinism with it.

That is a lie.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Innesdal raised objections a moment ago. Now he has said, twice in succession, “That is a lie”.

Order! The hon. member for Innesdal must withdraw that.

I said that the statement …

Order!

… that that is the salary is a lie.

Order! I say that the hon. member for Innesdal must withdraw that assertion or allegation.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I explain? May I just ask you, Sir?

Order! The hon. member must not argue with me, or I will send him out.

I do not want to argue with you, Mr. Speaker …

Does the hon. member withdraw it?

I am not saying that the hon. member told a lie. I am saying that the statement he made …

The hon. member must withdraw it.

… is a lie.

I ask the hon. member to leave the Chamber

I beg your pardon?

I am asking you to leave the Chamber. (Mr. Marais thereupon withdrew from the Chamber.) The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I say again that this newspaper has an editor who is being paid to salve his conscience with articles he publishes in it. I want to mention an example. Last Friday’s edition mentioned a factory with which Minister Mulder and I were allegedly connected. It was stated there that I would get R300,000 out of it, from the State. That is the biggest lie under the sun. It was a negotiation mutually entered into by two people. Dr. Mulder’s name and my name were mentioned in a letter, but it is being bruited abroad as if it was the Minister and I who …

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

No, the hon. member must give me time to make a speech. [Interjections.]

Order!

He is afraid.

Mr. Speaker, that is the example …

You are afraid, Herman.

Order! The hon. member must not make that allegation. I do not allow that assertion to be made. The hon. member must withdraw that assertion.

Mr. Speaker, may I just explain …

Order!

I withdraw the assertion.

The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat: This is an example of the untruths, of the suspicion-mongering, which these people want to make public under the cloak of Calvinism. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister?

I have already said that I do not have the time to reply to questions. The hon. member knows that I have only 30 minutes. These hon. members are requesting party committee members and party branch chairmen, as long as they are not discovered, to remain within the National Party in order to sabotage the National Party from within. In my own constituency these hon. members kept the divisional committee’s secretary in my Party for as long as they could. Now she is employed in their Office She told some of my committee members personally which six chairmen they had persuaded to remain within the National Party so that they could try to get into the House of Assembly on the backs of the National Party by deceitful means. In other words, Sir, we have this phenomenon in South African politics of four frustrated, dissatisfied people, who are seeking to conduct politics on a level of deceit and on a level where they instigate people to commit treason, because they themselves sat for three years in the House of Assembly with treason in their hearts, under the cloak of Calvinism. This is the Party which is so bankrupt that they have now for the fourth time tried to persuade members of the National Party to stand for them. The hon. member for Ermelo personally drove to see the chairman of one of my branches and begged him: “Please come and stand for our Party.” Sir, it is also a Party which comes forward with a constitution and states: “For the first time we now have a party which is founded on the infallible word of God.” They were members of the Christian National Party which recognizes the sovereignty of God in the Constitution, but now for the first time it is the infallible word of God that one should walk around with treason in your heart. Is it the infallible word of God that one should visit branches and buy off paid party organizers of another party with money which comes we do not know from whence, and to say that they should tell people to remain in the party as long as they can and commit treason? That is the Party which states: “For the first time we now have a party which is unashamedly Afrikaans.” Do you think this is the son of General Hertzog, the man who placed Afrikaans on the Statute Book of South Africa? A man who denies his own father cannot expect that the people could ever believe him. He really and truly cannot expect that the people will ever believe him if he denied his own father. That is the alliance of the United Party. [Interjections.] In this document of his he states: “For the first time we now have a party which is unashamedly Afrikaans.” What was his father? What was the National Party? Was the National Party an English Party? No, I would feel ashamed. The hon. member had better keep on wearing those dark glasses.

One of the examples their leader mentioned yesterday was the example of how they do not want the English language in South Africa now, although the father of the founder of the Party had recognized the two languages, although he and his Cabinet always said that this should be the case. Mr. Speaker, what kind of people do we have here? They are frustrated and dissatisfied people, unbalanced people who say that people should remain in the party for as long as they can. After all, they set the example. Remain in the party and deceive the leader as long as you can until you are found out. And when you are found out, you establish a newspaper and state that it is a Calvinistic newspaper. That is why I maintain that they are together with the United Party on the level of “eradicate Nationalism”. After all, that is the policy of the United Party in South Africa: Eradicate Nationalism; eradicate everything that is good; eradicate love for one’s language; eradicate love for one’s country; eradicate loyalty and being true to one’s country. This party eradicates everything which is Afrikaans, because they cultivate shame at being an Afrikaner. The Afrikaner are ashamed of these people who, as they maintain, are doing these things on a Calvinistic basis. We are ashamed of those methods of our fellow countrymen, that open encouragement to treason. This party which is the accomplice of the United Party is nothing else than the floormat of the United Party. This Party is nothing else than the lackey of the United Party. When you have become a floormat and a lackey then you descend to this level. Then you are a person who pays no heed to the truth. Then you are the party which has no knowledge of political morality. [Time expired.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister should actually have replied to the hon. member for Port Natal. That hon. member put quite a simple, though at the same time a very serious matter to the hon. the Deputy Minister, i.e. that something should be done on the part of the Government, and that the right guidance should be given, with a view to reducing the slaughter on our roads. However, the hon. member did not reply to that. What he did, in fact, do, was to occupy himself with the so-called alliance between this side of the House and the new H.N.P. Sir, there is one alliance that I know of that has almost come to an end, i.e. the alliance between that Deputy Minister and the Wakkerstroom constituency. But I do not want to occupy myself with that hon. gentleman’s fight with the H.N.P.

It is the first time in 22 years that there is, sitting in the House, a Nationalist group which is bitterly dissatisfied with Nationalist Party trends. The development of such a political party is the Government’s responsibility. They went in search of other pastures without the herdsman having looked to see whether his flock was following him. That is why I say that the development of the H.N.P. is the responsibility of the Government and the Nationalist Party. Those who resisted were labelled termites, but a few kings and queens have left the nest. The great majority of the colony remained behind and the process continues. A strange phenomenon accompanying the crumbling of the Nationalist Party is the desire of members on that side to prove that there are no differences in principle between themselves and the H.N.P. On the other hand, their newspapers give warning that there are, in fact, differences in principle, and they warn their leaders that, whatever they do, they should not water down the new United Party trends of the Nationalist Party. That is why a brand new candidate such as Pik Botha, who supports an outward trend, is praised as a kind of national hero by their newspapers. It is difficult to decide whether this praise is related to the quality of his policy or its rarity. Certain Nationalist newspapers are so glad to hear a voice in support of the Governments’ outward policy. For election purposes the impression must consequently be created that their is an alliance between us and the H.N.P. Not only is the Nationalist Party annexing United Party policy, they are also posing as United Party supporters. I want to prove this here to-day. We recently had an election in Albany. There the Nationalist Party had a candidate in the person of Mr. Gideon van der Vyver. He issued a manifesto in both languages. Let us now listen to how he put a certain portion of it to the Afrikaans-speaking people. He is dealing with the principle of bilingualism and says the following about common loyalty to South Africa:

But let hon. members now listen to the English:

As far as the Afrikaans portion is concerned, it is interesting that the “and white leadership” part is omitted. They would like to pose as United Party supporters when they are canvassing for votes in a United Party constituency. But all these things will not prevent us from pleading for the ordinary man and his interests which are so shamelessly being disregarded. Their inner disunity cannot be hidden. Just take the hon. member for Algoa as an example. He supports the Government and its outward policy. At least I suppose so. But in Port Elizabeth recently the hon. member had to do a lot of explaining about why he had attended a so-called mixed party. The former American Consul in Port Elizabeth was taking his leave because the consulate was being closed down, and on that occasion there were also non-Whites present. The hon. member supports the Government’s outward policy of closer contact with the non-Whites. In a report Dagbreek and Landstem asked “What were Mr. J. J. Engelbrecht. M.P. for Algoa, and Mr. G. J. van der Linde doing at the mixed reception of the American Consul?” The hon. member then had to explain this, and it was quite interesting. In an interview with the newspaper he relates that it is the Government’s request that they should state the Nationalist Party’s policy, that they should make contact with foreign representatives and that they should try to correct their propaganda. He then said the following (translation):

In the last paragraph of the report the hon. member said the following:

That is the inward policy. He also said: “If we had known beforehand we would definitely not have gone.” The hon. member for Algoa says that he supports the Government’s outward Policy, but when a foreign representative holds some or other function, when the hon. member must take the opportunity of stating his policy, and when there will perhaps be non-Whites present, he will not go. I now want to put a question to the hon. member. If the hon. the Prime Minister should perhaps once more decide to entertain Leabua Jonathan, and in a moment of weakness he decides to take that hon. member along, would he accept the invitation or not? That would be his test. Would he (perhaps make a decision similar to the one he made when he as asked by his newspapers what he was doing at that mixed reception? To tell us, therefore, that the Nationalist Party has solved its problems and that it is no longer divided is the biggest lot of nonsense in the world.

I also want to put a question to the hon. the Minister of Transport. Two years ago he said that he did not know of any differences within the Nationalist Party. The hon. the Minister then instituted an investigation in Pretoria. He had to investigate the Afrikanerorde and he had to see whether certain M.P.’s were not perhaps engaged in the undermining of the Nationalist Party. In a newspaper report if was subsequently stated: “M.P.’s loyal, says Minister Schoeman.” In the same report he was quoted as follows:

The hon. the Minister of Transport said that two years ago and the hon. member denied knowing of any dissidents or disunity within his party. He only knew of Nationalists who stand solidly together in support of the party. However, yesterday we had to hear that the hon. the Minister was deceived by certain hon. members on his side. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister of Transport who deceived the people of South Africa two years ago when he pointed out that there was, in fact, disunity in his party. I further want to refer to the so-called unity of that party. When hon. members on this side of the House spoke of the housing shortage in South Africa, high prices and the impotence of local authorities were blamed. However, last year, during their congress in Port Elizabeth, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) attacked the hon. the Minister of Community Development himself about the housing shortage in South Africa. So much so that the hon. the Minister of Community Development had to tell that hon. member that he was irresponsible. He is not only irresponsible in respect of unity, but also in respect of the questions with which South Africa is faced.

With the failure of seperate freedoms, the greatest single question upon which this Government took over the reigns of Office, the people are becoming ever more aware of bottlenecks in the country’s administration. One of those great bottlenecks that I want to deal with to-day is the position of our agriculture. Never before was the Government’s incapacity more obvious than specifically in this sphere. They are at their wits’ end, because they do not know which way to go. They come forward with no solutions. Even when disasters take place, such as the position in the Western Cape with the earthquake, or with the tremendous drought in the Sunday’s River valley, the helplessness of the Government becomes ever greater. This Government shows itself not only unqualified to lay down a long term policy for agriculture, it shows itself unqualified in respect of short term ones. Even the transportation of animals is carried out so carelessly that another 320 animals recently died at Johannesburg in the course of transportation. According to our information onions are piling up in an area such as Caledon as a result of a shortage of cargo space. And this specifically at a time when there is an excellent and very great demand for onions abroad. What is the Government’s attitude? According to the Chairman of the local farmers’ association their Member of Parliament is not even available to discuss the situation with those farmers. What is wrong then? Have the farmers of the Eastern Cape, and particularly of the Sunday’s River valley, not already made suggestions to the Government a while ago in connection with the kind of help they want? But the only reaction they get on the part of the Government is a promise to appoint a commission for them. The hon. the Prime Minister told those people that they should just keep a stout heart, but surely the situation there did not develop overnight. Since 1960 the situation in the Sunday’s River valley has become increasingly worse. For 22 years the South African farmer must keep a stout heart. But his problems are increasing daily. Was it not we on this side of the House who suggested to them that the livestock reduction scheme and the veld reclamation scheme contained sound principles, but that the compensation to the farmer should be much greater and that it was now hopelessly too little?

If adjustments to such schemes must be tackled, this must surely be done urgently. But six, seven, eight months go by while the adjustments are made, before people really take an interest in such a scheme. But how are they now to take an interest in such a scheme while the State, for example, is not in a position to ensure that that livestock surplus will be transported to the market. They will not be interested unless they have the assurance that their animals will not die while being transported. This spineless and vacillating attitude of the Government is causing a greater lack of confidence in our agricultural industry. There is not a farmer to-day who is not experiencing labour problems. There is not a single one who does not have financial and economic problems. Interest rates are so high that one farmer after another is being squeezed out. It is costing the farmer an extra R24 million annually. Agricultural debts are becoming ever higher and creditors ever more threatening. But what is the solution offered by that side of the House? Agricultural investment is continually decreasing. It is forcing down prices and affecting the solvency of the farmer. The economists thus calculate that we have an annual increase in private investment of 7.6 per cent in others sectors. But in Agriculture it is decreasing annually by 2 per cent. Mr. Speaker, are not these then the problems to which the Government should give its attention?

The hon. the Deputy Minister said in Colesberg that the Government was being criticized because they were doing too much. They are being criticized by the urban population. They actually have to conceal what they are doing for the farmer of South Africa. They are afraid of upsetting the taxpayer by giving assistance to the South African farmers. Let me tell the hon. friend that he need not be afraid of giving help, and a great deal of help at that, to the farmer. He need not be afraid of placing agriculture on a sound footing, because city and country dwellers, yes, everyone to-day is worried about the situation in our agricultural industry. The Government should for once look less to the causes of the situation. They ought to dig up fewer excuses, such as the high standard of living of the farmer, high land prices and inefficiency. They ought rather to keep their own house in order. What can we do to rectify the situation, is the question the Government must ask itself. It must give more attention to the requests of the farmer, such as a planning council for agriculture and lower interest rates. Then it will be doing something. Agricultural financing has become the well in which the call will drown. The operation and powers of the Land Bank ought to be extended. That is what the farmers of South Africa want. The State cannot evade this responsibility. More and more farmers will have to come to this institution to borrow money. Speaking of the Land Bank, bona fide farmers have always been given assistance here. Companies, for example, cannot be helped by the Land Bank. It is an institution created for the farmer of South Africa. It has always been a principle that loans should be confidential. No one wants his business dealings made public. However, in January of this year two Ministers held a meeting in the Strand. They were the hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. At that meeting reference was made to a certain Mr. Fanie van der Merwe.

Uncle Fanie.

Or Uncle Fanie. Now give me a chance. On that occasion they said that Mr. Van der Merwe felt frustrated because he could not obtain loans from the Land Bank. He had obtained one but could not get a second one. Minister Uys then said the following (translation)—

I do not want to speak now about a person who did not obtain a loan. On this occasion I want to speak about a man who cannot feel frustrated, about a person who did, in fact, obtain a loan. That is what my whole case is about. It came to my attention that the Minister of Economic Affairs recently made certain purchases of land for which he paid R149,150. He then applied to the Land Bank for a loan. On that occasion he obtained a loan of R118,000 from the Land Bank. He paid R149,000 and obtained R118,000. It is interesting to know that the Land Bank normally gives bonds, as provided by law, of up to 80 per cent of the reasonable value of the land. In this case it is 80 per cent of the purchase price. He is decidedly lucky if the purchase value of that land is exactly equal to its reasonable value. I do not want to claim that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is not entitled to obtain a loan from the Land Bank. According to this Act he may, indeed, do so. He may apply, even though he does not farm himself and farms with others. He is fully entitled to do so, even though he only places a foreman or a manager on that farm.

But the point we want to make on this side of the House is that if we look at the latest report of the Land Bank, we find that R25,785,000 was made available for the purchase of land. 59 per cent of that requested amount, i.e. R17 million, was granted. How is it then that to-day certain people can obtain loans from the Land Bank while they are, according to all standards, people who would so easily be able to obtain a loan from any other financial institution? At the same time there are thousands of bona fide farmers who want to be helped by the Land Bank because those loans can be obtained at considerably lower rates of interest, because the capital redemption is considerably less and because it also includes an insurance scheme. But here we find that someone who according to all standards, as I have said, could obtain the funds from any private institution, makes a loan at the Land Bank. But now, from public platforms, hon. Ministers mention the names of farmers who did not obtain loans.

He started it himself.

Very well then, the person started it himself, but that still does not change my standpoint. Here the matter was brought into the open. This kind of thing is a general manifestation in South Africa today, i.e. that the farmers who want a loan and who long for one cannot get it, while others, who are more fortunate, can, in fact, do so. I specically want to point out to the Government that a while ago the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs had to make a speech at Velddrif. The heading of that report was “Mr. Haak hits back at gossip”. He then mentioned a whole list of tales people were telling about him. He made universally known that the people were gossiping about him. I want to mention the following example. A few years ago the Government was warned by Dagbreek and Landstem, and I quote:

The newspaper continued by saying: “It is also known …”

What newspaper is that?

It is the Dagbreek and Landstem of 20th October, 1968. I quote further—

It is a very good thing that the newspapers said that to the hon. the Prime Minister. It was then proposed that this sort of thing would be stopped in South Africa. Even the hon. member for Moorreesburg had to say it on that occasion (translation)—

The article continues—

Now, Sir, that was proposed almost two years ago. To-day we want to put the question to this Government. Since this was proposed, what is the Government’s attitude towards it? I want to say that it is a pity that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs obtained this Land Bank loan. It is a pity because it will be one of the things which will, in fact, cast a heavy cloud over all of us sitting here in the House of Assembly, as leaders and representatives of the people, while there are thousands of farmers outside who are to-day labouring and drudging to pay high rates of interest and to keep the creditors from the door, while others are placed in that privileged position of being able to obtain these loans from the Land Bank. I say that he is probably entitled to it; he may by law apply for it, but what is the policy? Where are we going to draw the line? If anyone to-day, according to sound norms, can obtain his loans from financial institutions, why does he not do so? Why do we not give the farmers of South Africa, who are struggling to make a living, the opportunity of going to the Land Bank where they will have the chance to obtain loans?

Surely they do have the right.

I therefore say that I agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and have no confidence in this Government.

The hon. member for Newton Park availed himself of the opportunity to make propaganda, but not to present the problem of the farmers sympathetically here. He spoke about a situation which had arisen which was beyond the control of the Government. He began by saying that the Government had done nothing when the earthquake took place and that it has done nothing under the drought conditions. This is a method they employ to use things which are beyond our control against us. This encourages me, if this is the gravest criticism, for I should like to elucidate for him what has been done.

He said that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture visited the Sunday River Valley and made promises which have been made for the past 22 years, and told the people there that they should not lose hope. I shall indicate to him in a moment with figures what has in fact been done. He then came to one case mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, that of Oom Fanie Van der Merwe, who was exposed after he had made a lot of wild accusations. It is not a habit of mine to disclose people’s private business, but here we have the type of man who was passing remarks while the Minister was speaking and who said that we were doing nothing, and while the Minister was furnishing him with a direct reply, another man in the hall shouted out to him: “When are you going to pay for my cows?” He is up to his eyeballs in debt. Now the hon. member for Newton Park wants to protect his colleague or friend, Mr. Fanie Van der Merwe. That shows us the course things are taking. This pamphlet of the United Party: “You want it; we have it”, sets out the whole future of agriculture, if the United Party were to come into power. The hon. member says that they will restore confidence in agriculture. He has stated time and again here that there is no confidence in agriculture. Mr. Speaker, that is an indictment against every man who practises agriculture in this country; it is an assertion that we are practising an industry in which confidence is diminishing, and that we are in fact flogging a dead horse. But what is really happening? Last week the Government advertised a piece of land and there were 181 applications for that piece of land. Every man in this country wants to go into agriculture. It is they, the United Party, who have a lack of confidence in agriculture. They exploit these droughts which we are experiencing for political gain, but it will avail them nothing. Sir, they make wild promises in this pamphlet, and every National Party member of the House of Assembly must make a point of dealing with this pamphlet at every political meeting because the Leader of the Opposition repeated in Standerton what is stated in this pamphlet. He said: “I shall, if I should ever come into power, guarantee the farmer in this country production costs plus a profit.”

How can he guarantee production costs?

It stands in the booklet; let me read it out to the hon. member.

“Guaranteed production costs?”

He does not understand Afrikaans.

I am quoting from the booklet—

That is a different matter.

What is the difference? There is no difference. Sir, this is one of those people who want to govern the country, but they cannot understand it. Let me mention an example: Yesterday there was a surplus of 80,000 pockets of potatoes on the Johannesburg market. Now they go to the farmer in the Eastern Transvaal who cultivates potatoes and they say to him: “Look, your production costs were 70 cents; now you sell your potatoes for 30 cents on the market; the Government will pay in the other 40 cents for you.”

An then a profit must still be added to that.

Sir, after the meeting held by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at Standerton one of his supporters came to me and said (and I am not repeating this for any political gain): “I must reconsider the question of how I am going to vote. I have always voted United Party, but I really cannot stomach such nonsense.”

The next assertion made in this booklet is that there will be an increase in the number of officials in research and veterinary services. We must increase the number of officials; I shall furnish you with the number of officials in a moment. Then they go on to say in this booklet—

Sir, our control boards, of which there are 20, are in the hands of the producers themselves. Must I accept that the United Party is saying that those control boards have no initiative; that the farmers do not have the initiative to dispose of the surpluses? This entire booklet is an indictment of the producers and the farmers in this country. The last allegation in his booklet is that this Government has done nothing worthwhile for these farmers during the past 22 years. Sir, I want to return to this question of confidence in agriculture, because if there is one matter which I am concerned about, then it is the possibility of the idea arising, particularly among younger men, that there is no confidence in agriculture. I now want to mention certain figures to you, and I am rot talking about the position 22 years ago; I am talking about the position 10 years ago. In 1959 a reduced number of farmers in this country produced a gross harvest of R638 million. Do you know what the farmers produced last year when there was little rain? Their production was R1,035 million. Does that look as if there is no confidence in agriculture? Sir, mention was made here of the accumulated burden of debt among farmers. That is one of the most negative statements that can be made. We had 125,000 farmers and we now have 92,000 farmers. The volume of business has increased, but where is our problem? The cost of living of the farmer has also increased, and if you divide up that increased volume into categories, you will see that 22 years ago R1,600 per unit was harvested, and to-day the harvest per unit is R3.100. But the standard of living has risen. We cannot get away from it. The burden of debt of the farmer, so they say, has increased by R666 million in ten years. But do hon. members know that our assets in agriculture have increased by R2,000 million during the same ten years? Increase in value is one reason for this. Last year, this group of farmers bought R50 million tractors alone. You cannot tell me that these were all bought on credit. All the farmers are not as bad as hon. members think. To mention this example only, hon. members must remember that the number of tractors in the country 22 years ago was 28,000. To-day there are 181,000 tractors in operation in this country. I am simply mentioning a few examples so that hon. member can see that phenomenal progress has taken place in our country.

To-day we are saddled with a few difficulties in agriculture. In the first place there are the unfavourable weather conditions. For example, farmers plant mealies in order to harvest 120 million bags, and then the rains do not come, and they harvest only 60 million bags. Whose fault is that? You could make the Angel Gabriel Minister of Agriculture and he could do nothing about it.

Then there are the increasing production costs. We are not trying to hide it, Sir. Production costs have in fact increased, but we are ourselves responsible for this, as a result of our higher standard of living. I do not begrudge the farmers this. Hon. members must not proceed from the assumption that I am not sympathetically disposed towards the farmers. The farmers have a different standard of living from the one they had previously when that party was governing.

Is it his personal debt which lands him in difficulties?

I shall still deal with the personal debt of the farmers. At the moment I want to deal with the third problem in agriculture, which is surpluses and world prices. We have in this country a group of farmers who, in spite of favourable weather conditions, have concentrated, by means of improved techniques, on tremendously increased production, which has to be sold in the world market in competition with the prices of other countries. In addition hon. members must also remember that during the past 30 years our population increase in this country has been 86 4 per cent. Our agricultural increase during the same period was 125 per cent. Where must the commodities be sold? We have not enough mouths to feed in this country. We must export the surpluses. We must compete with other countries who are producing greater surpluses. It is of no use continually hearing from the Opposition side that this or that or the other is the difficulty. The hon. member for Newton Park and all the other speakers who are still to follow are unable to rise and furnish a solution. All they can do is mention the difficulties.

I come now to the Land Bank. The hon. member discussed the rates of interest which are so high. I admit that if a person borrows I money from a commercial bank he will pay a high rate of interest. However, such loans are canalized to the Land Bank or to the Department of Agricultural Credit or to the other agricultural departments able to offer assistance. Mortgage loans at the Land Bank total R486 million. Hypothec loans amount to R32 million and cash credit loans to farmers amount to R18 million. This is a total of R537 million at an interest rate of 6 per cent. Is it unreasonable for a man to pay per cent interest to redeem the full mortgage on his farm in 25 years? Then there is a small added amount, for if he pays 8.7 per cent he also has life cover. If he should die to-morrow the amount will be paid in full.

I do not dispute this.

But why does the hon. member not mention the figure. The hon. member went on to say that nothing was being done for the farmers and that nothing was being done about this rate of interest position. The hon. member should see the picture as a whole. The Land Bank loans R61 million to agricultural control boards and agricultural co-operatives for instalment loans at a rate of 6 per cent. Then there is the bulk handling loan to co-operatives, for example to all these silos which are being built. That amounts to R34.6 million, and the Minister of Finance agrees that it can be increased during the next five years. Seasonal loans to cooperatives amount to R5,666 million at 6 per cent. Short-term loans to control boards amount to R335 million. Here I now have a total of R5.998 million in loans to agriculture at 6 per cent. What more does the hon. member want?

I now come to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Its loans are granted at 5 per cent. This Department has now been in operation for 21 years and they have already loaned R74 million to 37,900 farmers at 5 per cent. The hon. member spoke about cases which were not receiving assistance. The cases that did not receive assistance totalled 9,543. That includes all applications, such as application for consolidation of debt. If a farmer has quite a number of accounts, these are consolidated by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure at 5 per cent under one roof. These amounts are also made available for the purchase of land, the maintenance of cattle, and production loans. The hon. member now says that the Land Bank or the Department of Agricultural Credit evaluates the land and that the farmers are then not given assistance. Because we are a land-orientated nation, each man wants a piece of land, and land prices have increased. The hon. member states that the United Party will one day restore confidence in agriculture. Our problem is that there is so much confidence in agriculture, in spite of weather conditions, that land prices are continually increasing. But now a man buys a sheep farm at R40 per morgen, and he needs three morgen for one sheep. He has therefore paid R120 for sheep. Must the Land Bank then loan him money at 6 per cent? After all, he knows that sheep cannot bring in an amount like that. The land is then revaluated at the real agricultural value.

You always use the most extreme cases.

Let me go further, Sir. I want to come to drought assistance. The hon. member claims that nothing is being done. He referred to the Western Cape. The Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing alone—I am not talking about the other bodies now—granted a railage rebate on cattle of R1.5 million in five years. In respect of the railage rebate on fodder the amount was R4.4 million. The subsidy on fodder amounted to R11.15 million. That is a subsidy of 50 per cent. The farmers who find themselves in difficulties as a result of droughts receive a subsidy of 50 per cent on the price of a bag of mealies or a bale of lucerne. Then he says: But I do not have the other 50 per cent. That he then receives from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure at 5 per cent. Recently the Minister of Agriculture stated: If it does not rain, extension will be granted on that 5 per cent until it does in fact rain. We realize that this problem arose not as a result of the incompetence of the farmer but because he had been forced to his knees as a result of this drought. That is why I find it so perturbing that these matters should be utilized for political gain, particularly if there are people who find themselves in difficulties as a result of weather conditions.

I come now to the additional subsidies. I have here the figures in respect of subsidies for each separate agricultural district. It is interesting to note how these figures increase as a result of a drought. As soon as it rains one can see that this is all the farmer wants, for then they stop this subsidy system immediately. The farmer then asks nothing more, because he has grass his animals can graze on.

I come now to the other subsidies and assistance which the Government is granting. Take for example the case of fertilizers. The hon. member claims that we are doing nothing. The subsidy on fertilizers last year, including the railage rebate, was R15 million. The subsidy on butter was R4.6 million. Now hon. members will say that this is the consumer’s subsidy. The subsidy on mealies last year, when there was a small harvest, was R20.8 million. The subsidy on wheat was R25 million. But now the hon. member claims that I stated in Colesberg that the Government is being criticized because the urban dwellers say that we are not doing enough, and that we consequently have to do these things surreptitiously. I did not say that. I did not say we must do these things so that people do not get to know about them. I only said that we as agriculturalists must remember that we must not eventually become unreasonable with our claims. I have said that we must be realistic. Very often I avail myself of these opportunities, not because it is a matter of politics with me, but because it is a matter of principle with me. I have made agriculture my life. Why should I lie about these things? Now one finds Chat in a publication of the United Party, their mouthpiece, the Financial Mail, it is said—

They even go so far as to depict a bull on the front page. Then there is an article with an illustration of Minister Uys standing with a bag of money. It is stated—

We must remember that it is the urban dweller who reads this publication.

That article is nonsense in any case.

Is it non sense? It is your people who print it. According to their publication we are doing nothing to help the farmer. The price I get for my wheat is R6.40 per bag. We can now offload wheat from Canada, Australia and America in Table Bay at R5.20 per bag, but we must protect our own industry, because we want to be self-sufficient. These are steps the Government is taking. I just want to quote this section of the article—

In their heart of hearts that is what they really want to do with the producers in our country. [Interjections.] Then the writer of the article also asks: “To what purpose is all this money being spent?” The Financial Mail is their publication. It is their mouthpiece but this is what is going on in their minds. The writer of the article also asks: “How much is being wasted on trying to help lazy and inefficient farmers who make no attempt to keep abreast of modem techniques?” These are the producers who harvested these crops with little rain. Surely they did keep abreast of new developments. The article goes on to say: “Why do they not follow good advice even when they get it? Is it not time to re-examine the whole policy of fattening the farmers at the taxpayers’ expense?” I ask you?

I come now to their statement that we should see to it that there are more research Officers and veterinary Officers in the country. We need not discuss again the shortage of trained men who are leaving our service for higher salaries, because we cannot upset the price structure by granting increases. However, I want to say that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has a pay-sheet of R32.3 million. In 1948 the Department had slightly more than 2,000 officials; and to-day the Department has slightly more than 6,000 officials. Veterinary services show an increase of 112 per cent in a period of 10 years. Field services to an amount of R3.2 million are being supplied, and an additional amount of R2 million has been granted to Onderstepoort. The research station at Onderstepoort is the largest in the world, and this institute has made available vaccine ampules to the value of R108 million to agriculture in our country. This is a tremendous improvement and increase. Years ago when that party was in power they published a White Paper. We must examine their past in order to see what conditions were when they were in power. A White Paper was published on the agricultural policy of Gen. Smuts. At the time the following were three of the serious difficulties. The unstable prices of farm produce; inefficient processing and distribution which had an adverse effect on producers; and the overvaluation of land and heavy mortgage burdens. Those were the findings of Gen. Smuts as far as agriculture is concerned. We took over, and what is the position now after 22 years? I stated previously in this House that we can feed 50 million people in this country. The farmers of this country will definitely feed them; they will produce it.

I come now to the problem of drought. The hon. member referred scornfully to the stock withdrawal scheme in terms of which we say to a farmer, “If you withdraw a third of your sheep, we will pay you out R2.50 per sheep”. We determined that price after consultation with organized agriculture. Within the next five years this scheme is going to cost us R6.7 million. We will have to pay it in order to be able to say to the farmer, “We want to save your soil, and in addition we want to keep you on the land. We are taking a third of your sheep. Sell them and carry on with the remaining two-thirds. You will then have more veld available for them, and it will be possible for your veld to recover. We will pay you R2.50 per sheep to a maximum of R3,000 per year.” That is a maximum of R3,000 per year we are giving the farmer, but the Government is doing nothing for agriculture! I want to conclude by quoting from a speech made the month before last in Georgia by the U.S.A. Deputy Minister of Agriculture—

I have not quoted this so as to be able to say that this is a normal situation and that this should be so, but if one examines agricultural conditions throughout the world one sees that they have changed in such a way that one has to apply better techniques. In order to make the grade it is true that some people will fall out, but the person who has not applied the correct technique will then ask for a State loan. We cannot help everybody and now it is unfortunately the case that a few of those who cannot be assisted, a few of them, will become frustrated and will then be dissatisfied. They then collaborate with the United Party and those are the people with whom we cannot do very much. I want to say again that there are in fact bottlenecks in agriculture. I am not disputing that. Hon. members must not go and tell the farmers that I have said that there is nothing wrong. Nor must those hon. members go and tell the farmer that this Government is unsympathetically disposed towards them, for they simply will not believe them. This Government realizes where its strength lies, i.e. in a happy agricultural population.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just sat down, will pardon me for not following up and reacting to his speech. I should like to respond to the challenge issued by the Minister of Health that we from this section of the House should also reply to what the Minister of Transport said yesterday in connnection with the hon. members of the H.N.P. In the limited time at my disposal I want to refer to one important remark made by the hon. the Minister. He said that it is categorically untrue that the hon. member for Ermelo was asked by Adv. Strydom to stand for election in Ermelo in 1948. In order to fortify his statement, he added: “I was close to Adv. Strydom. I was a member of the then executive.” The hon. the Minister is not a junior member in this House, and when he says that another hon. member is telling an untruth, one would want to accept that he knows what he is talking about. But let us look at the evidence of someone else. What does Mr. Wennie du Plessis say in the “Hertzog-annale”, Yearbook 14, December, 1967, at page 26 (translation)—

Now I ask the hon. the Minister of Transport: How must I, as a young member of this House, accept his political integrity when he made such a fuss here yesterday afternoon? Then, at the very first opportunity, something like this comes to light which shows us that that hon. Minister told a complete, blatant untruth in this House in connection with the hon. member for Ermelo. I want to tell the hon. Minister of Transport to-day that I no longer have the respect I had for him. I attach more value to the written testimony of Mr. Wennie du Plessis than to that of that Minister of Transport.

The Minister of Transport went further and made great play of how “in the forties, when Strydom, Verwoerd and I fought in the front line for the continued existence of the National Party, the hon. member for Ermelo sat on the fence”. Where was that hon. Minister of Transport in the years 1933 to 1939, when the hon. member for Ermelo told his own father in a letter: “I stand by Dr. Malan.” Then he did not stand by the then hon. member for Waterberg, who was standing alone in the Transvaal. No, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I reject the evidence which that hon. Minister of Transport gave here yesterday afternoon in connection with the hon. member for Ermelo. I want to warn him. He will find out that this is not all. He will find out that it is one of the most dangerous things in politics to launch a personal attack on a man as he did yesterday afternoon. Every cent which he paid out in this respect, will be repaid to him doubly.

Sir, it is as a result of this sort of action that there is unrest among the people. It is as a result of this that there is a new fludity in the political thought and movements of the people. Even the editor of Die Beeld, to whom the hon. Ministers on the other side have referred many times, and to whom they will often have to listen very carefully in the future, otherwise they will receive inelegant warnings, said only on Sunday that in 25 years he has not been as uncertain about the result of an election as he is about this one. You will notice, Sir, that they are quiet on the other side now, because they know that it is an important voice talking, this voice from Empangeni.

But this unrest in the ranks of the Afrikaners is not a new thing. This liberal direction in the governing party, this direction towards the left, already reared its head in 1960, when the present editor of Die Burger, who is the high priest of this movement, challenged Dr. Verwoerd in connection with the representation of Coloureds toy Coloureds in this Parliament. But Dr. Verwoerd flattened him, put him in his place and made short work of him. This gave us here in the Boland, as Boland Afrikaner Nationalists, great pleasure. It is, however, a pity that these gentlemen, these “Cape liberal Nats”, then continued their campaign within the National Party in a much more subtle way, until the day when Dr. Verwoerd was no longer there. At that time they openly worked to bring about a split to the right. When Dr. Verwoerd was no longer there, they took positive steps to bring this about. They got the support and co-operation of the hon. the Prime Minister in this respect. Then matters became worse and worse over a period of months and years. But the actual crystallization of this dispute came last year on 14th April, when the hon. member for Ermelo made his famous speech in connection with Calvinism and liberalism. Then a reaction came from the members of that once powerful party of Dr. Malan, Mr. Strydom and Dr. Verwoerd. What was this reaction? The hon. the Minister of Transport’s complaint was that the English-speaking people were being insulted. The English-speaking people do not say so themselves, but he thinks so. Following him, the hon. the Prime Minister said by way of an interjection: “I repudiated every one of those parts”, i.e. of that speech. In Die Burger it was reported: “I repudiated all of it”.

What does Hansard say?

Hon. members must not interrupt me unnecesssarily. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs also ventured into this field. At a meeting—I think it was at Brackenfel—he said (translation)—

Calvinistic National Party.

According to a report in Die Burger he was repudiated because of that. Naturally, the hon. the Minister of Defence reacted immediately. At more than one opportunity he made it clear in no uncertain terms that he also repudiated that speech. If he repudiated only a certain part of it. he still has to tell us to-day. From the evidence as a whole, it was clear that the leaders of the governing party in fact repudiated this speech in different ways. But the fact remains, finally, that the central truth of that speech was repudiated by the leaders of that party. What is the central truth of that speech? The central truth is that, in the last resort, as far as the white population is concerned, two philosophies of life are involved, namely Calvinism on the one hand or, if the hon. members prefer, Christian Nationalism, and the liberal outlook on the other hand. This is what is still involved in this young, growing, developing white nation. This central truth has been rejected by that party under those leaders. Now, Sir, when such a thing happens, when such a new milestone is reached in the long history of an erstwhile great party, it has consequences and there are fruits. There are signs by which one can recognize this event. What is one of the most striking signs? It is that people who are liberalists, people like Professor Horwood, who was a member of the Institute of Race Relations, the nursery of liberalism in South Africa, a man who is a participant in the, for South Africa, extremely dangerous United States and South Africa Leaders Exchange Programme, are introduced, dragged and pulled into the inner circles. Then we find that the Federated Chambers of Industries, for years a hostile opponent of National Afrikanerdom and the National Party with its policies, passed an official resolution to end its long opposition to that party. After that, as if it were not enough, the Trade Union Congress of South Africa passed a resolution on the motion of Miss Johanna Cornelius. the former co-worker of Solly Sachs, that they now supported the outward movement of that party. Therefore you can see. Sir, that when a party does the kind of thing which that party did last year, it may take a few months, but not very long, before it becomes clear to the people of South Africa that what are in fact involved are the greatest truths according to which and on the basis of which this white nation lives. Because that party blundered in this situation, because they did not understand it or, alternatively, did not have the courage to stand by these, that party’s power will still disappear.

I want to conclude by saying that when the governing party now sees the type of support of the Horwoods and the Federated Chambers of Industries and TUCSA coming to it on the one hand, and on the other hand actively drives out people who all these years were the backbone and carried that governing party when it still abided by its principles, then we know that we have entered a new historical era in South Africa. We have entered a new dispensation. In this new dispensation, we declare from these benches, we will fight one and all who oppose us—no matter from where the opposition comes—because we abide by these firm principles. We pledge ourselves to that struggle. We are fully prepared and ready for that struggle.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to discuss with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a matter raised by him. Before doing so, I want, just in passing, to deal with the young hon. member who has just sat down. This young hon. member is actually a tragedy in our politics and one must feel sorry for him. Early in his political life, this hon. member forgot a few essential things, or neglected to observe them. This young hon. member now tells us here that the wrong trend in the National Party started as far back as 1960. He became a member of this House only in 1967. The hon. member was very close to me and I was very good to him and he was also very close to his predecessor, the late Dr. Dönges. This hon. member cannot mention me one occasion since 1960 when he started noticing these things and complained to me or to his predecessor, the late Dr. Dönges, or to any other leader of the National Party in the Cape Province about this new trend. When the hon. member became a member in 1967, he still had so much confidence in me, as the man who allegedly took the wrong course as early as that, that I had to hold his most important meeting for him at Worcester at the time of the by-election.

Then he used “Cape liberals”.

Yes, then he made use of a “liberal” to help to carry him in. This young hon. member also omitted to do certain other things. After he had become the member of the House of Assembly for Worcester, he paid me a visit in my Office early last year. I had not invited him to do so, but he had made an appointment with me shortly after the commencement of the session. He then said the following: “I come to you as my Leader to tell you that my name is being linked with those of Dr. Albert Hertzog, Willie Marais and Jaap Marais, and I want to tell you that there is not a word of truth in it, and that I have nothing to do with them.” I had not invited him to my Office, but the hon. member came there to tell a lie.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is one hon. member allowed to accuse another hon. member of having told a lie?

The incident took place outside this House, The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I then told the hon. member that I accepted his word. He then asked me whether I did not think that he should also go to the hon. the Prime Minister to tell him as well. I then told him that that was his business and that I did not walk around to find out from the Cape members of the House of Assembly what their views were. If, however, he felt that he had a case which he would like to present to the hon. the Prime Minister, he could go to him.

And then he came.

Yes, he then went to the Prime Minister and repeated what he had said to me. The young hon. member, who puts on such an air of importance here, pretends to have seen the dangers on the road since 1960. After that, I went to the Cape Provincial Congress as leader of the party and laid down a definite policy before the head committee. That hon. member was a member of the head committee of the party. On 3rd September, 1968, he assumed Office in the head committee the National Party. I then presented a formulated motion which had been drawn up by me and the hon. the Minister of the Interior, to the head committee. The hon. member then voted for every sentence in that motion. I should like to read this resolution of the head committee to the House. It reads as follows (Translation)—

1. (a) the sport policy as expounded by the Prime Minister and which contains the following principles—
   1. (i) no mixed sport to be practised between Whites and non-Whites of South Africa on home territory;
   2. (ii) the arrangement of international competition must be left in the hands of the controlling sporting bodies and in foreign countries our sportsmen must conform to the laws and customs of the host countries; that we do not intefere with the selection of visiting teams but that we expect them also to honour our laws and customs;
   3. (iii) the execution of our intention to continue on the international level with the traditional sporting relationships such as the Olympic Games, the Canada Cup, the Davis Cup, as well as rugby and cricket relationships;
   4. (iv) the recognition of the right of South Africa’s non-White sportsmen to compete against non-White sportsmen as well as of non-White sportsmen of Olympic standard to go to the Olympic Games should South Africa take part;
   5. (v) the necessary liaison between White and non-White sport administrations for this purpose;
   6. (vi) the unequivocal avoidance of political interference in sport to mar relationships between countries and which could have the effect of creating internal difficulties for us.

The hon. member voted in favour of this. What is more, the hon. member also voted for the following motion (translation)—

The hon. member voted in favour of this as well. In the third place, the hon. member voted for this (translation)—

The hon. member voted for this as well. In addition (translation)—

The hon. member voted for that. The next day I personally presented that motion to the congress, and the hon. member was again present. I then stood up and said that I wanted no misunderstanding amongst members of the congress in regard to that proposal. I then explained it and asked if there was any one in the congress who would vote against it. The hon. member remained seated, and together with the other committee members, did not vote against it. The congress accepted the resolution unanimously. After that it began to become clear from that young hon. member’s constituency that he was busy undermining the party. Instead of looking after the interests of his constituents, he began to stir up unrest in his constituency. We then started taking action against him. His leader referred to a letter yesterday which I had allegedly written to him. I did not write the letter. It was a letter written by the secretary on behalf of the head committee of the party in the Cape Province. It was done after the head committee had considered the matter. It is true that we gave the hon. member a certain period within which to endorse a head committee decision. At a previous head committee meeting we had adopted a certain resolution and the hon. member had had a chance to speak against it at that meeting. He then voted against the motion. Subsequently the hon. member would not submit to the head committee’s decision. This good democrat would not submit to the head committee’s decision, after the head committee had passed a resolution with a majority of votes, with his vote being the only dissentient one. He would not submit to it. For this reason the head committee wrote a letter to him after he had been afforded an opportunity to explain his actions to the head committee. We then told him that we would give him time until 3 o’clock the following afternoon, and if he by then had not submitted himself to the party leadership, the party’s principles and the resolution of the head committee, he would be expelled from the party. After the ultimatum had been presented to him, the brave hero sent us this letter in his own handwriting. The letter is dated 20th May, 1969, and he wrote the following (translation)—

This is the brave hero! Look at him sitting there like a clean-shaven Father Christmas! This is the brave hero of Worcester! This is the brave hero who has the impertinence to behave in such a way towards a statesman such as the hon. the Minister of Transport. He is too young to speak in such a manner to a man who has walked along that road. He must learn manners. He must also learn to keep his word. He must learn that when he has set his hand to paper and affixed his signature, he should stand by his colleagues like an honourable man. If he does not do this, he must not blame us if we treat him with the contempt with which we are treating him now. Then he must not blame us if his voters reject him as they are doing now; if the leaders who carried him in on their backs, the people who worked for him day and night, now treat him as they are in fact treating him in Worcester. He ought to be ashamed of himself. I say that it is a tragedy for a young man to go to meet his political end in such a way. I shall leave him now; I think he is of lesser importance. I do not think we should allow ourselves to be further impeded by these petty actions of political self-seekers on the road of South Africa. I therefore leave him at that with the contempt he deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to talk to the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition …

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

That hon. member knows my personal relationship with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I have respect for him; that hon. member must not be petty now.

Order! These unnecessary interjections only lead to bickering exchanges. There is no need for the hon. the Minister to take notice of all the interjections.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition complained about the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister had decided to hold an election, because only last year he had said that he could see no reason why an election should be held. But is it not the duty of any responsible government at all times to seek the greatest possible stability for its country and stability in the political field, especially in a dangerous world such as we are living in now? But I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question. He now says that it is as a result of the activities of this small clique on the political front that it has become necessary for us to go to the polls. But what happened immediately after this small slanderous group had tried to make trouble in the political life of South Africa? Immediately the Press which mainly supports the Leader of the Opposition—whether he wants to know it or not—acclaimed these people as their new heroes. The total impression which they created in South Africa and overseas was that a period of lack of political stability was coming in South Africa. We, as a responsible government, felt this. We know about what took place overseas as a result of the exaggerated value which even a large section of the Press in South Africa attached to the sophistries of this small group of people. The Opposition Press completely exaggerated this matter in order to serve their own ends. But they rendered a disservice to South Africa by creating the impression that we are entering a period of lack of political stability. My reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is …

Quite right.

Let the curs go and bark outside! My reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that in a dangerous world such as that in which we are living, it is the responsibility of every responsible government to act in such a way that it ensures the country of the greatest and longest period of political stability. Hence the election.

But I want to go further. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he must not blame us if we criticize him severely over the fact that in his approach to criticism of the Government, when he talks about these matters and refers to the period in which we need friends, and in the wild utterances which his party makes against the policy of parallel development, against the policy of seeking proper arrangements between the white man and the non-White man in this country, he often acts in the same spirit as U Thant and the broadcasts which are directed against South Africa from the headquarters of our chief enemies. I am not talking about the fact that he differs with the Government; that is his right. That is a fact. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would do South Africa a great favour if he called to order the wild elements in his party and the wild elements in the Press which support him, so that they exercised reasonable criticism, so that they set point of view against point of view. Do not speak the language of U Thant and even in some cases the language of communism in his attack on South Africa. This has nothing to do with the policy of the National Party, because if it concerned simply and solely the policy of the National Party, he would perhaps still have had a case. The same poison is spat against Rhodesia, which has a different internal policy from that of the National Party of South Africa. The same poison is spat at the Portuguese territories, which have a different policy. This is in fact a struggle emanating from the circles of irresponsible elements which want to create chaos and disorder in the world, a struggle directed against stability, against good government and against order. An election period lies ahead, and I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to restrain his wild elements so that they do not play into the hands of the people who want to bring distress upon not only the Republic of South Africa, but the whole of Southern Africa.

I want to raise a second point. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he was opposed to the Government and that he was moving a motion of no confidence in the Government because our attitude in regard to national unity was objectionable. But it is no use talking about national unity and having fine statements such as the United Party’s programme of principles about national unity, and failing when you have to bring about national unity in practice. Now I just want to refer to three examples. The United Party was in power for a long time. I can remember how United Party members sat here in then benches during the last few years of their regime. I still remember how someone had to sit next to the Ministers in order to interpret to a large section of the Cabinet what was being said from the Opposition side.

A tick-bird.

In other words, the only example which we have of a United Party government, is a government of unilingual persons, a government which could not understand what a large section of the white population of South Africa was saying to it. How do you intend achieving national unity in this country if you have so much contempt for the largest section of the white population in South Africa, namely the Afrikaners? But, Sir, to-day he still has people in his ranks who would need interpreters should they become ministers.

Let us take a further example. When this National Party Government came into power, one of the first steps it took was to introduce South African citizenship. What was the attitude adopted by the Leader of the Opposition’s party? They organized protest meetings throughout the country. Thousands of people were incited against the introduction of South African citizenship. They wanted to remain British subjects. Was that a step on the road to national unity?

That is not true.

But of course. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has forgotten his own past; that is why he is still a United Party man. Of course it is true and history proved that large protest meetings were organized against that Citizenship Act. But the greatest crime committed by the United Party against national unity was when the opportunity arose to establish a republic in South Africa. What did the Leader of the Opposition say to the then Prime Minister? I quote from Hansard—

In other words, he represented the republican ideal as a crime. When I introduced the Referendum Bill here, which had to make the referendum possible—I was Deputy Minister at that time—the hon. member for South Coast almost assaulted me across the floor of the House. He sent me to hell. Does the member still remember it? And what did the hon. member for South Coast say? I quote—

I have just mentioned a few examples of where they could have served the principle of national unity and where in practice they not only ran away but also opposed it, where they left the foundations upon which national unity had to be built, in the lurch. Now they ask us to trust them with the Republic. We must trust them with the child which they did not want and which they wanted to murder before its birth. They wanted to kill the child before it was born, but now that it is becoming a strong young man, they want it. They are not to be trusted with it.

[Inaudible.]

Give me a chance, I shall not interrupt you. I want to mention six reasons this afternoon why South Africa and its interests should be entrusted to this Government.

In the first place, we must be trusted because our policy, in contrast to the policy of that slanderous little party, makes room for the acknowledgment of God’s Will in the destinies of peoples and because we will allow no church struggle in South Africa to divide our politics. In the second place, we must be trusted because we have laid and are still laying the foundations for greater national unity, not fusion or coalitions, but national unity, which is the strength of a nation to go to meet the future. In the third place, because it is national unity which is built on the principle of equal treatment, so that I can speak Afrikaans without hating English, and speak English without neglecting Afrikaans. Such a spirit must be cultivated in this country. In the fourth place, there is the pursuit of the policy of justice in the regulation of the relationships between population groups, not the hatred which that slanderous little party wants to stir up and not the dangerous road along which the United Party wants to lead us, but a road along which every population group will be granted its rightful place under the sun and peace will be established in South Africa, so that power may emanate from the country. In the fifth place, there is the policy of good neighbourliness in Africa, so that we with our capacity for technological and economic contributions and military stability may preserve Southern Africa for civilization. In the sixth place, because this party is the party which can be trusted to maintain South Africa’s strategic position. This is the party which will be able to make South Africa secure for the free world and to keep it secure. For these six reasons, we have a future task. And for these six reasons, we have a message for the youth of South Africa. For these reasons the youth of South Africa can entrust their future to us, and we our future to them.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to say as regards the first part of the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Defence. If Nationalists want to denounce and accuse other Nationalists across the floor of the House and level the kind of charges we had to listen to during the past two days, namely that this one had said this, that and the other thing, and that something else is a downright lie or is scandalous, they are welcome to do so. Apparently all of them are still Nationalists. I just want to repeat what was said by the hon. member for Durban (Point) yesterday as regards the attitude adopted by this side of the House. As far as we are concerned, the majority of the members on the other side of the House are verkramp. The vast majority of them are verkramptes and if they do not reveal it before 22nd April, it will be revealed after that date. Any Nationalist who was in favour of an outward policy two years ago or who displayed such tendencies, was put down by the Nationalist Party of that time. I can furnish a long list of names. There were the Geyers, the Naudés and others.

On 26th September, 1958, I used an agricultural platform for the purpose of warning the Government that we would lose our markets in Africa if we did not adopt a more outward-looking attitude. I also said that we would lose not only the friendship of the white world but also our trade if we did not move in an outward direction. It was thereupon decided by that side of the House that this person should be crushed under the heel of the Nationalist Party. I do not want to warn the hon. the Prime Minister, because it is not for me to do so, but I just want to tell him. without associating myself with what was said by the hon. member for Worcester, that his outward policy will result in his being trodden down under the heel of the Afrikaner. But we shall leave it at that, because I want to concentrate on what was said by the hon. the Minister of Defence. He referred to what my Leader had said during the no-confidence debate, and I do have something to say about that. He defended the decision of the Prime Minister to hold an earlier election. We have no objection to that, but, of course, we ask why he made that decision. If he made it because of the following four silly reasons, namely sport, black diplomats, unity and immigration, I just want to say that these are weak reasons.

One of the reasons is to re-ensure the stability of the Government.

Then one of the reasons for the election must be to show that this country still has a stable Government. Surely, when the Prime Minister becomes afraid when four members of his Party are expelled while there are still 120 members left and the Prime Minister wants to show the country that it has a stable Government, it means that the Government is not stable any more. It means that the hon. the Prime Minister is afraid. Surely, this goes without saying. How can a Government which has such a majority …

You are afraid of the voters.

I am going to tell you to “shut up”. How can a Government which has such a majority advance as a reason the fact that it wants to show the outside world that it is a stable Government while it has a three to one majority over the Opposition? Surely, one cannot expect people to believe this. I am not going to give any reasons why we think he called an election, because he was welcome to do so. We are quite prepared to fight the election.

The hon. the Minister of Defence said other things as well. He warned my hon. Leader as regards the language he had used in this debate as far as race relations in this country were concerned.

You did not listen to what I said.

I listened very carefully. He said that my hon. Leader had used language that was almost the same as that used by Communists.

That is not what I said.

I listened very carefully to what the hon. the Minister said, I can only say that we take great exception to an accusation of that kind. I would like it to be said outside this House that the Leader of the United Party or any of its members uses language which borders on the language used by Communists as regards race relations in this country. This is a scandalous accusation. When the hon. the Minister mentions national unity and says that we do not promote national unity, I just want to ask whether we on this side of the House are not living proof of national unity? Do hon. members opposite think that national unity could be spelled out by the addition of one English-speaking person to that side of the House? Is that a demonstration of national unity? Reference was made to cases which occurred 25 years ago when interpreters had to be used because many people were not proficient in one of the official languages. After all, have we not made progress since then? Are people not more bilingual at present? Is there any reason to believe that if this side of the House were to take over the Government it would appoint a Minister who would not be able to understand Afrikaans or English? Why level accusations such as these? The hon. the Minister thereupon gave us an exposition of the aims of the Nationalist Party for the coming election. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that those very six points he held up to us had already been made by this side of the House on a previous occasion.

I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. Last year he was a much younger Deputy Minister …

A year younger.

I mean younger in experience. At that time we thought he was a candid person, and we thought highly of him. However, when saying that I do not want to imply that we think nothing of him, but we do think less of him than we did a year ago because he drags his political views into agriculture here. From the very outset he accused the hon. member for Newton Park of dragging politics into agriculture. You know what he does, Mr. Speaker? He told us the old story of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. He mentioned a long list of subsidy payments and amounts the Government made available for the payment of subsidies and so forth. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister in all fairness whether agriculture is better off financially than it was 10 or 15 years ago. This is not the case at all. To prove this, I want to read extracts from the report of the Agricultural Bank and of the Agricultural Credit Board. I am also going to furnish particulars from commercial banks to prove this stilll further. Those particulars will enable me to show that farmers are at present worse off financially than they were 10 to 15 years ago. The hon. the Deputy Minister then came along and said that although the number of farmers in South Africa had been reduced from 125,0 to 90,000 they could easily feed 50 million people. This was said by reason of the fact that we now have surpluses for some reason or other.

I now want to refer to those surpluses. The hon. the Deputy Minister will perhaps follow the example of his senior by hiding behind the control boards. He then mentioned the maize surplus and the subsidies of R20 million per year; the wheat surplus and the subsidies of R25 million per year; and the dairy surplus and the subsidies of R4½ million per year. I now want to ask: How many of the control boards have followed the example of the Dairy Board? The Board made surpluses available to the country at export prices so that it could be sold to the less privileged section of our population at a lower price. Why has this hon. Deputy Minister not made a similar recommendation to other control boards before? It maize has to be exported, why can it not rather be made available to the less privileged people at export prices?

But this we have done. They have been granted a subsidy of R30 million to enable them to do so.

It is as plain as a pikestaff that very few of the boards that export their surpluses at a loss have followed the example of the Dairy Board. Why did they not do it when it was done by the Dairy Board by way of experiment? Surely, the surpluses could have been disposed of locally to feed the animals or even the people. After all, that would reduce the surpluses which are being exported at a loss. The hon. the Minister said that the farmers would easily be able to feed a population of 50 million in future. I want to analyse a few population statistics. I am referring to the statistics of a year ago which were released by the Bureau of Statistics. At present the figures for the various population groups are as follows: White 3.7 million; Coloureds, 1.8 million; Indians, .6 million and Bantu, 14.7 million. That gives a total of 19.8 million. We accept these figures. A forecast was also made of what the population was likely to be towards the year 2000. The estimates are as follows: Whites, 7 million; Coloureds, 6 million; Indians, 1J million and Bantu, 30 million. At that time I was sceptical about these figures. How can one say that the white population, which numbers 3.4 million at present, will be 7½ million by that time? It means that this figure will have to increase twofold. But according to the estimates, the estimated number of Bantu will also increase twofold. How can this be our criterion since the birth rate among the Whites decreases all the time while it increases among the Bantu? Surely, this does not tally. But then Die Beeld came along with a new statement a fortnight ago. Die Beeld said that in the year 2000 there would be between 40 and 42 million Bantu. I think even this figure is a conservative one because, when making this estimate, we assume that the number of Coloureds will increase threefold and that the number of Indians will increase threefold, what right did we have to expect the number of Bantu to increase twofold?

I now want to deal with the figures forecast by Die Beeld, and I want to do so for a different reason than the one advanced by that newspaper, because I suspect Die Beeld to have made that statement to show the great danger there would be for the white people in the year 2000 in view of the 42 million Bantu. What we deduce from that, is that there is not the remotest chance of there being any room for those 42 million Bantu in their own areas in the year 2000, not even with the best development we will be able to bring about there. In other words, the matter is a potential danger, and it is probably for that reason that Die Beeld made that estimate, but I want to make it for the sake of agriculture. If there were to be 42 or 45 million Bantu plus the 7.5 million Whites, plus the 6 million Coloureds, plus the Indians in the year 2000 and if we were to make provision to feed a population of between 55 and 60 million in the year 2000, I want to say that agriculture, as it is being practised to-day, will never be able to feed so many people because agriculture does not pay and what is even worse, is the fact that so many people are leaving agriculture.

The hon. Deputy Minister asked why it is that the price of land is increasing all the time when agriculture does not pay? But where does he live? Does he live in an area where the price of land has increased? If he does, he is very fortunate to live in an area where the price of land has increased, but I want to tell him that throughout the Cape Province, from the Drakensberg to Springbok, the price of land has fallen by half. Sir, do you know that whereas State-owned land used to be sold at R25 to R30 per morgen—and not at R40 as the hon. the Minister said—it was sold freely at R15 and less per morgen lately, and these were excellent farms at that. In the Great Karoo and further along they sell for as little as R10 per morgen.

Where?

In the district of Middelburg excellent farms were sold at R15 per morgen recently because there was no demand. Farming does not pay. One cannot get one’s son to go farming either. If he is farming already, he comes to you and says: “Father, you better take the farm back, because there is nothing in this industry; one only gets into debt”. And all he does, is getting into debt. Let me show you, Sir, to what extent he is getting into debt. What do the reports of the Land Bank tell us? I want to deal with the three reports one after the other. The report states that 2,900 applications for R54 million were received in 1967 and in the year 1968, 3,400 applications for R70 million were received, an increase of R16 million in one year. The report states further that with the consolidation of debts an amount of R8 million was consolidated in 1967 land that is the latest report; I tried my best to obtain the figures for 1969 but I could not). In 1968 the consolidation of debts amounted to over R12 million, i.e. R4 million more than the previous year. The report states further that the applications for hypothec loans considered and granted in 1967 amounted to R2.3 million, while the figure for 1968 was R3 million. The report goes further and states that capital owned to the Land Bank in 1967 amounted to R179 million, while it was R195 million in 1968. If I do a bit of arithmetic and divide this amount of R195 million owed to the Land Bank by the farmers, mainly for mortgage bonds—I shall deal with short-term loans presently—by the total number of farmers, i.e. 90,0, it gives us a mortgage burden of R2.200 per farmer. But I want to go further and deal with the cash credit loans for farmers granted to the agricultural co-operatives. These loans amounted to R502 million for the year 1968. The purpose of these loans is to enable the agricultural co-operatives in their turn to help the farmers. When dividing the amount of R502 million by the number of farmers, i.e. 90,000, I find that each farmer owes R5,600. In other words, when one adds these two amounts, one finds that every farmer owes the Land Bank as such R8,000. [Interjection.]

I want to go further and indicate what the position is as regards agricultural credit. I want to disagree with the hon. the Minister as regards the figures he furnished. At this stage agricultural credit loans, such as farm mortgage bonds and hypothec loans, amount to R110 million, and the interest in arrear amounts to R5 million; in addition, there are outstanding advances amounting to R98,000, giving a total amount of R116 million. When dividing the amount of R116 million by the number of farmers, i.e. 90,000, I find that each of the 90,000 farmers owes an amount of nearly R10,000. But we know full well that not all the farmers avail themselves of these facilities.

I now want to deal with yet another figure. Does the Minister have any idea of what the farmers owe financial institutions, building societies and other organizations, as well as what they owe in respect of mortgage burdens and overdrafts for their working capital?

Yes.

I am glad he has that information, but it is a pity he did not let us have it. I hope he is going to let us have it now; I will have the figures on Monday. I want to tell him that this amount of R10,000 per farmer for 90,000 farmers will increase to R15,000 with the debts added. This is the situation prevailing in the agricultural industry at present. The Minister now mentions the feeling of confidence that exists, but he does not mention the love the Afrikaans boy has for the land. No, he mentions the feeling of confidence that exists in the agricultural industry and for that reason such a great number of applications are received for a piece of State-owned land when it is advertised and it finds its way back to the market because the farmer could not pay. We know there are a great number of applications, but is it because the industry is a paying one? Are the figures we have correct or not, namely that the farmer receives an average dividend of less than 3 per cent from his investment in farming? Are the figures we have correct or not, namely that industry and trade will not be satisfied with less than 8 per cent? Industry and trade will make a great fuss if they receive less than that, but the agricultural industry has to be satisfied with less than 3 per cent.

On what basis do you calculate the capital?

On the total capital sum he invests in agriculture. It has been proved here year after year without contradiction that this is the dividend he receives on his investment. [Interjections.] The figure furnished by the South African Agricultural Union is 2.2 per cent.

May I ask a question? Could you tell me what the total debt burden in agriculture is compared with the total assets?

I did not calculate the percentage. The total agricultural assets are in the vicinity of R4,000 million, but I do not know what percentage thereof represents liabilities. But what I am proving here— if only the hon. member for Aliwal wants to understand it—is that the agricultural industry, to begin with, is not a paying one. It is no use saying it is, indeed, a paying one. The farmers are falling behind to an ever-increasing extent, and the situation has deteriorated more and more over the past decade, notwithstanding all the measures, the patchwork, the system of subsidization, introduced by the Government.

Oh, is it patchwork?

Ingratitude.

If the position of the farmer has deteriorated to such an extent notwithstanding all the measures that have been introduced, we can help the agricultural industry only by devising a major plan in terms of which the farmer can be assisted in a way other than the present method.

What is your plan?

The accusation that this side of the House is ungrateful for the assistance rendered to the agricultural industry, is so much nonsense. How many times have I and other members on this side of the House speaking on agricultural matters not said that we feel grateful towards the Government for having granted the Railway rebates and concessions and other forms of assistance. Every person who is drowning will, of oourse, clutch at any straw and will be grateful if he can find one to save himself. But that is not the solution.

What is the solution?

Surely, it will not help us always to blame the drought for the conditions prevailing in the agricultural industry.

What is your solution?

The solution is contained in our written agricultural policy. We will furnish every member on that side of the House with a copy of our policy, but we challenge them to give every one of us on this side of the House in turn a brochure in which their agricultural policy is set out.

They do not have an agricultural policy.

Sir, I see many of those yellow brochures on that side of the House. If they do not have enough of them, we offer to make more of those brochures available to them. I believe some of the hon. members on that side of the House paid up to R10 for one of those brochures. They can all pay R10, and we shall give every one of them a brochure. What is important, is that we have not yet received such a brochure from the Nationalist Party; we have not yet had from the Nationalist Party an agricultural policy which will help the farmers out of the predicament in which they are finding themselves. Sir, the young man who goes farming today, does so simply because of his love for the land, and if the young man goes farming and has to sit there in the dark in the evenings while the westerly winds are covering him with dust and while he wonders where he is going to get the fodder from to feed his animals the next day, he cannot even watch television. He has to spend the evenings worrying about his misfortune as a result of the everlasting drought and the meagre assistance he gets from the Government. Sir, this Government is unable to devise a plan to save the agricultural industry from the predicament in which it finds itself. Such a plan will have to be devised by the next Government, and it will not be this Government. Sir, the whole of the economy of the country depends on its agricultural industry and when the agricultural industry ceases to be the backbone of the people, when the people cease to draw their leaders from the agricultural industry, such a country is finished and this country will be finished when we can no longer produce enough food in the year 2000 and when our young men, who have loved the land, will no longer be on the land. They do not want to go back to the land to-day. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, I heard a young farmer who lives in the high-rainfall area near the Drakensberg saying the other day: “I have been suffering under the drought since 1961; I feed my animals for all that it is worth and I can no longer make ends meet: I am already R20,000 in the red. When it rains again, I am going to sell this farm even if it fetches R8 or R18 per morgen; I do not care at all. I just want to get out of the gate with my suitcase; but I cannot sell the farm now.” There is simply no demand for land as a result of the drought circumstances; he cannot get rid of his land; he simply has to keep it. I have already said that only a major plan can save the agricultural industry, and I have also said that this Government cannot devise a major plan. They have had the agricultural industry under their control for 22 years and during that period we had the worst agricultural policy, the worst deterioration in the agricultural industry and the worst Ministers we have ever known in this country. If they were not the worst, they would have been able to explain to the Cabinet that the agricultural industry is the backbone of the economy of the country and that the agricultural industry has to be developed. They would have announced a major plan long ago and not have waited for advice to come from the agricultural boards and the South African Agricultural Union. They would have come with a major plan long ago to save the agricultural industry from the sorry plight and to rehabilitate it and place it on a sound basis.

What is your plan?

All the hon. member has to do, is to read that yellow brochure in which our policy is set out. In that brochure we state that the farmer is also entitled to a decent living and a profit on the things he produces; he cannot live on losses. The Government has to make it possible for him to make a profit.

He wants to govern the country, but he does not know what the solution is.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister told us here that he heard one farmer in Standerton say that he wondered whether he could still vote for the United Party. Sir, in every constituency I visit, I hear 500 farmers say that they cannot vote for the Nationalist Party any longer. I do not blame them. We shall welcome those farmers under the banner of the United Party. We shall welcome it if they vote for the United Party and for a government which will take care of the farmer, and on 22nd April, as sure as fate, we are going to win the election.

It was not my intention to take part in the debate at this stage, but the absolute nonsense just spoken by the hon. member for East London (City) compels me to do so. The hon. member for East London (City) said that under this Government during the past 22 years agriculture had declined so sharply that it is to-day in a far worse position than ever before, and he is speaking here of agriculture in general. But what are the facts? What is the position to-day, in spite of the most severe droughts we have had over the past nine or ten years, restricting production in many large areas in the country? When this Government came into power in 1948 there was a shortage of literally every kind of foodstuff in South Africa. There was not enough maize; there was not enough butter; there was not enough wheat; there was not enough meat.

There had been a war.

We assumed Office after the United Party Government in 1948. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. Artificial fertilizer was being rationed; there was no production yet when we assumed Office. After 22 years of National Party Government there is not a shortage in respect of one single product in South Africa, in spite of the fact that we have had the most protracted droughts. [Interjection.] Despite the drought there is such a surplus of cheese that the hon. member for East London (City) told me a moment ago that the Dairy Board had made a special effort to sell butter and cheese at reduced prices. That hon. member should not speak, because he knows nothing about agriculture; he should rather keep quiet. There is an egg surplus. Enough wheat was produced in South Africa this year, in spite of the fact that the Western Cape had the dryest year in the past 100 years of its history and the crop was the smallest. The hon. member for East London (City) says that the situation in the agricultural industry has deteriorated to such an extent, and here in the United Party’s documented policy they state: The Government’s primary task is to feed the country. Sir, this is pre-eminently what has been done. The Government has fed the country. Surpluses in export citrus and deciduous fruit have arisen. There has been a tremendous increase in their exports. There was an increase in the export of maize over the past years, except last year, and this year we are again going to export. There have been unexportable surpluses of butter and other products. But the hon. member simply makes the general statement that the policy followed by this Government is such that agriculture has deteriorated. And then the hon. member says that this Government has given no attention to the problems with which agriculture is faced. He says that the Government has done nothing about it and then he mentions certain examples. He says that there are young farmers in the rural areas who say that they have had to spend R20,000 on fodder, and that if they have good rains next year and can sell their livestock they are going to leave agriculture. Are they going to leave agriculture because it is not profitable to farm with livestock, or are they going to leave agriculture because the drought has affected them to such an extent that they do not want to continue farming?

But now I want to ask the hon. member: If he wants to keep those people in agriculture, what other measures must the Government take to help them with their livestock? If he wants to keep those people in agriculture, what does he suggest we should do to keep them there? Must the taxpayer keep them there and give them free fodder in times of drought? Must the taxpayer enable them to bridge the difficult period, so that they can continue without debts in the next rainy year? Is that what hon. members suggest? The fact remains that those people in the disaster areas obtained their fodder loans at an interest rate of 5 per cent. What is more, in most cases very large portions of those loans were in the form of subsidies or additional subsidies to feed their livestock. That is what the Government is doing to keep those farmers going. But hon. members now make a general statement. They say that when they are in Office they will ensure that that situation will not arise. They say that whether there are surpluses or whether there are droughts and no one has anything to sell, they will see to it that the production costs of those farmers are guaranteed under all circumstances, and that the farmers receive a worthwhile price and make a profit. That is what they say. I now want to ask hon. members: What people’s production costs are they going to guarantee? Let us suppose that they are dealing with the wool industry. Let us suppose that they would be prepared to say that they would guarantee the production costs of the wool industry, and that they would then give a supplementary subsidy if a certain price is not realized. Are they going to guarantee the price to the man who farms under normal conditions, or are they only going to do so for the man farming under abnormal conditions, as a result of drought? Are hon. members also going to guarantee those production costs in times when the farmer has to purchase fodder to the value of R20,000? We must have clarity. The impression created by the Opposition is that they will guarantee production costs regardless of the circumstances under which the farmer is producing. That is the impression they want to create amongst the farmers. Their mistake is in thinking that the farmers are so ignorant as to believe it. What farmer is so stupid as to believe it? He surely knows himself that if his production costs for wool increase by 200 per cent in one year because it so happened that he had to purchase fodder as a result of the drought, any party which is so stupid as to say that it will guarantee those full costs, plus a profit, would not remain in power for a fortnight. Sir, those are the circumstances. The hon. member for East London (City) quoted figures to indicate the increase in the burden of debt in agriculture. He made a calculation by taking various figures from the reports of co-operatives. He took the debts at the Land Bank and those at the Department of Agricultural Credit and came to the conclusion that 90,000 farmers owed an average of R50,000. That is the calculation be made. He said that 90,000 farmers each owed R50,000.

No.

Of course. That is what the hon. member said after he had made his calculation.

I said that it would be close to R15,000, not R50,000.

Very well then. The hon. member says that each one owes about R15,000. However, if we look at the total investment in agriculture, we see that many of the debts were caused by the droughts. A large portion of these debts did not arise as a result of the prices of the products. There are price problems in the case of some of the products, for example wool, but the largest portion of these debts arose as a result of drought conditions, crop failures, etc. One of the strongest arguments of those hon. members in the past against the Government and the so-called incompetence of the Minister has always been that the farmers who farm with products which are not controlled by the Minister in terms of the Marketing Act are doing well and are in a strong position. They have always said that only those farmers whose products are controlled by the Minister are experiencing difficulties. And now? Who are now the farmers who are experiencing difficulties? Is it those farmers who receive a guaranteed price in terms of the Marketing Act? Is it those farmers who are under the so-called control of the Minister, or is it those who have to compete on the export markets with their products such as citrus, deciduous fruit and wool? Who are now the farmers who are experiencing difficulties? I am merely mentioning this to indicate that the entire agitation initiated here by those hon. members is merely a political smoke-screen which they are throwing up to the country. This Government need not be ashamed of what it is doing for the farmers and for agriculture. Let them come with their allegations, but just look, for example, at the control of livestock diseases, the combating of weeds, or of pests and plagues.

I want to tell the hon. member that he may look up the amount in respect of research, extension and training on the Estimates. It amounts to between R32 million and R33 million and was made available for those purposes only. That is apart from direct assistance given to agriculture in the form of subsidies. There are some constituencies which have experienced droughts in successive years and which have been helped to the tune of R5 million by the Department of Agricultural Credit at 5 per cent interest in order to try to keep the farmers there. Those hon. members say that the Government is doing nothing about this and that the people are deserting the land. No matter what a government wanted to do for me, if I had to face a protracted drought year after year and was forced to slip back year after year, I would also leave. Surely you would be a fool not to do so if you saw nature impoverishing you in spite of all the assistance the Government may give you. Even if you could feed yourself on your farm, you still would not stay there, because why must you? These are circumstances which have developed in parts of our country and therefore we shall have to undertake rehabilitation work in those areas, particularly in respect of the land. This is being done in particular, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, with the withdrawal of livestock. This is being done in order to enable people to rehabilitate their land and not to increase the value of the land for the State. It is being done to increase the value of the land for the farmer so that he may use it in future as well. But now that hon. member says that there is no long-term planning in agriculture. The entire basis of the Marketing Act and all the measures we are taking, for example long-term research, the provision of information to the farmers, Land Bank mortgages and the granting of agricultural credit, are all examples of long-term planning to enable the farmer to remain on the land. I want to tell hon. members that if it were not for this long-term planning of the Government, there would no longer have been 90,000 farmers on the farms to-day. If it were not for the contribution this Government has made to assist those people financially, certain parts of the Karoo, as the hon. member said, would have declined, not by 20 or 30 per cent, but by much more. The hon. member and the other hon. members on that side know this.

If it were not for this Government, there would still have been 100,0 farmers in the rural areas to-day, and not only 90,000.

There are farmers who have obtained R100,000 by way of a Land Bank mortgage. There are many farmers who obtain much more than this. There are many who have obtained R200,000 and more. I want to ask the hon. member if he has never yet obtained a mortgage from the Land Bank. I specifically want to ask the hon. member whether he has never obtained a mortgage from the Land Bank, because I do not want to accuse him unnecessarily.

Yes, I have.

If the hon. member himself has obtained a Land Bank mortgage, why must he complain about other people obtaining mortgages from the Land Bank.

I said that, were it not for this Government, there would still have been 100,000 farmers in the rural areas, and not only 90,000.

This Government has made a large contribution, particularly in these times of emergency. I am now speaking not only of emergency in times of drought, but also emergency as far as the marketing of products is concerned. The Government has acted when an emergency situation developed in respect of marketing. When the pineapple farmers suffered losses on their export products, the Government gave more than R1 million to them as a gift. It was not given to them by way of loans; it was given to them as a gift. The citrus, dairy and wool industries have all received direct contributions from this Government.

The wool industry as well?

Yes. of course. The wool industry received R1½ million last year. The hon. member does not even remember that. That is apart from all the subsidies the wool farmers received to keep their sheep alive. I do not even want to refer to this. In the case of each of the industries faced with marketing problems the Government was prepared to stand surety for the farmers. But now that hon. member says that the Government must pay larger subsidies in order to ensure that the surpluses are consumed domestically. He mentioned the case of maize. Each year this Government contributes R30 million on the Estimates in order to increase the domestic consumption of maize. This is done to such an extent that the maize sold domestically would be cheaper then that exported if the Government did not make that contribution. In other words, if it were not for the Government’s contribution it would have paid us better to export the maize.

These are the facts of the matter. This also applies to the dairy industry, where the Government contributed R5 million in respect of butter alone. It applies to wheat, in order to stimulate and encourage its domestic consumption by making it available to the consumer at a reduced price. Likewise it applies to quite a number of other products as well. But the impression the hon. members want to create is that the Government should guarantee every farmer’s position. Whether it be a case of drought, the uneconomic purchase of land or the application of wrong farming techniques, the Government must ensure that each farmer has a guarantee in respect of his production costs. The impression they want to create here, is that under their regime every farmer will enjoy social security and will get a guarantee in respect of production costs plus. Now I ask them, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, once more: Must this production costs guarantee be calculated on the average yield in good climatic conditions in a good production sector of the country, or must it be a guarantee for any farmer in South Africa producing a pound of wool or a pound of meat that, in the circumstances in which he produces it, his production costs plus his profit will be guaranteed? I mention this merely to illustrate to hon. members what an absurd promise it is to tell a farmer: “I guarantee your production costs plus a profit”. The production costs of that hon. member opposite can vary by 200 per cent, depending upon the circumstances prevailing in the year and upon the rainfall.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Are the production costs of a product not always calculated on the average for the whole country? Why does the hon. the Minister then speak of the differences?

While the entire Karroo is dry at the moment, and while in most of the Cape Province, from west to east, the sheep have to be supplied with fodder, does the hon. member want to calculate the wool price on the average production costs for the entire region, and then give the farmer the guarantee that his production costs will be covered, plus a profit as well? This is a simple question. He can reply by simply saying “yes” or “no”.

It must be based on the production costs for the whole of the country.

The major portion of our wool-producing regions has experienced a drought in the past two years. It is now absurd to guarantee wool production costs, but I am merely following the hon. member’s argument. There was a time when the entire Cape Province was a drought-stricken area and had to receive fodder loans. I now ask, must the production costs guarantee be calculated according to the average for the production of that entire region in such a year?

No, a few years.

Two or three years?

No, five years.

That is the basis upon which all the boards have made their calculations for how many years.

That is not the basis upon which all the boards make their calculations. The boards calculate the production costs upon the average of the recognized production regions. Surely the hon. member knows that? But I want to ask the hon. member if, apart from the boards, he is prepared to make the wool farmer of South Africa a promise of a production costs guarantee plus a profit under all circumstances. If so, how is the hon. member going to determine the value of the land upon which those sheep must live? What is the basic, most important point? The main determining factor in respect of production costs is the cost of the land on which those animals must graze or on which that product must be produced. On what basis are hon. members going to determine this?

How does the Wheat Board do it to-day?

The Wheat Board fixes a nominal price. But the impression those hon. members are trying to create among the farmers is that they are going to calculate it on the prevailing market prices of land. That is the impression they are trying to create. [Interjections.] But of course it is! If that is not the impression they are trying to create, I say that the promise they, have made here is not worth the paper it is written on, and hon. members opposite know it. I admit that agriculture is in difficult circumstances.

But you have been admitting it for 20 years.

Of course! In recent times the rainfall has consistently decreased and the drought has assumed more serious proportions in large parts of the country.

Has the drought caused the interest rates as well?

I shall deal with the question of interest rates in a moment. In connection with interest rates, about which, according to that hon. member, the Government has done nothing, the very amounts to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred were made available by the government at 5 and 6 per cent interest and not at 10 per cent. The government also made large amounts available to the wool co-operatives at 6¼ per cent interest for loans to be made to their members for production purposes. The total amount was R20 million. To another co-operative, again, R25 million was lent at 6¼ per cent interest for the same purpose. Nevertheless, the hon. member opposite still says that the government has done nothing in connection with interest rates. Now hon. members say that that small amount is of no use. One cannot argue with such people. Even if one gave them everything on earth, those hon. members would still say that it was of no use. I admit that there are some people who have not yet been helped by means of these measures. Under the present difficult circumstances experienced by farmers in South Africa, they know where the government is and who their friends are. They know of the relief measures available to try to keep them going. This is not to say that we shall succeed in respect of all farmers, nor that we shall not encounter cases such as the hon. member referred to. However, I want to say that the farmer of South Africa knows what contribution this Government has made under difficult circumstances to help him. He also knows that the government does not come along with irresponsible promises in order to catch votes for the ballot box. As in the past, hon. members, with their promises and all, will emerge empty-handed on 22nd April, unless they are prepared to learn something.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister ended up by saying that the fanners trust this Government and that they will not accept the promises of the United Party because they know that this Government is their friend. But I remember reading about the Nationalist Party congress in the Transvaal a few years ago When this hon. Minister appealed to the congress to stop their attacks. He said “Julie behandel my asof ek ’n vyand is”. That is the attitude the farmers have towards this hon. Minister. It is idle for him to pretend that the farmers are satisfied. After listening to the hon. the Minister’s talk about all the surpluses and that sort of thing, I am reminded of the time when a Russian asked the village Commissar “If everything is so good, why is everything so bad?” If everything is so good with the farmers why is everything so bad?

I did not say everything was good.

The hon. the Minister said he is not ashamed of what the government is doing for the farmers. Judged by the standards of the rest of the Cabinet I suppose the department is not doing so badly, but judged by other standards, for example those wanted by the Nationalist Party before the 1948 election, very little is done. When one reads the Hansard of those days one sees the motions moved by Mr. Eric Louw and others and the demands they made on the government. They then said: “Do not talk to us about droughts”. The hon. the Minister talked about droughts again this afternoon. The United Party had droughts too, but at that time the Nationalist Party did not want to hear about droughts. After all the promises and demands made by the Nationalist Party before 1948, I want to ask the hon. the Minister the following question: “Where are all the fodder banks, and where are the cold storage plants?” Those are the things they wanted.

On the farms.

The fodder banks are not on the farms.

There are many, but they are standing empty. There are also many cold storage plants.

The fodder banks are also empty. I do not want to deal any further with this hon. Minister. It is not necessary. The farmers all over the country are dealing with him.

We have had attacks from government members on hon. members of the Herstigte Nasionale Party and also unbridled attacks by the hon. Ministers on the United Party. I particularly want to express my disgust at the behaviour of the hon. the Minister of Defence. We have had occasion before to talk to this hon. Minister about his behaviour. I remember well when we went for him in this House for admitting that he had perpetrated with other hon. Ministers a lie on the public. He had bluffed the public about the policy for the Coloureds. Yes, he admitted it himself. And although they had announced the policy publicly he said that “we are not going to carry out that policy”. This afternoon he attacked the hon. member for South Coast. He quoted from Hansard a speech made by the hon. member for South Coast stating that Natal would not accept the republic. What was the result of the referendum in Natal? What were the figures in Natal? Natal voted overwhelmingly against the republic. Yet the hon. member is attacked. Why are we attacked and reprimanded about wanting British citizenship? We never said we wanted British citizenship. We never said we are opposed to South African citizenship. While referring to all this talk about British citizenship I want to say that this Government is still prepared and thankful to make use of British citizenship because British passports are used by businessmen in cases where we know South African passports will not be acceptable. British passports are still used. It is the truth. [Interjections.] There is so much inconsistency in the government and in the Nationalist Party’s action to-day. It is peculiar that the feature of the split between the Nationalists is that the Herstigte group have broken away because of, as they put it, departures by the Nationalist Party from the traditional policies of the Nationalist Party. Apparently the Hertzog group accept the policy of Bantustans.

How does the hon. member know that?

They say so. We read in the papers that they had a discussion at their congress on this. Apparently somebody moved that they should dissociate themselves from the idea of separate independent Bantustans. However, according to the Press, this motion was not accepted. So they have accepted the policy of separate Bantustans. It is peculiar that neither of these two parties are in fact carrying out the traditional policy of the country. What is tradition? When does tradition start? Who is responsible for the policy of separate Bantustans? It was never mentioned before Dr. Verwoerd came into the Cabinet. He is the man who mentioned it. This is going further. It is not only politicians who are talking about traditional policies. Dr. Rautenbach now talks about the decentralization of industries as also being a traditional policy. I want to deal with that later. Border industries are also mentioned by him. But who started the idea of border industries? It is also Dr. Verwoerd. Apparently that is where the tradition must have started. Talking about tradition, why do they not carry out the traditional policy of the residential segregation? There is something peculiar about the Nationalist Party and the Hertzog group. Hon. members probably have noticed that the Vorster group talks about the Hertzog group as the Hertzog Sappe and Hertzog group talk about the Vorster group as the Vorster Sappe. “Almal wil nou Sappe wees.” But the traditional policy of racial segregation started when that hon. Minister was Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs. He is now no longer attached to that portfolio. But he will know about this. That may be one of the reasons why he got out. He likes a bit of tradition because he was a United Party man, a Sap, in the olden days. You know, Sir, that in the Transkei—I am talking about the policy of this Government— they are forcing residential integration on the people. They are allowing Bantu to buy houses amongst white people in the villages and in Umtata. But a white person cannot get rid of his house.

That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense. I can take you round and show you. The Minister should know it himself. The Minister has merely to go round to some of the villages and in Umtata to see what is happening. He should see the conditions under which these people live and their resentment at being forced to live alongside Africans. This is nothing new. The Government knew that this was happening. I spoke about it once before. I then pointed out that some people do not mind living together with other races. Others however do resent it. As I have said, in the Transkei this is being forced on them. This policy of separate Bantustans is not even a policy which Dr. Verwoerd himself wanted to adopt. So far from being traditional he got up in the House and almost apologized for having to do it. He said that it was forced upon us by the outside world. So, here you get both these parties supporting a policy forced on us by the outside world. The worst part of it is that the object with which this imported policy was forced on us has failed completely. The whole idea was to bring about separation, to place all the Africans in the reserves and to have a white South Africa. That has failed; there is no argument about it. Suppose it did succeed. Let us suppose that it was possible to put all the Africans back in the reserves. Then their policy of separation still fails, because by the year 2000 there will still be more non-Whites than Whites in the white areas. There will still be Coloureds and Indians economically integrated with the Whites. According to the latest population projections as reported in the Beeld there will be over 8 million Coloureds in the white areas in the year 2000, and only 6½ million Whites. So I say that their whole policy of separation has failed. On their own admissions it cannot succeed. What then is the purpose of proceeding with a policy which cannot succeed? What is the purpose of embarking on a dangerous policy of this nature when there is no hope of success?

The Government has now at last accepted that complete segregation is no longer possible. That is why we now get the story about numbers not counting or not being decisive. But I should like to remind them what Die Beeld said last year on this issue. Die Beeld quite rightly asked what good was there in propagating a policy of separation if it could not be applied and was not practicable? What was the good of laying down a policy which could not be carried out? Die Beeld is quite right in saying that when we have a policy we must carry it out. It is no good only talking about it now as they did when Dr Verwoerd was still in power.

We are carrying it out.

They are not. They are now making excuses for not carrying it out. They are making excuses for not going ahead with the policy.

[Inaudible.]

The Minister of Community Development can argue as much as he likes. He has left that department otherwise we would have reminded him of some of the things he said and undertakings he gave to remove the Africans back. But the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration and Development yesterday himself admitted that the black areas could not become completely white. He apologized for having more …

Did I say that yesterday?

Did the Minister indicate yesterday that he was going to take all the Africans out of the white areas?

I did not discuss that point at all yesterday.

But the Minister did when he challenged us as to what our policy was.

Are you talking about the white areas?

I am talking about the white areas. What areas does the Minister think I am talking about?

I thought you were talking about the black areas. You said “Bantu areas”.

If I did say taking all the blacks out of Bantu areas, the Minister must have realized that it was a slip of the tongue. Obviously we are talking of taking the Bantu out of the white areas. The Minister then said he did not mind criticism from his own supporters because some are a bit hasty, but he accepts that they are doing it in good faith. Nevertheless, they are still critical. Why must the hon. the Minister assume that if we have the same criticisms they have, we are acting in bad faith?

But you do not believe in it.

Exactly, we do not believe in it. When this policy was announced for the first time, in the days of Dr. Malan, we said it could not work. When the Tomlinson Commission reported, we went into the facts and the figures in a debate in this Parliament. We then proved to the country that it was impracticable to take all the blacks out of the white areas.

You want unlimited black labour.

I did not say so. If the hon. the Minister, who has quoted so much from “You Want It: We Have It …”, took the trouble to read it. he would see that we state here in dealing with the Native question: “Excessive movement of Bantu into white areas will be checked by developing the Bantu Reserves so that they will support as many people as possible. This will be done with the aid of private white investment and not only with the taxpayers’ money.” I intend dealing more fully with that, but the point I want to make now is that this hon. Minister has said that it is our policy to bring more Bantu into the urban areas. If the hon. the Minister had listened to our statements, and had read this pamphlet he would have known that it is not so. He knows that when he was a Deputy Minister in that department, one of our main attacks on their policy was that by not developing the Reserves properly they were forcing the Bantu to go and work in the white areas. If they developed the Reserves as we suggested and the Tomlinson Commission suggested, they would have been able to maintain more blacks in the Bantu areas.

Is it still your policy to let labour go to the best market?

I am surprised that he has interjected, because when he was a member of the United Party, the policy was to stop the influx of Africans into the urban areas. The door was opened for Africans to go into the white areas by Dr. Verwoerd when he amended the Urban Areas Act. Section 10 of that Act left the door open to them. I want to deal with this section a little later. Unless the Government accepts the United Party policy of allowing white capital and white initiative, private capital, into the Reserves there will not be any development. The development to which the hon. the Minister drew our attention the other night is infinitesimal. Now they want to change the original policy of not allowing white capital into the Reserves by allowing it in on an agency basis.

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