When the business of the House was interrupted yesterday I was engaged in saying that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) was unnecessarily pessimistic in her speech. The hon. member said inter alia that as a result of the policy direction of the Government it is now becoming very difficult for us to obtain foreign capital; she even said that we cannot obtain capital from abroad at all. The hon. member was probably absent from the House during the first portion of the debate because otherwise she would have remembered about the proof which was given only yesterday afternoon again by members on this side of the House in regard to how capital is still coming in; then the hon. member would have remembered the R20,000,000 which will be spent on the new oil refinery here in Cape Town; the hon. member would have remembered the largest amount which a private undertaking has ever received and which has now been made available to the mines in our country— foreign capital. The hon. member was unnecessarily pessimistic. It is in order to reassure the hon. member that I want to quote these words of a leading important American industrialist, Mr. Schacht, who said—

He is at present on a visit to South Africa. In other words, Mr. Schacht, the American industrialist, has great confidence in the future of South Africa. It is his intention to invest money here and I want to give this to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) as an assurance.

However, if one listens to the argument of the hon. members of the Opposition in this Place, if one listens to the arguments and to the speeches and the remarks which are made in the Opposition Press, it compels one to become discouraged in regard to the struggle of our nation. The hon. members of the Opposition in this debate and at this time are still just as irresponsible in their remarks as they were during the election struggle. We hoped in vain that the rejection of the Opposition by the people of the Republic of South Africa as a result of their policy direction and as a result of the methods by means of which they propounded their policy directions, that rejection would convert the Opposition. One wishes to ask the question: How long will the Opposition still continue to make their country suspect abroad and to place it in jeopardy for the sake of the gain of a political party or because of naked hatred in respect of another political party?

Prove it!

It is my intention to prove it and I hope that hon. members will take it to heart. I want to start immediately. What did we have prior to and during the election and what do we still experience on the part of the Opposition? Nothing less than a belittling, for example, of the best efforts of the Government to become properly prepared in the military sphere. What do the hon. members of the Opposition and the Opposition Press imagine they are achieving by means of these methods which they are following? An hon. member of the Opposition—I think it was the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan); if it were not he, I hope that he will assist me because I do not wish to offend him unnecessarily— had a report from the Sunday Times during the election to the effect that this Government as a result of its policy directions was not in a position to obtain weapons abroad which it wanted to obtain.

That is wrong, but I will not assist you.

If it was not the hon. member then it was one of the other hon. members of the Opposition who made these remarks. I am surprised that on this occasion it was not the hon. member for Orange Grove who made these irresponsible remarks. We experienced the same thing yesterday in this debate to the effect that the Government cannot obtain weapons abroad which it wants to buy. Let us imagine that this were true, which fortunately it is not, it would have been a crime for which this nation and the future generations could never forgive the Opposition because they bring a position of this nature to the attention of the enemies of our country who want to hear that type of news. However, it is not true and if it is not true, then it is an even greater crime against the people of South Africa and future generations. Fortunately, our country is in the position and the Government has so acted that we can strike back strongly if we are attacked. The Opposition knows this and therefore I say that it is an even greater crime for them to say this type of thing. If we are engaged in continually belittling our military efforts and our efforts to be prepared in the military sphere, in the eyes of the outside world, then we will be tempting those nations who regard us with hostile eyes to attack this country of ours. Even though we are prepared militarily, even though we can strike back, this Government does not want if possible to plunge our country into a war and we do not wish to unleash a war.

It is not only your country.

Of course it is not only our country and of course it is not only we who will be destroyed if our country is placed in jeopardy by the stupid action of the Opposition. It is for that reason that I make an appeal to the Opposition to cease this type of action. If the Opposition goes on in this way they will create a position in our country for which they can never be forgiven by this generation and generations to come.

I want to mention a further example. I must honestly say that I do not know what the purpose is of the hon. members with these methods of theirs. Recently, on 20 March, Mr. John Cope wrote an article in the Cape Times.

What have we to do with him?

Mr. John Cope still remains a member of the Opposition. [Laughter.] I really become discouraged when the Opposition continually reveal their lack of understanding by means of their hollow laughter. I repeat that Mr. John Cope is a member of the Opposition, a supporter of the Opposition. I am not speaking about the official Opposition Party in the House of Assembly; however, he remains a member of the Opposition. Either you are a member of the Opposition or you are a member of the Government. Mr. John Cope says—

That is what Mr. John Cope had to say. Does Mr. John Cope not realize that when this evidence was produced in connection with the poisoning of reservoirs by the forces of Communism in our country, the Government of that day was engaged in taking steps to prevent this type of action? The fact that this did not happen proves that the Government of the day acted timeously and that as a result of its steps that sort of thing did not happen. Notwithstanding the hollow laughter of the hon. member for Turffontein—because I know that is the best that he can do—the steps which this Government is taking will also succeed in combating the dangers which now threaten us. Mr. John Cope, and many members of the Opposition as well, said that the dangers which the Government now states threaten us, are being held up to us in order to drive everyone jointly into a laager. While they say this, we have the following report in the Argus of 22 March—

In spite of the stories which are told that there are no dangers which threaten us, I say that these are the resolutions which are adopted. I do not say that this threat will be carried out but my point is precisely that the better we are prepared to smother threats of this nature at birth, the better are our chances that threats of this nature will never he carried out.

Now we know what you are afraid of.

Now Mr. John Cope and others are trying to lull the people of South Africa to sleep. However, a short while ago, when it suited them, the Opposition could not cease, from morning till night—and this happened again yesterday—directing the attention of the people to the fact that we are threatened by dangers as a result of the policy of this Government. It is characteristic of the action of the Opposition to say things just as it pleases them, even though most of the time this is exactly the opposite of what they have said previously. I ask the Opposition what they seek to achieve by means of this back and forth action of theirs and by painting the position of our country as badly as possible abroad? Why are they not prepared to accept the word of people who ought to know, like Sir Francis de Guingand, who according to the Cape Argus of 14 March said the following—

There we have the clear proof of what is aimed against this Republic of South Africa and we can only combat these threats if we are properly prepared; we cannot combat these threats so effectively if our own people, the Opposition of the day, are continually making our efforts in regard to military preparation suspect abroad. I cannot understand what the Opposition is aiming at. We on this side of the House grant the Opposition in this democratic State in which we live the full right, with all our hearts, to make their policy direction known to the people as well as they can. We concede them every democratic right to attack this Government with all the power at their disposal if they do not agree with the Government. We concede them the full right to attack the policy directions of this Government and to tell us where this policy direction is wrong and what they suggest in its place. That is their right as members of the nation; it is their right in a democratic state. However, they must then retain the necessary balance and on behalf of this side of the House I want to lodge a strong objection to the fact that they have not retained their balance. I want to lodge a serious objection, a strong objection to the methods which they use. Mr. Speaker, with the important announcement of the Bantu homeland policy last year and the announcement of the implementation of that policy this year, a great step has been taken by this Government to give implementation to its policy of separate development, a policy which it has built up over the years. With all the earnestness at its disposal the Government has come along with this announcement of the implementation of that policy. I say again that I would not in the least take it amiss of anybody in the Opposition if the Opposition stood up and had said to us: “We do not agree with that policy; personally, we believe that it is wrong for this or that reason.” No one would have taken this amiss of them. That is the right which they have. However, what we cannot forgive them for is the manner in which they have done this. Take for example this one case. The Opposition know that if there is one word which leaves a bad taste throughout the world and more specifically here on the Continent of Africa it is the word “colonialism”.

Apartheid.

In spite of the fact that the Opposition know that word “colonialism” leaves such a bad taste throughout the world, the Prime Minister’s words in connection with the announcement were not yet cold when the Opposition flew up and said: “You are engaged here upon a policy of colonialism”, knowing that this was not so and that it revealed none of the characteristics of colonialism.

What is the plan?

Did the hon. member not listen to what the hon. the Prime Minister announced, namely, full independence eventually? But one can tell that hon. member things until one is blue in the face; he does not understand them and I cannot give him the sense to understand them. However, I am not speaking only of colonialism. The struggle which we are waging in our country is to convince the world of the fact that this Government is in earnest with its policy of separate development and the earnestness of this Government was proved exactly by the announcement whereby we will now continue swiftly with the implementation of the first steps to work out the Bantu homeland policy in the Transkeian Territories. What do the hon. members of the Opposition do? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and other members of the Opposition announce to the world that this Government is one again engaged upon a bluff. I take this amiss of the hon. member. It is this type of action, this method of the Opposition, which really causes us to take it amiss of them. I ask you what the hon. members mean by announcing this type of thing to the world in order to hamper continually the cause of our nation and their nation, because they are members of this nation? Or do the hon. members not see their way clear to obtain the reins of government in our country under their own steam and through their own policy and through their own arguments and do they now wish to make attempts—so it appears to me—to call in the assistance of the outside world? This is a terrible thing that I am saying but how else must one interpret the words of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst)? The hon. member held a meeting at Constantia and he said—

I must say that I am extremely shocked that a member of my nation could talk this sort of nonsense at this time. According to the report, there were 20 people at the meeting. He said further—

I want to make an appeal to hon. members on the other side: Let us put standpoint against standpoint in a democratic manner; let us plead our cases but let us do so in a fair and honest manner; let us do so in a manner which cannot harm our nation.

According to an article by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) in the Argus of 23 March, they are now adopting the standpoint as follows—

Quisling.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw that expression.

In other words, White national unity on the basis of separate development means nothing, according to the hon. member for Yeoville. The Western world cannot help us either, says that hon. member, because we shame them with our policy of racial discrimination. While the hon. member now states that we shame the world with our policy of racial discrimination and while hon. members on the other side continually say that the difficulties which we have are difficulties which we experience as a result of our policy, I think that it is time that we should see what the position actually is. The National Party states that we have to develop separately so that eventually at this southern point of our continent there will no longer be any need for racial discrimination and there will be no racial discrimination because every group and race will have its own area in which it can develop fully. But the National Party states that we as Europeans are not going to be swallowed up; we refuse to be swallowed up: we demand for ourselves what we concede to every other group in the country, namely, the right to develop fully. Therefore, we say that we are in favour of separate areas so that in the process of separate development each will have his own area in which he can eventually obtain his full rights.

The Coloureds and Indians as well?

What does the United Party say? The United Party are so concerned about racial discrimination. What do they say? The same hon. member for Yeoville who says that racial discrimination has caused our difficulties in the world replied as follows to a question of the hon. the Prime Minister on 14 April 1961 (Hansard, col. 4546). The hon. the Prime Minister asked the hon. member whether the members of the Opposition admitted that they discriminated. The reply of the hon. member for Yeoville was: “There is not one party in the House which does not discriminate.” In other words, the United Party also discriminates. The hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) held a meeting at a place by the name of Doonside in Natal—I quote now a report from the Friend of 22 September 1961

This was the speech of the hon. member for South Coast and it fits in with what the hon. member for Yeoville says, namely, that there is not one single party here which is not in favour of discrimination in the racial sphere. The position is that we say that if we eliminate racial discrimination within the same state structure, then the White man must be destroyed and we are not prepared to allow him to be destroyed and therefore we are in favour of separate areas.

Do you agree with me?

Certainly, on that point.

Come and sit here then.

All of us say that we are not prepared to agree to a non-European Government with the same state structure. I want to ask you then where does the United Party come in with their race federation policy? How must they satisfy the world with their policy of race federation? They say that they believe in discrimination. They say that they are not satisfied with a non-European Government here in South Africa. Does this mean then that even under a federal Government the United Party wants a policy direction for our country to be held out to the world in which a minority of Europeans will have for ever to keep the majority subordinate within the same state structure? In the first place, this is impossible but secondly, if we try to apply it, we find the greatest racial discrimination imaginable, and how difficult will it not then be for the West—according to the words of the hon. member for Yeoville— not to discriminate against us?

Order! The hon. member must not elaborate too much in that regard because these are matters on which the House has already taken a decision.

Which matter, Mr. Speaker?

The question of separate development and of Bantu homelands.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this has been discussed during the Session but not in this debate. In any case, I want to say that our policy is the only honest policy.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to direct your attention to the fact that in the amendment which has been moved mention is made of the fact that attention is being focused upon the Bantu homelands. Under the rules of the House, although a matter has already been discussed as a result of a Bill or a motion, it is permissible in the Budget debate to refer to it again. I think that this has been the case over the years.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, I will not deal any further with this matter. I would just like to conclude by saying that if we worked out a policy direction for the country …

Order! I want to refer the hon. member to a ruling which was given in this House a long time ago but which still holds good. It is based on Section 73 of the Standing Orders where it is laid down that no member shall allude to any debate of the same session upon a question or Bill not being then under discussion. The ruling reads—

Mr. Speaker, may I just have your ruling? The entire Budget has been framed against the background of the homelands, etc….

I cannot permit the hon. member to carry on a debate with me on the matter.

On a point of order, I take it that if this House accepts the principle of the establishment of separate Bantustans, we can then discuss the development and progress of those reserves without our attacking the principle of the establishment thereof.

That depends upon the manner in which it is done. I will decide in that regard.

May I point out to you that provision is made in the Estimates for the expenditure of millions of rand on the reserves and I take it that we will be entitled to discuss this.

We will decide on that point when it arises. The hon. member for Smithfield may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that in the interests of our survival in this country we must have a policy direction which answers to three requirements. The first requirement is that you are at peace with the voice of your conscience. With this policy direction, by means of which we want to do right by everyone, we are at peace with the voice of our conscience. Our policy direction answers to this. In the second instance we must have a policy direction which is defensible before the tribunal of world opinion. I say that our policy direction also answers to that requirement. I have here, for example, a report of 15 March in which the following is said by a German newspaper Christ und Welt: “South Africa’s plan is the only solution.” The report reads as follows—

I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is also a policy direction which is acceptable to the world, if we have the time to make it clear to them. Apparently we do have the time because they are beginning to realize this. In the third place there is the need for the making available of an opportunity for the survival of the Europeans. Our policy also complies with this point. I want to conclude by telling hon. members that they must not think that the struggle which is being waged against this country of ours is a struggle against separate development or that it is a struggle against one or the other policy direction in this country. The struggle which is being waged by the Afro-Asian States against us is a struggle against the White man in Africa. They want the country and nothing less or nothing more or less than the country. In other words, whether it is our policy direction or whether it is the policy direction of the Opposition, as long as there is a White man in this country who claims a portion of this continent for himself, so long will the struggle continue. At the Accra Conference of April 1958 the Afro-Asian States resolved as follows—

In December 1958 they resolved as follows in the All-African Peoples’ Conference—

In other words, this is one man one vote. Colour must be eliminated. Mr. Speaker, it goes further. I come to the conference of the heads of Independent Africa States at Casablanca on 1 January 1961 and there they adopted the following resolution—this was the African Charter in which the signatories expressed the firm intention—

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, at the conference of the Pan-African Freedom Movement for East, South and Central Africa, which was held in Addis Ababa from 7 February to 22 February 1962, Mr. Kiwanuku, Prime Minister of Uganda, said—

The struggle, Mr. Speaker, is against the White man in this country and therefore I make an appeal on behalf of this side of the House to the hon. Opposition: Go on, put your policy direction as much as you want to but in heaven’s name, in the interests of our whole country and the future of our country, do not do so in the way in which you are doing it now. Do so in a responsible manner.

In reply to the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.), who has just sat down, may I say that we neither require nor seek his advice as to how we should bear ourselves in case of need. We on this side of the House have proved ourselves before when our country was in danger but we shall certainly not allow ourselves to be led by the nose. Perhaps during the course of this debate the Minister of Defence will give us some facts, not fables, and let us know what the position really is, in which we are to-day. Mr. Speaker, I think I heard the hon. member for Smithfield announcing a new policy, that of separate independent states for Coloureds and Indians as well as for Natives. That is something new surely. Is this another bombshell that we are going to meet later in the Session now that we have had the initial remark about it? Perhaps we shall hear more about it at a later stage.

I want to say to the hon. member for Smithfield what has been said so often before that it is the Government’s policy and the Government’s policy alone that has brought us to the present impasse, friendless, alone and in danger. But one day, Sir, the people will return to us as they have in the past and we will have to put right the mess into which this Government has brought us.

I want to refer to some years ago. The House will remember the famous statement by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in 1959 re border industries. He said this—

We also have the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister who said he could not listen to the representations by commerce and industry, because that would be handing the government of the country over to them. That, Sir, was in 1959 when the financial and industrial sections of South Africa were thrown into economic confusion which has become more confounded day by day notwithstanding the establishment of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, which at one stage gave us a ray of hope. Hardly a month passes, Sir, but some statement is made about border industries by a Minister or Deputy Minister or by some official. Contradictions are a penny a dozen, so are attempted explanations and justifications. In between, commerce and industry are being urged to stride forward clear-eyed and unafraid into the future. Let us consider what factors did face the businessman if he was thinking of expanding. First there is this question of the industries on the borders of the reserves. Secondly there was the referendum in 1960 on a Republic obviously to be outside the Commonwealth. Thirdly, in 1961 there was the conversion into a Republic, and fourthly the break with the Commonwealth, a fear that was expected. All those facts brought our markets into jeopardy; they made certain that our markets would be hampered if not lost and also left us friendless and alone. Fifthly, Britain’s negotiations with the European Common Market in consultation with her Commonwealth partners but without us; sixthly, Sir, there have been the trade missions to all corners of the earth reporting on their return that new markets were not so easily obtainable as the Prime Minister seemed to indicate and think. And seventhly, Sir, we have had the very recent independent Bantustans. Now the Minister of Finance tells us that his Budget is aimed at bringing the greatest possible degree of economic progress and stability within the context of the general Government policy. The sting is certainly in the tail—within the context of general Government policy. This is a completely frank admission that Government policy is hampering progress. It is an equally frank admission that the 1959 doctrine that the economy should be sacrificed if necessary still exists and is being implemented. This frank admission is so frank that it can mean nothing but that the economic future of this country can be sacrificed on the altar of this ideological throne. To all these things that a businessman has to consider before extending his business, you have to add the fact that when we take over the government of the country, sanity will return and its economy will certainly not be sacrificed to any crazy ideology. Anyone who is foolish enough to invest largely in an industry which can only be kept alive by unfair help, may find himself up against the wall in the fairly near future. What inducements are these for people to expand their businesses particularly in border areas? I want to make one thing clear, Mr. Speaker; we are not against the spreading of industries on economic grounds but this Government has admitted that economic grounds will be sacrificed for their ideologies. Because of that I say that this is one of the most cynical Budget speeches ever. I will give two points from the Minister’s speech to prove his cynicism before I deal in greater detail with what has faced the industrial part of our economy over the last few years due to Government policy. The Minister actually said in his speech that the private sector’s total liquid assets had increased by R140,000,000 to the record level of R1,600,000,000 in 1961. Does the hon. the Minister really think that this is a good sign? Money lying liquid instead of being used! I do not think that is sound. He said our exports had increased by R47,000,000 despite the R29,000,000 of uranium exports. The Minister went on to say that wool exports had risen by R13,000,000, maize exports had risen by R18,000,000, diamond exports had risen by R15,000,000 re-exports mostly diamonds by R17,000,000. That is a total of R63,000,000. The balance of the exports increases included iron and steel. So the increase in manufactured exports was really very small indeed. The Minister in addition did not even mention the very expensive subsidy paid in order to enable us to export grain. Does the hon. the Minister of Finance think it is a good think to export at a loss? I do not. Then at that stage in his speech he sneered and said “So much for boycotts”. I would just like to point out here that in his cavalier manner of discarding factors which are against us he did not appreciate the fact that when it comes to considering the courses open to him, the courses open to the enemy are equally important. Before you start on any plan it is normal and very wise to consider the courses open to your enemy before taking your final step. In regard to boycotts, Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister would have a chat to one or two of my business friends up on the Rand who have lost their markets through boycotts. We are not going to produce the necessary industrialization by producing and exporting wool and diamonds. We have to manufacture goods to support us. The whole essence of Government policy is that we must become a highly industrialized country and I repeat that is not done through exporting subsidized maize and wool or diamonds.

Who says wool is subsidized?

I think I hear a sheep bleating piteously, Mr. Speaker, should we not have it done away with? I repeat, Sir, that this is the most cynical Budget to which I have ever listened during the few years that I have been in the House. I would like to say this: How much further can the Government lead the country before the worst happens? Not very much further, Sir.

I now want to return to the factors which have faced the businessman during the last few years within the general complex of the Government’s policy. Firstly there are the border reserve industries. The Government consistently refers to and compares our position with that of Great Britain and the new towns in Britain. And they say that is the pattern they are following. I now want to quote from an official British fact sheet—

In Great Britain under this scheme, under the New Towns Act of 1946, Parliament voted a fund of £50,000,000 as an initial advance. This fund increased to £400,000,000 under the 1959 Act and in addition a further amount of £79,000,000 was provided and spent. The total expenditure was £483,000,000. Jobs were found for 409,000, people, i.e. a cost of £1,200 per job. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the initial factors that faces the businessman. The Government is committed to a policy that is going to find employment for people at £1,200 per man. Can we do it? I will return to this aspect later when I deal with conditions on the East Rand. All businessmen knew, Sir, that the wild dreams of the hon. the Prime Minister would never come into being but they had to take them into account; especially in view of the contradictory statements which are continually coming out. People got more and more uneasy and confidence waned and waned. “The economy of this country was being sacrificed.” The king pin in their fears is the lack of confidence in this Government. Statements have been made that there will not be unfair competition. These were immediately followed by special wage rates in respect of the clothing industry in Natal. We know what the results have been. This was again followed by a statement that Railway rates would not be used to assist unfairly any new industry. More recently we have been told that this is not correct. We have been told that Railway rates have to be neutralized. How can a businessman think of expanding when Railway rates are to be neutralized in favour of somebody who has opened up in competition against him elsewhere? That does not engender confidence in his mind. This question of fair or unfair competition in the uncertainty prevailing is growing, Sir, it is not getting less. This Government completely ignores the fears expressed by established industries; again I will deal with that a little later in my speech and I hope the hon. members for Nigel (Mr. Vorster), Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout), Geduld (Dr. Jurgens), Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn), Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk), Germiston (Mr. Cruywagen), Alberton (Mr. Viljoen), Edenvale (Mr. van Wyk) and Heidelberg (Dr. Verwoerd) will be present so that they will know what is happening in their areas. The next point the businessman has to consider is the fact that the Republic has left the Commonwealth, a fact which as I have said before has brought our British markets into jeopardy. Trade missions have been sent to the four corners of the earth to find new markets. They returned and in essence their reports stressed that exporters must work to sell and work hard. Secondly that there are possibilities of markets where our low wage factor is a large item in the cost of production. And thirdly the possibility of sale through our old-established markets for the possibility of assistance to us. Now, Mr. Speaker, these are very vague possibilities. And to throw away old-established markets for the possibility of vague ones is surely the height of reckless irresponsibility. It is a high price to pay indeed for the ideological fervour from which hon. members opposite are all suffering. I want to mention in passing the Common Market. This will be dealt with in greater detail by other hon. members on this side. I just want to say that I must again charge this Government with complete irresponsibility. I am personally aware of at least one case where European markets for South African manufactured goods have been lost already owing to the first cut of 10 per cent in the tariffs of E.F.T.A. and then we are continually told that the Common Market will not hamper us but that it will widen our trade opportunities.

There is one thing I have not mentioned yet and that is the irresponsible speeches of the hon. the Minister of Defence and other Ministers. We have been told that we will have to fight with the horses right up to their bits in blood; we must plan for invasions by Afro States who plan to destroy the White man; a list of the nations who are preparing for this evil deed was actually hinted at. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that businessmen are not fools—not all of them—and must they all suddenly become worried about this threatening Afro-Asian invasion? It must be obvious to all that there is not a single Afro-Asian nation or group of nations who could possibly carry off such an invasion successfully. The most they could do would be to blockade our ports and we are certainly not spending money to meet such an eventuality. Is it to be believed that India with her problem on her northern borders with Pakistan and with China, or Indonesia with her problems with Holland would come and attack us? It is absurd to make a suggestion like that. The United Nations possibly. We were told that the United Nations were going to take action against us. All these speeches about our defence are ridiculous and nonsensical. We must obviously prepare for internal trouble but please, will the Minister of Defence during the course of this debate, let us know more about this blood up to the horses’ bits and this invasion from the Far East.

I have said before, Sir, confidence was essential for the forward march of business. During the course of this Session I saw two of the keenest brains on our side both reading books—the one was Aesop’s Fables and the other was Hans Andersen. They were very much in line with the speeches of the hon. the Minister of Defence.

I now want to return to the position on the East Rand and its future. I repeat the words of the Minister of Finance: The greatest possible degree of economic progress and stability within the context of general Government policy. In a recent debate, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, dealing with the purchase of land on the outskirts of Pretoria, said that the Government had no intention of establishing Bantustans in the bundu, that we were twisting his policy and that the establishment of this new industrial area was to give employment to 60,000 Natives. I say good luck to those 60,000 Natives and to the new industrial area. But I say, what about the 215,837 Whites on the East Rand and 417,434 Natives and other non-Whites on the East Rand?

What about them?

I hope the list of members I have mentioned are listening. I see my time is getting short and none of them are here anyway. The hon. member asks “What about them?” But it is only an echo, Mr. Speaker. It is not the voice of those members whom I have mentioned before. They voted for the establishment of that area which will sound the death knell of any possible new industry on the East Rand. I repeat, Sir, there are 215,837 Whites on the East Rand, four times as many as there are to be Natives in this new proposed area. There are 417,000-odd non-Whites on the East Rand—seven times as many. If anybody wishes to challenge my figures I will tell him where he can get them —the “Municipal Year Book” for 1961. The Minister of Economic Affairs and his understudy keep telling us that their policy is the same as that followed in the new towns in Britain and in Italy, namely for the dispersal of industries and for taking up available labour where unemployment exists. Surely they must realize that on the East Rand unemployment will come into existence when those mines close down. It will surely be wiser to take steps now before the obvious problem arises. Why on earth do they want to encourage a business 25 miles away from the East Rand when you are going to cause unemployment on the East Rand? It is fatuous, Mr. Speaker, to say the least of it. Apart from the ideological facts that have to be taken into account you have to consider the economic factor as well. I have given the population figures for the East Rand. Now I will give the House some more information about the area and I hope those hon. members are listening: Only a few short years ago the figures in respect of one of the towns on the East Rand showed that the mines employed 38.6 per cent, industry 20 per cent and others 40 per cent— a total of 15,600 employees. All businesses are obviously largely dependent on the mines and so is industry. Ninety per cent of the power was used by the mines and 10 per cent by industries and local authority. When the mines close 90 per cent of the power will be unused, and the Government are going to start another industrial area 25 miles away! In addition, Sir, 60 per cent of the water is used by the mines, 13 per cent by industry and 27 per cent by the local authority. I won’t go into the question of housing, transport, schools, hospital facilities and all the other services which cost money and which will not be used when the mines close down. It has been estimated that it costs on the East Rand £4,500 per White employee for the establishment of a new heavy industry, whereas in the new gold areas it costs £9,000. How can they chase business away from an established place like that? Surely they must realize that if they break economic laws it must lead to higher costs and higher costs must eventually percolate through to the costs of the gold mining industry, which is the backbone of the country. I would hate to hear the Minister of Finance speaking to a Budget which was not based on gold.

I want to come back not only to economic principles but to the homes, the life savings and the very future of 250,000 Whites on the East Rand and the 500,000 non-Whites which are in jeopardy, together with their jobs. What have these hon. members who voted for the establishment of this new area 25 miles away to say about that? I don’t want them to say that I do not know what is happening there because I do not live in Benoni, because I was born here and went up there before any of these gentlemen knew anything, and I know that part of the country like the palm of my hand. I want to ask those hon. members why they are allowing their constituents to be sacrificed, and why they are allowing the Prime Minister and his Ministers to bring about this certainty—it is not a possibility—of trouble on the East Rand? It is all because of an ideological theory which is incapable of fulfilment. This new area in Pretoria, as I said before, will not bring new industries to the borders of the reserves, but will bring the borders of the reserves to industry with a completely callous disregard of the homes, jobs, and savings and happiness of hundreds of thousands of South Africans, Black and White.

I do not want to take up much time in this debate, but there is only one point which the hon. member raised which I think he should not be allowed to get away with. I might say that in his somewhat excited frame of mind towards the end of his speech he said it appeared to him that the Minister had been reading Aesop’s Fables or Hans Andersen’s Fairy Tales.

No, he did not say that.

He said “they had been reading it”, but it seems to me that the hon. member himself has been reading “Baron Von Münchhausen” or “Uilenspiegel”. But the one point the hon. member raised with which he should not be allowed to get away is this. He said in his opening remarks that the difficulties and the mess—I quote his words, more or less—in which South Africa is with regard to the rest of the world and the African states is solely due to the policy of this Government. The implication is that the rest of the world and the African states will be completely satisfied with South Africa if the policy of the United Party were the policy applied here, and this is an argument which is often used by hon. members opposite. The argument is that all South Africa’s troubles are due to the policies of this Government and to nothing else. In other words, if we followed the policy of the United Party, that hon. member thinks that the rest of the world would be satisfied with South Africa.

Yes.

Now he says yes. Now, what does the rest of the world want from South Africa? And will they be more satisfied with a South Africa governed by hon. members opposite?

Indubitably.

Very well. Now, what do they want? In the first place they want absolute equality, both political and social.

Who says so?

Luthuli said so.

The hon. member referred to the African states and to the rest of the world, and what they want is political and social equality. I think we are on common ground there, that is the only thing that will satisfy the rest of the world. The policy of hon. members opposite with regard to political rights for the Native, is that a policy which will satisfy the rest of the African states?

No.

Then why accuse this Government of being solely responsible for the trouble? Then it is a false accusation which is being made against this side of the House. If the hon. member believes that we are solely responsible, good and well, but then they must have a policy which will satisfy the world, otherwise our policy cannot be solely responsible. Or on the other hand they are making an accusation which they know is palpably false.

What did you say in Humansdorp?

I will tell you that at the appropriate time. Now, they have their policy of granting certain restricted political rights to Natives in this Assembly, but do they for one moment think that will satisfy the rest of the world? Do they think that will be the magic wand which will win the African states to friendship? They know it is not so, and knowing that, what right have they to accuse us that our policy is the cause of the dissatisfaction of the rest of the African states with the political situation here? They are making a false accusation, because people who are going to follow a policy which they know will not satisfy the African states cannot accuse us of being the cause of the trouble; or the alternative is that they are willing to follow such a policy, as the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) obviously is, which will satisfy the African states. They can do nothing politically, according to what their promises are— I do not know what they will do eventually because their Native policy is rather like the Balubas who swop wives every fortnight, but they swop policies every second full moon. But their present policy has as little possibility of satisfying the African states as our policy has. They say apartheid is the bogy.

Is it not?

You either have to accept apartheid, or you must be against it. What are they? Let us take social apartheid. They always say they are against apartheid in every form. Are they against social apartheid? The hon. member who opened his mouth at the back there, is he against social apartheid? No? No reply. Are hon. members opposite willing to follow the policy of apartheid, or a policy against apartheid to such a degree that they will satisfy the Natives in the rest of Africa? Of course not.

What about the Western world?

Then they have no right to say that our policy is causing the trouble. They do not want the abolition of apartheid, just as little as we do. They do not want apartheid abolished in the schools. They do not want Black and White children to sit together on the benches in school. There we are in agreement. They do not want Natives and White people to travel in our trains in the same compartments. They do not want Natives to be allowed into our hotels in the same way as Whites. They do not want Natives to use sanitary conveniences which at present are being used by Whites. They do not want Natives to live mixed up in between Whites in the residential areas. They do not want to meet Natives socially in the same way in which they meet Whites. They might meet them covertly, but they will not publicly associate with them. All these things are common ground between us. Then what right has the hon. member for Benoni to say that it is solely the policy of this party which causes all the trouble? It is his policy as well as ours.

It is your implementation of it.

Do not talk that sort of nonsense. He knows that these people will not be satisfied until social apartheid has ceased to exist in South Africa, and he is not willing to stand for that. The attacks being made on South Africa by the African states, with the possible exception of the Liberal Party, and not even excepting the Progressives, is an attack on our social structure here and we and the members of the Opposition have a great deal in common in maintaining the social structure we have here. Therefore they, as well as we, are maintaining the social structure and a political structure which are not acceptable to the Natives of Africa, and they have no right to accuse the Government of being solely responsible for the position; and if they do it it is palpably untrue and it is a false attitude they adopt, and a false accusation they are making against the Government.

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty I want to put three questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I hope that he or one of his followers will reply to them. The first question is this: How will the Opposition implement the apartheid measures or the idea which is common to themselves and to ourselves in order to make it acceptable to the world outside? My second question is this: If Black nationalism, partnership and federation have not been accepted elsewhere in Africa and in particular in the federation, what is there different here in South Africa and what provides the reason that they will accept partnership and federation as a policy here? My third question is this: What reformation will the United Party effect to obtain the goodwill of a critical, petulant and hostile world in our regard? These three questions must be replied to by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. These three questions are pertinent and they are bound and compelled to give a reply because they say that these increased expenses which we have incurred in strengthening our Defence Force spring from the policy applied by the Government. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) stated in his amendment that they refuse to adopt the Estimates unless the Government undertakes to avoid the increasing danger in connection with our national security which springs from the policy of the Government. He said further—

However, I have made some research and I found a speech of the hon. member for Constantia which he made as far back as 1951. The same measures which have been announced by the hon. Minister of Defence in respect of the strengthening of our defence were advocated by that hon. member in 1951. He held a meeting in Claremont on 23 November 1951 where he said—

Then he discussed certain steps which the United Party would take if they came into power, and these were—

Now I ask the hon. member: What changes have come about since 1951 which create less necessity for the steps announced by the hon. the Minister? No changes have come about. The cold war is still in operation. The threat to our borders and to our existence has rather increased. Why did he want these things at that time? However, the attitude of the United Party is very clear and conforms to what was stated in the Cape Times of 20 March 1962—

I think that this is one of the lies. I can tell the Cape Times and the Argus that this is one of the lies which I meant when I held a meeting outside the other day. This is not only a distorted interpretation but a blatant lie and it is one of the cleverest examples of boundless sabotage.

However, when we speak about defence, we must reason in a calm and cool manner and consider the facts. In pursuance of our whole defence position I want to say the following in the time at my disposal. I want to start by saying that the third world war is in operation, 17 years after the end of the Second World War. This is the cold war which we are experiencing at the moment and this cold war is the world-wide struggle between Communism and the free Western countries in which all weapons are used, including military armed force. The purpose which lies behind this cold war is found in the Russian and Chinese communistic ideology and their economic and geographical urge for expansion. And their strategy? The communist strategy is. based on a fundamental principle laid down by Lenin and that is that the best war strategy is to postpone the force of arms as long as possible until the disintegration of the morale of the enemy provides the suitable moment for a military knockout.

This is the complete interwoven strategy of the communist world in this cold war. The strategy is psychological therefore and it receives preference over military attacks but not over military force. It does not exclude military force and the use of military force which is held in reserve behind this psychological warfare; military force is essential for the undermining of morale and for the making of compromises, because every compromise must merely serve as a stepping-stone to the next psychological assault upon morale, and military force must always be in the background as a reserve. Therefore we knew that this disarmament conference which is in session in Geneva at the moment was doomed to failure because Russia will not permit for one moment that her military power should be restricted. This is the necessary condition for Communism behind the psychological warfare of the undermining of morale which it wages. We have to deal with this crux of the struggle to-day. This is the undermining of morale which is in operation in all non-communist countries. If those hon. members had to form a government of to-day, we would have had a tragic proof here of the moral defeat which they have already suffered. The creation of iron curtains as a safeguard against cultural infection from non-communist countries is the second leg of their strategy. The third leg is that the non-communist forces must be drawn away from the centres of gravity which are created by the communists, from their eventual purpose. The fourth strategical leg on which they stand is to surround that centre of gravity with strong satellite forces by means of which military action is taken while the military forces of the other-country, of Russia, are kept in reserve. This is precisely what is in operation at the moment on the threshold of America, in Cuba. This is precisely the whole pattern as it is developing in Africa, the occupation of centres of gravity which are of strategical value to the communists. The West and the anti-communist countries are surrounded in the military, political and economic spheres. In this way China fell prey to Communism without Russia having had to shed a single drop of blood of one of her soldiers. This method of surrounding and infiltration in the military, economic and political spheres, must also be the lot of Southern Africa. This is the meaning of Cuba for America and the meaning of what is going on at the moment in the Argentine for South America. Communist strategy recognizes no no-man’s-land. It rejects the principle of keeping your nose out of the domestic affairs of the other man, as we have seen the game played at UNO over the past years. In its struggle against the West, Communism must strike at Africa. It is vitally essential for it because Africa as a continent is a vitally important strategical point to Communism in its struggle against the West in reaching the final knockout stage. Africa must attack the southern flank of Europe. It must make it possible to utilize the Atlantic Ocean as a sphere of operation from Africa. It must control the Indian Ocean from Africa. This need to control Africa is more necessary now than ever before as a result of the coming of the submarine armed with projectiles. It will give freedom of movement over the Atlantic and Indian Ocean from the north and the south and from the air and it will also open up Europe on its southern flank. This is the struggle in Africa which has absolutely nothing to do with the political franchise of the Black man.

What is their modus operandi in implementing this strategy? They cause the failure of every effort to control military expansion. Therefore the conference in Geneva failed and, as it failed, so will all efforts which are made to obtain control over weapons be boycotted by the communists because they have to use strong military power as a threat which is held in reserve behind their other efforts of conquering peacefully. The second method of action is to impose a heavy armament programme upon the democratic nations. Any increase in armament expenditure must be discussed in the Parliament of a democratic country. This provides a source of criticism in which communist countries are simply pushed aside and provision made for military expenditure. The third method is to create unrest, rebellion and revolution in the gateways and before the gateways to Western countries, and this is the position which we are faced with at the moment, that they wish to make use of population groups in Africa before our gateways just as they are making use of them in Laos, Korea, Indonesia and Cuba. The fourth method is to remove all stable Western elements. We in Southern Africa are the only remaining group of Europeans which form the stable element in Africa. The rest of Africa has been cleared and we must be removed. That is what lies at the root of the whole statement of the hon. the Minister of Defence in the Senate, which has brought about this complete swing in the ranks of the Opposition. This is what lies at the root of our whole view of the problem. Further, they provide their rebels with weapons. The rebels and the revolutionaries in Angola were armed with communist weapons. China has now also entered the struggle in Angola in that the Russian military experts and technicians have been replaced by Chinese. They undertake military training and support every possible anti-Western conference, as happened in Bandung and four years ago in Cairo, where South Africa was specifically the focal point of the attack. They create incidents—for example Cuba—as they now wish to create in South West Africa. They let UNO do the talking; they use satellites or communistically inclined powers or anti-colonial powers to take military action without firing one single shot. We are faced with two realities; we are faced with the reality of global warfare or localized aggression. There will either be a global war or not, we have no say in that matter. We have not the manpower, we have not the military strength, we have not the weapons to have any say in that; that is the language of the mighty ones and that is a decision which the mighty ones will have to make. But in reply to the question whether there will be a global war I want to ask a counter-question and it is this: Why should the communist bloc enter into a global war if localized military offences in which not a single Russian soldier has shed any blood but where only weapons have been provided, have hitherto met with nothing else than success? South Africa will therefore have no say in deciding whether there will be a global war or not.

That is where you are wrong.

In this connection I just want to say that in spite of the fact that we will have no say in that, we should be prepared for anything. I want to read what the Cape Times had to say in this respect on 28 January 1962. They said this—

Is that the truth or is that a lie?

The hon. member reminds me greatly of what I hear at night when I am asleep, namely, the monotonous wail of the foghorn. I wish the hon. member would stop. As far back as 1951 the Daily Mail wrote this—

As far as this reality which we have to face up to is concerned, namely, whether there will be a global war or not, we shall have another task and that is that our strategic position will continue to be important; the sea route round the Cape will continue to be of life importance; as a result of submarines with guided missiles our sea routes have become very vulnerable. We shall have to guard our east coast. We shall have to produce weapons; we shall have to produce all-important raw materials; we shall have to provide training facilities; we shall have to assist in keeping communication routes open in Southern Africa. That will be our task and for that reason we must be prepared for any global war or any clash which may occur. But there is a second reality and that is aggression from outside where, under present circumstances, we shall not be able to depend greatly on assistance from the Western world because they have their own reasons and their own difficulties which will make it difficult for them to hasten to our assistance. The trouble which we may expect by way of localized aggression may come from the north if Angola falls, or if the communistic revolutionary powers in Angola succeed in overthrowing the stable Portuguese Government, in which case the enemy will be on our borders. If the Federation disintegrates and the White man has to get out, we shall be faced with a cold reality, because we are vulnerable from both the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean as well as from the air. That is what the Minister of Defence has warned us against. You cannot close your eyes to facts, Sir. That is the reason why our Defence Force should be strengthened as much as possible. What proof have we for this? The proof lies in this, that is the whole pattern of Communism. That is part of their entire masterly plan to remove every vestige of Western influence from Africa. Is it not a fact that Russian and Chinese Communism is more active in Africa than ever before in our history and that they are tightening their stranglehold on Africa day by day, and tightening it with great success? Is it not a fact that Angola is having difficulties? Why is the Portuguese Government strengthening its garrisons and its military forces in Mozambique? Is that not an indication to us, with the information which we have, that we must be prepared? Why say, as the Opposition is doing, that these are ghost and hair-raising stories and that they are intended to chase the White people into one laager? We have the proof, haven’t we? We know, do we not, that Africa in her fragmented state, in her broken-up state, is inviting and facilitating progressive action in this direction, in the very direction in which the communist pattern is developing? The tempting price for freedom in this fragmented Africa has been lying on the table for a considerable time and the communist in his bidding and with his method of bidding has succeeded brilliantly in depriving the Western world of its share in that gift of freedom.

Are we not contributing to the fragmentation of Africa by establishing Bantustans?

A price is being offered on the Continent of Africa and that has yielded wonderful successes to Communism. The Opposition now wants to know why we do not change our policy. My counter-question to them is this: What reform is the Leader of the Opposition contemplating to stop this development in Africa? That is a question which he must answer; which reforms does he contemplate in order to change this pattern which is developing in Africa? That is a cardinal question. I do not expect the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) to reply to it.

Tell us what your policy is. Ask the Prime Minister to tell us what your policy is.

There is further proof why we should be prepared and why we should expect aggression and why we should be prepared for any eventuality, in the fact that as far back as 1955 various leading articles have appeared in various newspapers in South Africa. I wish to quote this one; it appeared in the Cape Times of 8 March 1955, and it said this—

The Cape Times then reproached the then Minister in the following words—

The Government was then reproached because it was not acting with sufficient speed. I wonder whether they classified Sir Winston Churchill in the same category as they classified Lord Montgomery when he gave a slight indication that he was sympathetic towards South Africa in respect of her problems.

I wish to conclude by saying that the writing is on the wall. We must not ignore the warnings which we have had, and in trying to find a solution to this crisis we have no alternative but to place our military forces in readiness within the limits of our sources of supply and within the limits of our manpower without doing any harm to essential services. But I and the nation will most certainly not go and look for an alternative in the alternative solution suggested by the Opposition, namely, that we should change our policy. Mr. Speaker, they still owe us a reply to this question: In what respect will they reform their policy; in what respect will the Opposition reform South Africa in order to satisfy a world which is guided by communists inside the portals of the continent in which we live? I am afraid that the Opposition cannot honestly reply to that, and they know that they cannot give the answer. By means of our improved training facilities, by means of acquiring better and more modern weapons, by means of manufacturing our own weapons, we want to increase the striking power of our Defence Force and we want to endeavour to make our Defence Force conform in every respect with the demands which modern warfare and modern strategy place on every modern defence organization, and in this effort the Minister of Defence can be assured of the full support of the nation.

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) and deal with the global situation of Communism but would like to deal with some aspects that affect the economy of this country. It has been said that Nero fiddled while Rome burned, and here we have the hon. the Minister of Finance playing out his role as a Walter Mitty while the consequences of the treaty of Rome looms nearer and nearer. Sir, it is unbelievable that the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech should have made no reference whatsoever to the Common Market and of the effect that Great Britain’s possible entry into the Common Market is going to have on South Africa. The only reference we have had to the Common Market is by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs who apparently believes that any disparaging references to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the Common Market will really serve this country far better than an intelligent consideration of the aspects of the Common Market itself. I am sure that nobody knows better than the hon. the Minister of Finance that what we are faced with is the unification of Europe. At present there is a consolidated bloc of six countries in Europe comprising the European Economic Community. This Community has 170,000,000 people.

186,000,000.

Its inter-community trade alone in 1960 was of the order of $10,200,000,000. Sometimes it is not perhaps realized that the economic beginning of this vast Community on the Continent is going to lead to a political unity. On the economic front the objectives of the E.E.C. are very clearly defined—the promotion of the free circulation of goods by the dismantling of customs and quota barriers, the free movement of workers and capital and the right of free establishment, and the introduction of a common external tariff. Since the establishment of the Common Market there have been large tariff cuts, and it is proposed that by 1969 all tariffs should disappear between the members of the Market. But what concerns us most is the common external tariff which will apply to the Common Market in its entirety. We are going to be faced with the situation that one group of at least 170,000,000 people are going to have a single tariff system. The application of this tariff system has already commenced; it began in 1960 and it is expected to be completed by 1970. It is in the context of these happenings that we must take stock of our position. Great Britain, as is well-known, has already applied to be admitted to the Common Market. Great Britain has already declared that she is prepared to make, in a single operation, the tariff cuts that the Common Market has already made. Greece is already an associate member; Turkey, Denmark, Austria, Sweden and Switzerland have already applied for membership or associate membership. We must, as I have said, take stock of our position in the light of these happenings. There is one other aspect which must not be lost sight of, and that is the association of the Common Market with Africa. Despite the present conditions between ourselves and the rest of Africa, Africa still remains our natural hinterland and the markets which must eventually be ours. Sir, in the Common Market publication by the European Community Information Service, it is interesting to read their views on Africa—

The European Economic Community has already invested $148,000,000 in Africa and small portions of Asia. The great United States is not unmindful of what is going on. This is what President Kennedy said in a speech in New York on 6 December—

Since then the European Common Market and the United States have done their deal. The United States has obtained concessions amounting to no less than R1,140,000,000 and has given concessions to an extent of no less than R836,000,000. The question we must ask ourselves is: How do we in the Republic stand in relation to these fantastic and challenging new developments? And we must ask the Government what steps they are taking to protect and advance our interest, for unless we are very watchful customs tariffs may deny us many markets which have been historical to us. It is interesting to take a look at a little illustration of what might happen if Britain entered the European Common Market and we remained outside with no association with it. Take a case where South Africa and the Commonwealth at the moment pay no duty, Britain’s most-favoured-nation tariff is 10 per cent and the common external tariff of the E.E.C. is 20 per cent. The tariff changes would be as follows, from the point of view by GFreat Britain’s approaches to the E.E.C. the duty would drop to 5 per cent; from G.A.T.T. countries to the U.K. the duty would rise from 10 per cent to 13 per cent, and on goods from South Africa to the U.K. the duty would rise from 0 per cent to 13 per cent. We are no longer a member of the Commonwealth and how far we are included or affected by Great Britain’s approaches to the E.E.C. we do not know. What we do know is that the Commonwealth countries are taking the keenest interest in the development of the Common Market. We also know that they are being briefed by the British Government. We also know that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have trained economists and other experts watching the situation in Brussels, and we also know that they have established their own working liaison with the European Economic Community. As far as I can ascertain we have no representation at all on a full-time basis with the European Economic Community, and the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech has told us how we need to export. He has made available in the Budget an additional R500,000 to encourage exports. What we want to know is what action he is taking in regard to the Common Market. Then there is another point. South Africa has no detailed statistical study of its individual trade and tariff items whatsoever. These export details are only on the very broadest lines. We therefore want to know from the hon. the Minister the following: When will South Africa provide itself with full details of its export trade with Europe; is Great Britain acting on behalf of the Republic in any way in regard to her negotiations with the Common Market, and, if so, to what extent; when will we have trained personnel in Europe capable of evaluating events that are taking place in the E.E.C. and able to advise the Government accordingly? Has the Government given its full attention to the implications of E.E.C. and how customs duty changes will affect us; in what way the export trade of the Republic can best be protected and increased under these circumstances, and how far the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade can be used for this purpose? Sir, in the context of present conditions in this country where exports are becoming more essential day by day, in an appreciation of what is taking place on the Continent of Europe, where the six countries who are already members of the European Economic Community are following the pattern of the Federation of Germany and the unification of Italy, when very soon we are going to be faced with a solid bloc which in effect will be one political and economic unity, it seems to us on this side of the House that the matters that I have dealt with are urgent, and we hope that before this Budget debate has been completed the hon. the Minister of Finance will take this House and the country into his confidence and tell us what his plans are in regard to the Common Market.

I am pleased to take part in this debate because there are a few things which I should like to put right here this afternoon. I do not wish so much to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down and who spoke about the Common Market which has been formed in Europe; other members will deal with that. My speech deals with another aspect of this Budget. So far we have in particular had the frightening idea from the other side of the House, something which we hear so often; it is like a parrot cry across the floor of this House, namely the parrot cry of isolation. That is the biggest fear which has been instilled in South Africa all these years and it has been raised in this House on numerous occasions. In this respect I am reminded of the words of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) who spoke about “the crude attempt of the Minister to stampede the Opposition”.

I did not say that.

He went on to say—

I did not say that. If you want to quote why don’t you quote correctly?

I wrote down what the hon. member said while he was speaking and these were his words—

If the hon. member would look at his Hansard he will definitely find it there.

That immediately brings me to the question which I want to ask the hon. member: Had that side of the House been the government of South Africa, would the position have been different?

Of course.

They say “yes”. Let us look at this objectively. “The African market can only be conquered on one condition”—and hon. members cannot get away from that, and that condition is that we in South Africa should be prepared to reply to the parrot cry with “One man one vote”. [Interjections.] I shall deal with the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) in a moment; it is not necessary for him to get impatient. Mr. Speaker, we cannot get away from that; that is the price we have to pay and I state this as a fact that hon. members of the Opposition are as little prepared to give that in South Africa as we on this side are prepared to give it. We are not prepared to do it.

But you are giving it in the Bantustans.

We are giving it to the Bantu in the Bantustans.

Your policy in the Bantustans is “one man one vote”.

I shall also deal with that hon. member in a moment; he need not be impatient either. We are definitely giving it to the Bantu in their own area but most certainly not here where we are living. If that hon. member does not agree with me it can only mean that they are prepared to apply the policy of “one man one vote” in the White areas as well, and that can only lead to the destruction of the White man. That is the cardinal difference between us and that has throughout the years been the cardinal difference between us.

I should like the hon. member for Green Point to remain in the House for a few minutes. I am now coming to a personal matter and in view of the fact that it has been alleged on a number of occasions in this House that I am supposed to have lost the nomination in the Transvaal, I should like to reply to that allegation at this stage. In view of the belitting remarks that have come from that side, let me say this: It was an out and out domestic affair of the National Party within that particular constituency and I won the nomination with probably a few hundred per cent more than my opponent, but when I did loose it originally I did not run away like the hon. member for Green Point did.

Did I run away?

Yes, the hon. member ran away from Bredasdorp and to-day he is in the centre of the city representing a safe liberal constituency like Green Point. And that also applies to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and to half the members on that side of the House. They are carefully selected, the one here and the other one there in the hope that they will make a contribution to boost the falling shares of the other side of the House. Had I been a member of that side of the House I would be very careful. I wish to put this to the hon. member for Green Point: What was the result of the occurrence which he so anxiously grasps at to-day? The United Party placed whom they regarded as their best candidate in the Transvaal against me. What was the result? I took that seat in 1953 with 641 votes, but in 1961 I took it with 3,087 votes. That was the reply. I want to say immediately that had I sat on the other side of the House I would have been very careful before I talked about the domestic affairs of another party. They are risking a great deal!

However, I want to deal for a moment with something which has not been touched upon often by that side of the House and that is the Orange River scheme. As a farmer and an old inhabitant of the Cape Province I wish to say that South Africa has been excited to learn about this great step by the Government.

Are you going to move after the next nomination?

Had I been that hon. member and had I made such a public fool of myself as he made of himself at Constantia where he stood up and invited the world to come and shock South Africa, because the United Party was too weak to do so, I would rather have remained quiet. He stood there and said in desperation that he did not know where the shock must come from to shake South Africa awake.

Will the hon. member answer a question? Whereas I was kicked out by my opponent, was the hon. member not kicked out by his friends?

I think it is more laudable on my part seeing that I have rehabilitated myself in the eyes of my friends. That was more than the hon. member could do.

As I have said I want to deal for a moment with the Orange River scheme. I wonder whether we in this House sufficiently realize what this magnificent act on the part of the Government means to South Africa? Years ago, in 1928, when there was also a National Party Government in power, the Government started with Iscor and it was the other side of the House who opposed it. During the time that I have been sitting in this House where we have started with Palaborwa and with Sasol, it has been the other side of the House who has fought against it. And to-day that side of the House is sitting dead quiet when we are giving the economy of South Africa the biggest injection it has had in this century, namely this Orange River scheme. The other side has not as yet shown any enthusiasm for the scheme and we have had no comment on this magnificent scheme which will be the biggest scheme which South Africa and the world have ever seen. I wish to say this today to the credit of the National Party and the Cabinet, that South Africa has learnt with the greatest sense of appreciation about this scheme. I think it is right to mention a few names in that connection—and I am doing so as an individual—I want to mention the names of a few men who have throughout devoted themselves to this wonderful cause, namely the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) and I am big enough to mention the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) as well. Those were the people who, year after year, systematically raised this scheme not only in the Select Committee, but also in this House, and where we pay tribute to the Government for this magnificent act we also wish to express gratitude to those hon. members who have fully realized that would be the salvation of the entire Eastern Cape Province and the entire Orange River valley.

We should also regard what has happened in South Africa in the light of what we have had from the Opposition and from the English-language Press. I want to refer immediately to the statement by the Minister of Defence in the Senate to the effect that South Africa was faced with very big dangers. The other side immediately reacted to that in the most peculiar way and it is with repugnance that I refer to the reaction on the part of the English-language Press. In particular I wish to refer to the action of the Cape Times reporter who telephoned Ghana and Nigeria that same night to inquire whether they had their freedom army in readiness to attack South Africa. Every right-minded person will realize what folly that was. Just think of it Sir: If India wishes to attack us, we go to the telephone and ask India over the telephone whether her army is in readiness! It is treason towards South Africa to commit such an act and it is foolish at the same time. The Minister and Sir Francis de Guingand are thinking precisely along the same lines. Sir de Guingand was Chief of Staff of Field-Marshal Montgomery and I merely wish to say to the other side of the House that we have no respect for them as far as their attitude towards a person like Field-Marshal Montgomery during his visit to South Africa is concerned. The remarks which came from that side of the House were reprehensible. Not in respect of what the Field-Marshal had said but in respect of what he had said in England when he said “Leave South Africa alone. Leave them to work out their own policy”.

We helped him when they needed assistance.

Yes, at Constantia the hon. military adviser invited the world outside to come here and to hand out shocks. I think he is the last person who should talk about this.

In connection with what the hon. the Minister has said I wish to refer to a report which appeared in various newspapers recently, but the Cape Argus in particular referred to the matter and that is the infiltration to Mozambique through Tanganyika and that Mozambique was holding herself in readiness to-day for an attack from the north. In this respect we have seen something very interesting developing here in South Africa namely that we are for ever hearing the cry of isolation. We are expecting other people to fight our battles, we are crying because we have no alliance with England, with America and with France and the big powers of Europe.

Do you believe in isolation?

I am coming to that. I wish to say this: “We will do our own fighting when necessary”, and I wish to qualify that by asking who helped the Voortrekkers, our predecessors, to fight in this country? The dangers which threatened them were most certainly bigger than the dangers which are threatening our country to-day. Who helped them? Who helped the Boers to fight the Anglo-Boer War?

The Coloured people stood by them.

Who is helping Portugal to-day? Who is helping the French Secret Army to fight? Talking about Portugal, she is our neighbour. Portugal is a small and poor country who has possessions to the north and east of us. Portugal established herself there three centuries ago and to-day that country is involved in a death struggle with the sinister powers of Central Africa, and Portugal is a Nato country, she is England’s oldest friend. Is England helping her? America wishes to use her bases in Portugal for Nato. Is America helping them? Did America help when India went and wiped Goa off the map? And then those friends ask whether we wish to be isolated. Do we want the friends which Portugal has? I want to mention the countries which were supposed to have been Portugal’s friend. Where were they when Portugal was in distress? Did they move one finger at the United Nations? Did one member raise his voice against the violation of Goa? Or did one member raise his voice against Roberto Holden here in Angola? You have probably heard, Sir, that the Natives there passed a resolution last week that they were no longer satisfied with the assistance which Russia was offering them but they are going to accept the help which China was offering them. In other words, it is infiltration from Asia into Africa. Is that what those hon. members want?

But do we not need good friends?

Well, Portugal was left to herself and had to stand alone. She falls or stands on her own power. Her so-called friends, England and America, left her completely in the lurch. The hon. member will probably still take part in the debate. Let him tell us which friends he has in mind. England and America were the two friends which Portugal was looking to. And while we are on that subject, let us go a little further into this question of the isolation of South Africa and the friendship of those great powers and what the fate has been of other countries who had friends like those. For instance, we remember that Poland’s neutrality was guaranteed during the last war. And when she was attacked what happened? Holland had an alliance with England. That hon. member is laughing foolishly. That is history. What happened when Holland was attacked? Four reconnoitring planes went over. In the case of Poland the assistance was exactly naught. Poland was left to her fate and Germany and Russia divided her. That was what happened there. In the case of Holland four reconnoitring planes were sent.

Who liberated Holland?

What assistance did you give Holland?

We are coming to that.

Order! The hon. member must not reply to all the questions and hon. members should not hurl questions to and fro across the floor of the House.

If it were the war of any country it was certainly the war of England. England together with her dominions lost under 400,000 men. America came into the picture as an ally and took the chestnuts out of the fire and lost over 1,500,000 men. I want to ask those hon. members and the military adviser whether they deny that. He asks what this side did? Seventy per cent of our forces consisted of Afrikaans-speaking men. That is not the ratio of the population, the ratio between the Afrikaans- and English-speaking sections. I wish to add that here in South Africa the keymen in every town and everywhere else were not Afrikaans speaking, but 70 per cent of the men at the front were Afrikaans speaking. Let the hon. member argue that fact away.

And that is a plea for unity!

Yes. we should learn to respect one another and then we shall have unity. But as long as the one tries to rub the floor with the other, as was done in the past, we shall never have respect for one another in this country. Now we come to the end of that war. England immediately proceeded to liquidate her Empire and her last possession in Africa is Rhodesia and she is also liquidating that. I want to ask hon. members opposite this question and this is a very pertinent question: The great and mighty England is to-day leaving the Whites in Kenva and Rhodesia in the lurch. I am not the one who is saying that. Prominent English-speaking people in South Africa are saying that. What about isolation in that case? Whose friendship should we seek if we are to be left in the lurch as Kenya has been left in the lurch and as Rhodesia is being left in the lurch? Let us rather know that we will have to stand alone and fight alone. Then we know we must prepare ourselves. I have a letter here in my pocket from an English Member of Parliament who visited our country last year. We corresponded. He told me that he was very worried about the attitude of the English Press in our country. He spent six months in South Africa. I am prepared to mention his name. He met many English-speaking people in South Africa, and he told me that he was worried about the attitude of the English-speaking section in South Africa. After six months he told me that he was convinced that when the time arrived for South Africa to defend herself, both sides of this House would stand together. I now wish to ask this question: Is it necessary to have the division which we have to-day? When a Minister directs such a serious warning to this House as was directed by the Minister of Defence in the Other Place, is it right on the part of the side opposite to play the fool about it? Is that necessary? When a member on this side speaks is it necessary to try to Delittle him when he states facts? I do not think so, I believe that if we have to fight we will fight and we will fight every inch of the way. When the time comes those hon. members will fight with us, because it will be for the preservation of all of us and when we fight, everyone, all the Whites in South Africa, will be included.

On which side did the Coloureds fight?

My time is running short and I must hurry. This is the time for South Africa to entrench herself, to keep herself in readiness and to prepare herself. I have done so in the past. I have done it in my constituency, and I wish to do it this afternoon in this House: I put this question to the Opposition: If the time has arrived for the rest of the world to stand together, the time has certainly also arrived for South Africa to stand together. Do not let us make a second Algeria of our country. We are not Frenchmen in this country. Let us find each other while it is possible to do so. Let us seek in each other what is good. I have only one complaint against this Budget and that is that in respect of defence it does not go far enough. It is true that we are going to spend the greatest amount we have ever spent, but to my mind not even that is enough. I conclude. We in South Africa do not wish to attack anybody. we shall not commit any act of aggression. There is no Goa which we want. We merely wish to retain what is ours. I am informing the world outside that we will fight for that, and when the time arrives I believe that the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking people will all fight to the utmost of their ability.

In the first place, I want to say a few words about national unity, and secondly I briefly want to discuss the particular importance the border areas of the Eastern Cape have acquired as the result of the plan for self-government of the Transkei, and I want to say something about the potentialities of that area. I want to talk about national unity because I want to link it up with the idea that Queenstown during the last election became the symbol of a new set-up in the political life of our country. For the purpose of my discussion I want to revert briefly to the recent political history of South Africa. After his return from the Commonwealth Conference in March last year, the hon. the Prime Minister said the following in this House. At that stage of his speech he was speaking in English—

Further on he said this—

On 12 April last year, at the third reading of the Constitution Bill establishing the Republic, the hon. the Prime Minister said this to the people of South Africa—

And later in the same speech—

On 16 August last year, at the opening of the Transvaal Congress of the National Party, the Prime Minister said the following—

The same idea was expressed by the hon. the Minister of Finance when as leader of the National Party in the Cape Province he opened the Congress of the party in Cape Town. He then said—

On this basis of these clear statements I fought the election in Queenstown. There I said from the beginning, as I say to-day still, that I regard the English-speaking people of our country as being just as good citizens of South Africa as the Afrikaans-speaking people. They and their forefathers assisted in making this country habitable, and they also made their contributions to the development of agriculture, mining, commerce and industry and the professions and to the development of our system of government, whether on a Union basis, provincial or local, and in so many other spheres. In that election I said that there were only two conditions I set for them and which they can set for me: The one is that we should all accept South Africa as our own and our only fatherland, and apply it in every sphere of our lives, and the second is that we should have the same respect for each other’s language and culture and for those traditions which rightly belong to the two White population groups, and therefore give the same recognition to it that we desire to have for ours. On that basis we can really find each other and need not talk about a vague, unattainable ideal, but we can admit to each other that we who feel like that are already one nation and that we should only expand and strengthen that national unity which already exists.

There are many ways in which that can be done. There are so many spheres of the public, cultural and economic life of our country where we can co-operate in promoting the actual national interests of our country and to defend them if necessary. I do not want to expatiate on that, but I just want to mention one example. There are the occasions when we can share in each other’s joy and achievements. The fact that in the past we did not do it sufficiently is no reason why we cannot do it in future, without reproaching each other in any respect. I am thinking, e.g., of the plan to erect a worthy memorial to the 1820 Settlers. If it would be welcomed, it would be a great personal privilege to me to contribute to that fund which would be established for that purpose and to participate in those festivities, and together wih the descendants of those pioneers to pay tribute to the things in regard to which they enriched our lives in South Africa.

If in the past there were obstacles in the way of national unity, then they were removed when we became a Republic. But unfortunately those obstacles in the way of national unity were in the past also transplanted into our politics and strongly influenced our political divisions. That is why national unity was so often confused with political unity. In so far as these factors which in the past hindered national unity also applied to our political life, they necessarily had to be removed even out of our political life because on becoming a Republic they were removed from our national life and therefore no longer exist. And I allege that this was done once and for all during the recent general election. National unity can never again become a point of difference between the parties in our country. This fact must necessarily have a beneficial effect on our political thinking, and I cannot see that it can do anything else but enable us to obtain a more common approach to the many difficult problems facing our country, and in regard to which we heard so much again this afternoon. If the result of the election in the constituency I have the honour to represent has made any real contribution to this, then it has served a very good purpose.

In the second place, I should briefly like to to discuss the necessity for developing the border areas, and the potentialities of those areas. The intention of the Government to grant self-government and later on possibly independence to the Transkei has resulted in the importance of those eastern border districts of the Cape increasing tremendously. Whereas in the past they were the hinterland of the Union, they have to-day become the frontier posts of the Republic. They have also become a key area in the implementation of the Government’s plans in respect of the Transkei. I want to express the thought that if Queenstown, King William’s Town and East London were to have been great cities to-day, as big as Cape Town, the Government’s policy in and for the Transkei could much more easily have been implemented. They would then have provided the magnet, which is now lacking, to draw the Xhosas to those areas where they could then, in Bantu cities within their own area, live the normal lives we would like to see them live, where they could assist in more rapidly developing their areas economically and where they could exercise their political rights. I particularly want to plead to-day that we should provide this magnet.

Also in regard to the Bantu homelands we sometimes hear a reference to industrial partnership. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the idea of industrial partnership is a splendid one, and one can only praise its application in the world. But as I understand it, apart from the fact that the Bantu is not yet in a position to decide on that himself, it is not possible to apply it in our Bantu areas to-day, simply because of the fact that the populations of those areas are not yet able to contribute their 50 per cent of the capital and the management of any undertaking. We shall have to try to develop that idea in a different way. It seems to me that it can be done if the right entrepreneur contributes his initiative, his knowledge and his capital, and the Bantu contributes his labour in a place where it can be used to the greatest possible mutual advantage and where the results of this co-operation can earn the greatest dividends for both these groups. And that is in industries in the Bantu border areas. There the Bantu labour force from the towns in the Bantu area can receive their share in the form of wages and bonuses, which will assist them in developing those homelands economically in various ways.

Therefore if it is true that large cities in the border areas will provide the magnet to attract the Xhosas to those areas, and if it is further true that the best co-operation between the White industrialist and the Bantu labour force can be achieved in those border cities, then I want to direct a very serious and urgent appeal to the Government to do everything in its power to encourage industries in the border areas of the Eastern Cape, and to get industries settled there. Small industries will be welcomed, but what would really be a great stimulus to industrial development there would be the establishment of one or two basic industries. Then we could expect the further development to take place easily.

Mr. Speaker, the area I am referring to is one of the beautiful parts of our country. There are enough people, there is sufficient water, there is effective transport and there is a good harbour at East London. And, Sir, I want to say that there is also coal. I do not think we need doubt that any longer. For more than two years there has been boring and prospecting for coal in my constituency, at Indwe. What the results were I cannot say to-day, but I think we can accept that there is sufficient usable coal. Having listened to the congresses of many bodies in the Cape Province, it is a wonderful thought that we may have a useful coalfield somewhere in the Cape. I do not think I need emphasize the importance of that to the Government. I think they themselves realize it. I just want to ask earnestly that the Government should immediately have the matter investigated, that it should do the necessary planning, and that it should thereafter take the lead with a view to developing that valuable natural asset, and that together with that it will ensure the implementation of a great plan of development for the border areas of the Eastern Cape.

Mr. Speaker, there are various matters one would like to mention in regard to one’s constituency, but I should like to mention only two. I want to ask the Government to build as soon as possible those railway marshalling-yards which have already been planned for Queenstown; and then I want to request the Government to give us an agricultural college to serve those areas of the country. And personally I should like to ask that this agricultural college should be established at Queenstown, a town which in the past has sufficiently proved its particular value in the sphere of education. I want to conclude by asking the Government to devote its full attention to this part of the country for the reasons I have mentioned and in the interest of both the Republic and the Transkei, thereby ensuring a happy and prosperous future for both the Bantu and the White inhabitants there.

In accordance with the time honoured custom in this House, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) on his maiden speech I do so most willingly. His theme of national unity is one of paramount importance in this important juncture in our history. I associate myself most sincerely with the sentiments which he has expressed with regard to the respect which should be paid to both sections of our White population. I can only hope, Sir, that during the hon. member’s association with this House he will carry out those sentiments. I congratulate him on a well-reasoned and moderate speech.

My colleagues and I are prepared to take the view that the Government may have information which justifies the presentation of what has been aptly described in this debate as a “defence Budget” in order to protect our country against potential aggression from outside and from internal uprisings. We are prepared to say immediately that we feel that the Government may have justification for presenting this defence Budget. I say that, Sir, despite the fact that up to the present the Government has not revealed any information which it may have with regard to any possible aggression from any Afro-Asian group of states or elsewhere. The thought has occurred to me, Mr. Speaker, that if in point of fact the Government has any real and reliable information on this very grave aspect, one would have imagined that the Government would have taken the precaution of having a secret session of Parliament so as to disclose the full facts to Parliament and so as to take the representatives of the nation into its confidence. I can quite understand the reluctance on the part of the Government in not wishing to reveal in public any information which it may have with regard to possible external aggression. It would have been infinitely better, to my mind, however, had the Government told the representatives of the people, and if necessary during the course of a secret session, what steps it considered necessary by way of precaution to increase the country’s defences. Where I feel that the Government has erred is that different members of the Government have revealed so-called explanations with regard to this potential threat. I recall reading a few days ago in the local Press a speech made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in which he cited extracts from speeches made at UNO by the representatives of the various Afro-Asian countries and where he used these extracts as justification for the statement by the hon. the Minister of Defence to rouse the public from its complacency. Quite frankly, Sir, I want to say that the extracts quoted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs leave one truly unmoved. If those are the grounds upon which the Government is embarking upon this colossal defence expenditure, then I would say unhesitatingly that the Government is unnecessarily panicking. These statements made at UNO in the heat of public debate surely cannot be the reason for the Government’s concern on this question of external aggression and also on the question of internal uprisings. I say nevertheless that I am prepared to concede that the Government must have some information and important indications which have necessitated the introduction of this defence Budget. I feel, however, that it was the duty of the Government at least—and I say this with respect— to have taken the Leader of the Opposition into its confidence and should have made a disclosure to him of what grave considerations had to be taken into account as a result of information which had come to the Government’s notice. I think that at least was to be expected from the Government bearing in mind, Sir, that we are now called upon to increase our defence estimates by this huge amount of some R48,000,000. The Budget reveals that the defence estimates have been increased by 68 per cent over last year’s figures. This means that the country has now to face and pay a defence vote running into the enormous figure of R120,000,000. When we bear in mind that this figure of R120,000,000 is a peace-time contribution to our defence, the country will appreciate what we will have to face if we have to meet real external aggression. I therefore repeat that bearing in mind the enormous amount which we are willing to vote for the defence of our country, I think the Government should have taken the representatives of the people more into its confidence.

For the purpose of this afternoon’s discussion I repeat that I am prepared to concede that the Government is entitled to take necessary precautions to build up our defences. I am one of those on this side of the House who is prepared to make that concession unhesitatingly. Mr. Speaker, I say that despite the fact that I am far from satisfied that there is in the foreseeable future any real potential danger of outside aggression. I still think that as a matter of precaution the Government is right in building up our defences. I say this again. Sir, despite the fact that the Government has not revealed any real facts to justify this colossal expenditure. I feel, Mr. Speaker, in common with many on this side of the House that it would be quite wrong for any responsible citizen to take up an attitude at the present juncture which would deny the Government the facility of increasing our defences. We owe that to our country. In my view, Sir, it is far better for the Government to spend money on increasing our defences and preparing ourselves against any potential aggression, than for us to remain complacent and to endeavour to do something when it is too late. Even if time shows—and I hope it will show—that much of this money that we are voting to-day has been lost and wasted—and I hope time will show that it has been lost and wasted by reason of the fact that the potential danger does not materialize —then I say that such loss or waste would ultimately be money well spent and will be the means of saving countless lives. I am therefore prepared to concede that the Government is right in asking for our defences to be increased.

If it saves any lives how can it be wasted?

This was what I said: I hoped that it would be money wasted on defence in that it would not be necessary to spend it on resisting outside aggression. I am prepared to make the concession that even if the money is found ultimately not to have been necessary and lost and wasted, it will be money well spent in saving countless lives. I think the Minister gets my point. I cannot drum it into the head of my hon friend opposite.

Having said that I think it is necessary for me to say without reservation again that the whole tragedy of this unfortunate situation which we are called upon to face at the moment, Sir, is that most of this colossal expenditure could have been avoided had the Government heeded the warnings which have come over the years from this side of the House. The real tragedy to my mind is that this country is now called upon to pay this enormous sum of R120,000,000 for our defences as a direct result of the political policy initiated by this Government and pursued by this Government over the past 14 years.

Nonsense!

I would like the hon. Minister of Justice to get up and justify it. Is there any other reason why we are spending this money. Is there any other possible reason for this threatened aggression against our country other than the policies adopted by this Government over the last 14 years.

I want to go on and I want to say this that the saddest feature of this tragic position is that the taxpayers of this country, most of whom are against the policy of the Nationalist Party, will now have to pay the cost involved in resisting potential aggression and potential internal uprisings. That to my mind constitutes the real tragedy of this unfortunate situation. The people who support the Nationalist Party and who support the political extravagances of that party will only pay a small proportion of the tremendous cost involved in protecting our country against aggression, an aggression which can only arise as a result of the policy of this Government. That is the irony of the situation in this country to-day. It is an ironical position that the majority of our citizens who are opposed to the racial policies of this Government will now be called upon to bear the major proportion of the enormous cost involved in protecting our country against possible aggression, which only this racial policy of the Government’s has brought about. But it is not only the tremendous amount of money involved which I want to discuss to-day. If we are to avert the potential dangers with which our country may be threatened it will become necessary for our whole nation to unite. It will become necessary for the whole nation to help the Government to face the dangers which lie ahead. Now, Sir, this will mean the necessity on the part of the Government to rely for help on a large section of the population against whom the Government’s racialistic policy has been relentlessly pursued over the past 14 years. It will be necessary for the Government to rely upon that section of our people who unfortunately have been the victim of this policy over the past 14 years.

What would have happened to their wealth if the Natives had been allowed to come in freely.

The hon. the Minister of Information must not try to distract me from what I want to say here. I will answer any question which he wants to put to me in due course, but I want to develop my theme. I say, Sir. that the irony of the situation with which South Africa is confronted to-day is the fact that these very people against whom this Parliament has legislated for the past 14 years will be called upon to help the White people of South Africa in the event of any external aggression or in the event of an internal uprising. If it is correct, as the Government has indicated, that there exists a grave possibility of the Afro-Asian states adopting an aggressive attitude towards us, surely it must have become necessary for the Government to have taken into account what attitude is likely to be adopted by the non-White people living in this country. I think that is an important aspect which must be taken into account by the Government. With the limited time at my disposal, I do not propose to discuss the possible attitude of the vast majority of the Bantu people living in this country except to say again that in their case a real danger exists that a large number of them, through agitators and newly inspired leaders, will become an indigenous fifth column extending throughout the whole of the Republic. I am sure the Minister of Defence will agree with me that we cannot blind ourselves to this real danger.

What I really want to discuss seriously with the Government is the position of our Coloured people in the present circumstances. Mr. Speaker, we have in this country 1,500,000 Coloured persons who under ordinary normal circumstances could unquestionably be relied upon to throw in their lot with the White people in case of need and in the defence of our country. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the 1,500,000 Coloured people, the men and the women, would be prepared to throw in their lot with the White people in defence of their country. I have no doubt whatsoever that despite what has happened to these Coloured people over the years, the vast majority of them will still stand by us in case of need.

Despite your attempts.

But—and I hope the hon. the Minister of Justice can answer me— in all conscience I would like the hon. the Minister who has interrupted me, to tell me what right this Government has to call upon the Coloured citizens for their help. I say that the Coloured people by reason of their patriotism towards this country will stand by the White people in case of need. But in all conscience I ask myself what right this Government has to call upon our Coloured citizens for their help. From 1948 to this very day, and even during the course of this very Session, the Government has been responsible for heaping upon our Coloured people one discriminatory law after another. With a total disregard of the humanities involved in the matter, we find that our Coloured people have been deprived of their common franchise rights; we find, Sir, that they have been relegated to the position of third class citizens of this country; we find that they have been deprived of their traditional recognition as being part and parcel of the White population, both commercially, economically and politically; they have had inflicted upon them job reservation decrees which deny them the right to take their rightful place in the industrial fields of this country; they have had inflicted upon them the Group Areas Act which has been the means of removing them from their traditional homes, particularly in the Cape, and which has caused them tremendous hardship and misery. They live to-day in a state of absolute apprehension as to what the future holds for them in relation to their homes which they have built up during their lives. Our Coloured people are now faced with this position that many of the Cape towns, which they have helped to build and in respect of which they have contributed more than their fair share, have been proclaimed as solely for White occupation. They have been denied the right to live there. No wonder, therefore, that this one Bill alone has been described by one of their leaders in the following terms—

Order! The hon. member is reflecting on legislation passed by this House.

I am not reflecting, Sir, I am reading what a citizen of this country has said.

Order! What the hon. member is reading is a reflection on legislation passed by this House.

May I say then, Sir, that he says that the effect of this Act is to commit what he regards as a cardinal sin of using it to further one’s own ends, denying the fact that those people have an inherent right of their own. I say that this is the considered view of one of the leaders of the Coloured people and that is shared by the vast majority of them.

As I have said previously not a year has passed since this Government has come into power but that the Government has passed one law after another discriminating against our Coloured people. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall be pleased if hon. members will give the hon. member an opportunity of making his speech.

I think it is also necessary, Sir, now that we are making a proper survey of the position of our Coloured people, for me to recall that this Government has denied the Coloured people a single voice on the re-constitution of this country. They were denied any opportunity whatsoever of voting for or against the establishment of our Republic. I think it is necessary for me to record all these facts so that this House may see the position of the Coloured people in its true perspective. These conditions which I have described this afternoon are conditions which truly obtain to-day as far as our Coloured people are concerned. There is no gainsaying the fact that the circumstances which I have mentioned are circumstances which prevail to-day in the life of the Coloured people. In all conscience therefore I ask again what right has this Government to call upon our Coloured people to help them in this hour of our country’s need, having regard to all the inflictions that have been imposed upon them throughout these years.

But I want to say that notwithstanding all this, I have no doubt in my own mind that the vast majority of our Coloured people will still be willing to stand by the White man in case of need. Surely. Sir, if that is so, the time has been reached now for the Government to change its attitude with regard to our Coloured people. Surely the time has arrived for the hon. the Prime Minister to change his attitude with regard to our South African nation. With the greatest respect, Sir, he cannot on the one hand seek to rely on our Coloured people in case of need and at the same time retain his definition of the South African nation, namely that it is a White nation whose affairs—and here I am using the Prime Minister’s own words—must always be kept in the hands of the White people. Surely he cannot have it both ways. The Government cannot expect that the Coloured people should be called upon to rally to the cause of the White people of this country whilst at the same time the Government continues to perpetuate the definition enunciated by the hon. the Prime Minister when he speaks about the South African nation as being a White nation and that our affairs must always be kept in the hands of the White people. Mr. Speaker, surely, it is not unreasonable at this juncture in our history to suggest that the Government should change its thinking in this all-important matter. Surely the Government must realize that in our Coloured people we have 1,500,000 souls who are our natural allies. Surely this is the time for us to realize that the Coloured people are one of the few human groups in the world, and certainly one of the few human groups in this country, whom we can draw close to us. These Coloured people have remained faithful and loyal to our Government institutions. They have stood by the force of law and order of this country at times when they have been under great pressure to do otherwise. Is this not the time therefore for the Government to decide once and for all to suspend all the harsh and discriminatory laws that have been inflicted upon the Coloured people and to try to obtain their co-operation in order to win back the goodwill which we have lost as the result of the Government’s actions over these many years? I have no doubt whatever that the Coloured people by and large would be most receptive to any change of heart on the part of the Government. I therefore appeal in all seriousness to the Government at this crucial juncture in our history to reconsider its attitude. The fact that we are now called upon to vote this large sum of money for our Defence must be an indication of our position. I suggest that it is a good yardstick. Let the Government therefore do everything possible to make a new approach to every section of our citizens and particularly to the Coloureds. Let us in some tangible way give them some hope for their future and the assurance that they have a real stake in this country, their only country.

No information has yet been given by the Minister of Defence as to what his intentions are with regard to the Cape Corps. Unfortunately he is not here now, but I hope someone will convey this request to him. My colleagues and I would like to know what the Government envisages in regard to this essential unit both in regard to strength and general policy. What position will they hold in regard to their contribution to the national services of the country? I think the Minister should give us the fullest information in this regard. I would like to know what pay is envisaged for the Coloured soldiers. It is perhaps not inappropriate for me to draw attention to the miserable wages paid to our Coloured policemen. The Police Force, after all, is our first line of defence and a White policeman who is single starts at R68 a month, which in these days is little enough, but the Coloured constable who is single starts on R30 a month, and after deductions of certain contributions he is left with a net figure of R26.27. In these days of high costs of living, how can a Coloured man possibly exist on this mere pittance? I use this as an example because the Police Force is our first line of defence and it may be that the Government has in mind to treat our Coloured soldiers on the same basis. What type of man does the Government hope to attract, either to the Police Force or to the Army, on such miserable wages? A Coloured policeman after eight long years of service can only hope to receive a maximum of R74 a month. Surely the Minister of Defence does not intend to follow this sad pattern as far as the wages of our Coloured soldiers are concerned. These are essential facts about which we should like to hear from the Minister.

There are many more aspects in relation to our Coloureds which could advantageously be stated at this juncture. Surely the Government realizes that time must not be lost. If we wish to win back the friendship and goodwill of our Coloured people, we must do so now before it is too late. There is no more glorious opportunity than this for the Government to make a human approach to the Coloured people. I say that failure on the part of the Government to make such an approach may result in disaster from which none of us may escape. It is no good members opposite telling us how much is being done for the Coloureds by way of housing and increased education, which is the theme song of every member opposite, and the fact that there exists a Coloured Affairs Department which employs a large number of Coloureds. This is the old story which answers every appeal we have made for the Government to reappraise its attitude towards the Coloureds. I acknowledge everything that has been done, but I say they are things the Coloured people are entitled to as citizens of the country. I say that all these things, additional housing and education, etc., are nothing more than they are entitled to as citizens. I say that these things are no compensation at all for the rights which have been taken away from them and for the discriminatory laws we inflict upon them year after year. I say in the light of present-day conditions the Government would be failing in its duty if it did not avail itself of the earliest opportunity of telling our Coloured citizens that the final answer to their political advancement has not been given yet, and that steps will be taken to restore their rights to which they are entitled as ordinary citizens. It has never been more urgent that the Government should make a concerted effort to build a solid foundation for our future. Let us build and plan in co-operation with the Coloured people for the orderly co-existence of Whites and Coloureds. They are inextricably tied up with us, and we cannot afford to continue to treat them in the manner the Government has treated them. We cannot afford to continue to deny the Coloured people any say in the nation’s affairs. To-day more than ever in the interest of our country it is necessary for us to win back the goodwill and co-operation of our Coloured friends. I am sure that this can be done if we can only prevail upon the Government to take into account the human dignities and freedoms which are so essential in bringing about this orderly co-existence. I hope that although this House will undoubtedly pass this tremendously large Defence Vote, the Government will avail itself of some opportunity during the course of this Session to make a pronouncement to our Coloured people which will hold out to them some hope as to their future.

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), who is very seldom in the House, has a very unpleasant habit of coming into the House just to make his speech and then his speech sounds like that of a true Rip van Winkle because the arguments which he advanced this afternoon had already been refuted very effectively by the Minister of Lands earlier this afternoon. But the hon. member was not present and now he comes along and repeats the same story that this big expenditure on Defence would not have been necessary if the Government had only listened to the warnings of that side of the House over the past 14 years. I say that these arguments have already been refuted effectively by the Minister of Lands, but the hon. member nevertheless respects them. I want to ask him just one question. I take it that he associates himself with the United Party as Opposition in making these statements. The Opposition believe that if they come into power the African states will immediately stop bringing pressure to bear upon us and that it will not be necessary for us to incur this big defence expenditure. This side of the House is not even willing to allow Natives as representatives in this House, because it has been stated specifically by the Leader of the Opposition that their policy is that Natives must be represented here by Whites. Would the African states be satisfied with that; would it in any way lessen the pressure that will be exerted upon us by the African states; would it in any way change the amount that we have to vote for Defence? No, the hon. member would be very well advised to attend the debates a little more often; then he will not come along with arguments which have already been refuted. For example, take his argument in respect of the Coloureds. All those arguments that he advanced were effectively refuted two weeks ago in this House by the Minister of Coloured Affairs. It has been proved here over and over again what the Government is doing for the Coloureds. But he says that is not the point. It is not what the Government does for the Coloureds that counts but the Government’s attitude towards them. Let me say this to the hon. member. If he thinks that the Coloureds still look upon this Government with a feeling of hatred, he is a true Rip van Winkle, because we have abundant evidence that this Government, particularly under the leadership of the present Minister of Coloured Affairs, is making rapid strides in winning back and increasing the goodwill of the Coloureds. Let me refer him to the spontaneous reaction which the Minister produces every time he attends a large gathering of Coloureds. Only recently at Green Point these people acclaimed him as though, as they would have said in earlier days, he was the King of England. When he rode away from Green Point they tried to touch him and his wife through the windows of his motor-car. That shows with what love and goodwill they look upon the Minister.

They are looking for jobs.

There are numerous examples of this kind. We all know what the position was at Genadendal, which a White person hardly dared to visit.

To-day they cannot go there at all.

What is the position to-day? Some time ago when the Minister visited Genadendal, they gathered in large numbers and when he got into his motor-car they sang to him, “Let the Lord’s blessing descend upon you”. That is their attitude because they have discovered that this Government, and particularly this Minister, have their interests at heart, and it is along these lines that they are being guided towards independence and self-respect. The hon. member now asks the Government to make a statement as to what their eventual political rights will be. Has the Minister not stated repeatedly that this state of affairs is not the last word? Is that not enough for the hon. member? What we are doing is to uplift these people in every possible way to a mature status in which they will also have self-respect. As against that, what was the attitude of the Opposition when they were in power? Do you know, Sir, that the Department of Coloured Affairs, which had to take over the welfare services of the Coloured population on 1 April, did not have a single trained Coloured welfare worker at its disposal? Did this state of affairs not worry the Opposition during all those years when they were in power? Did they do nothing about it? [Interjection.] The hon. member for Karoo comes along and asks why we have not done something about it during the period that we have been in power, but did they not oppose tooth and nail every effort that we made, including the establishment of the Cape Western College where these people have to be trained?

Did I not vote for it?

There these people are going to be trained to serve their own people, and the time will come under the leadership of this Government when they will have the necessary training to be able to serve their own people and to help to uplift their own people, and when that time comes there may be a different dispensation, a different political set-up, but certainly not under the circumstances in which we are living to-day. The Coloureds have very great faith in the Minister to-day and I have the fullest confidence that under his leadership this Government will succeed in winning the full confidence of the Coloureds because it will continue to look after their interests, step by step, and then there will also be a new dispensation. member nevertheless repeats them. I tion for them in the political sphere. But I have said enough about the hon. member for Peninsula.

I should like to come back to the question of finance. I listened attentively to the remarks of various members of the Opposition in connection with our financial position. I listened with great pleasure particularly to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) who unfortunately is not here at the moment. I always find it a pleasure to listen to him, because I believe that if he should ever lose his seat—and nowadays United Party members are losing their seats so fast that is not impossible—and he decides to appear on platforms as an artist, a fortune awaits him, because if there is one man who has the ability to bind an audience with his artistic talents, it is the hon. member for Kensington. He came here with a wonderful bravado and said that the Minister had talked about a “shortage of scrip”, but that there was no shortage of scrip. Just a few minutes later, however, he quoted from the speech made by Dr. M. S. Louw, the Chairman of Sankor, and he called it “an admirable speech”, but then he proceeded to quote what Dr. Louw had said in the same speech, namely that there is a considerable shortage of scrip on the Johannesburg Exchange. The hon. member did, however, make certain suggestions to which one can subscribe. I am thinking especially of the negotiability of blocked rand. Here I also want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister but before doing so I want to point out that this plan of his to authorize the Reserve Bank to buy shares on the London Exchange has come at a very opportune moment. If ever there was an opportune time for it, it is to-day, because the climate on the London and Continental Exchanges has changed considerably since June of last year. Last June, when there was such a large withdrawal of capital by means of share sales on our Exchange, the industrial shares on the London Exchange experienced a boom. At that time the index stood at 332, whereas today it is below 300, because at that stage there was an enormous demand for industrial shares. But since then great uncertainty has arisen on the London Exchange in respect of the Common Market, and investors on the London Exchange are safeguarding themselves against what may happen to industries in England if Britain were to join the Common Market. That safeguard they seek is to a certain extent in gold shares, because gold shares offer complete security against that uncertainty in respect of the Common Market. That is why investors on the London Exchange have already started giving more attention to gold shares. I say therefore that the Minister has chosen the right time to allow the Reserve Bank to buy some of these shares on the London Exchange with a view to supplying them to buyers in South Africa. I believe that the offer of these shares will by no means be as great as we expect perhaps because, as I have already tried to indicate, the London investor is safeguarding himself in this way. I want to make this further suggestion therefore that the Minister should open a further loophole through which this 20 per cent discount between the London Exchange and the Johannesburg Exchange can be further eliminated. I want to suggest that these blocked rand could also be used for tourism in the Republic, that investors who sell their shares and who then hold blocked rand in the Republic should be given the right either to use that money for tourism in the Republic themselves or that they should be given the right to sell it to prospective tourists who wish to visit the Republic. In that way we would kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand we would get more people visiting this country to see for themselves what the conditions are here and to gain a better impression of South Africa, but on the other hand we would also give a great fillip to our commerce and our hotel trade. This is very necessary according to the figures submitted to us by the Minister, because in his Budget the Minister stated that the net increase in the national income was distributed over the various sectors of our economy more or less as follows: The manufacturing industry showed an increase to 6.1 per cent, mining an increase of 5.8 per cent, agriculture, forestry and fisheries an increase of 3.7 per cent, and commerce an increase of only 3.7 per cent as well. It is perfectly clear therefore that we must give our commerce a push forward, and here I include the hotel industry. If we make this concession to persons owning or acquiring blocked rand so that they can use it to travel in South Africa, it will at once give a fillip to our commerce and our hotel industry. I would ask the Minister therefore to consider this suggestion. It is, of course, nothing but wishful thinking to do what certain hon. members on the other side have suggested and that is simply to throw our gates wide open, or let me rather put it this way: Hon. members criticized the Minister’s plan to open the loophole in this way but they do not suggest how we should set about it to release this blocked money. Surely it would be folly to abolish all control at once, because according to a recent calculation there are still shares to the value of R600,000,000 in the hands of foreign investors. If we abolished all control and an outflow of capital were to take place, it stands to reason that our present reserves, which are only in the region of R313,000,000, would be totally inadequate. There is no question therefore of a total abolition of these control measures, but I believe that this is the right time to use whatever means we can to reduce this great difference of 20 per cent between London prices and Johannesburg prices.

In conclusion I also want to point out that this Minister of Finance has the correct approach in respect of the finances of this country. He believes in feeding and coddling the goose that lays the golden egg so that it can lay more golden eggs. I want to point out that two years ago he made available R1,000,000 to the wine industry for publicity and research, and now that the goose has been fed so well, he has seen fit to call upon the goose to lay another few golden eggs, and he is going to get a big egg because he is budgeting for an amount of R14,300,000 which he expects to get from this goose. I believe that he has the right approach towards this country’s finances. In making available R500,000 to stimulate our exports he is showing the same degree of insight. Since he is making available this amount for factory exports—he states clearly in his Budget that this is for manufacturers to enable them to plan their production properly—I want to ask in all humility that this principle should also be applied to our great fruit industry. Because when I look at the international trade in deciduous fruit I cannot help being impressed with the unlimited possibilities for this trade and also for this country. As far as Western Germany is concerned in particular these possibilities are almost limitless because the latest figures at my disposal indicate that whereas United Kingdom imported 1.2 million tons of deciduous fruit in 1959, Western Germany imported 2.2 million tons of deciduous fruit, the United States 1.9 million tons, France 1.1 million tons, a total of 9.7 million tons. If this country wants to try to tap that potential it will also need export promotion in respect of deciduous fruit, and I would therefore draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that while we in the Western Cape can never perhaps become a great industrial area, we can nevertheless become a much greater fruit-producing area and we could earn very much more foreign exchange if only we would try to tap this great potential as far as possible, particularly in respect of Western Germany. All these fears which grip us in respect of the possibility of England’s joining the Common Market would then also disappear, because the potential of Western Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the United States is enormous, and that potential can be tapped if we will only apply this principle of export promotion to our deciduous fruit industry as well. That is my request to the hon. the Minister. He may possibly find that here too we have a goose which lays golden eggs, and who knows to what extent he will be able to make use of this goose within a few years.

Finally, I just want to subscribe to what the hon. the Minister said when he made an appeal to the industrialists, the entrepreneurs of the country, to go ahead and to show confidence in the future of South Africa. That reminds me of the words of Mr. H. C. Kock, the chairman of the Transvaal and the Free State Chamber of Mines, in a lecture which he recently gave on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of the certified mechanical and electro-technical engineers, in the course of which he said—

I wholeheartedly subscribe to that.

Notwithstanding the criticism that we have heard here from the Opposition, South Africa is going through a period of growth and prosperity in various spheres. The future is not as sombre as it is described by the Opposition: I see a rosy future ahead of us. When South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth the Opposition prophesied a disastrous future for South Africa; they painted a gloomy picture of unemployment, economic retrogression and a possible devaluation of the rand in the future. What has happened in the meantime? Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has been put to shame because to-day South Africa’s economy is stronger than ever before. With the withdrawal of the British and French troops from the Suez canal the breaking down of colonialism in Africa was given a big push forward, and two years ago the British Prime Minister made his winds-of-change speech here in Cape Town, a speech which gave rise to the development of nationalism amongst the Bantu peoples of this country; one Bantu nation after another was admitted as a member of UNO, and to-day the Bantu nations, together with the Communist bloc, dominate the voting at UNO. They have become a factor there. The object of these communist and Afro-Asian nations is the eventual capitulation of the White man in South Africa and in Africa and domination by the Bantu. They are not prepared to wait to achieve their ultimate aim; they want this ideal of theirs to be realized immediately. This policy of theirs has led to bloodshed and chaos in Africa, just as chaos prevailed in other parts of the world where Communism holds sway to-day. As the result of the traditional policy of separate development in South Africa, we have been criticized from time to time by these Bantu States and sharp criticism has been levelled at us by these Bantu nations. The steps which are being contemplated and taken by them to-day are being taken in pursuance of that policy of theirs and it is in no way due to South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth or the fact that South Africa became a Republic.

Certain charges have been made against us by the Opposition, and I should like just briefly to expose a few of their charges. In the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) he says that the economy of our country is not being stimulated sufficiently by the Government. The hon. the Minister of Finance has said himself that he would like to see a more rapid growth of our economy, but the Opposition has failed to show any appreciation of the steps taken by this Government to place our economy on a firm basis. Mr. Speaker, I read in the Cape Times that 6,000 new immigrants are to come to our country, and the reason given for that is the fact that the Government has a new assistance scheme, but the second reason that is given is the general improvement in the economic position of the Republic. In the past year this country has made a spectacular recovery in respect of its gold and foreign reserves, and our net national income has risen to the figure of R4,271,000,000, in other words, 5.7 per cent higher than the previous year.

The following things contribute to the stimulation of our economy: The programmes of expansion announced by the Government in respect of Iscor, Escom, Sasol, Foscor. These programmes will involve the expenditure of millions of rand and will stimulate our economy. Our economy will also be stimulated by the expenditure of R120,000,000 on Defence and R25,000,000 on Bantu homelands. The establishment of a R9,000,000 synthetic rubber manufacturing company will stimulate the chemical industry at Sasol, and it will save us foreign exchange. At the moment the raw product is obtained from a country like Malaya, a country which is toying with the idea of introducing a boycott against South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the Orange River scheme, which has been belittled to a large extent by the Opposition. The hon. member for Constantia says that this is a scheme which should have been tackled 12 years ago already by this Government. May I put this question to him: Why not 14 years ago, just two years earlier when the United Party was still in power?

We were busy with it.

If the United Party had been in power that dam would never have been built; that scheme would never have been tackled. But we are accustomed to it that the United Party makes promises which they know they can never implement. All the major schemes that were ever tackled in this country were opposed by the United Party— and they know that is so. They opposed the establishment of Iscor as well as the establishment of Sasol, but when results were produced they wanted to claim the credit. I do not think that we realize the value of this huge scheme to our country. It raises new hopes for the future of our country and it creates confidence in the outside world. This scheme will even overshadow the so-called Tennessee Valley scheme of America. The United Party, as they have just shown again, find themselves in an embarrassing position; they are sorry that the Government of the day is achieving so much success in the economic sphere.

The Opposition also states in its amendment that more should be done for the handicapped and for the less privileged. Yes, we on this side would also like more to be done for those people, but the difference between ourselves and them is that we demonstrate our sympathy in a practical way; that this Government does something and gives something to the handicapped and the less privileged, whereas the other side only talks and makes fine promises which they know they will never be able to carry out.

In the third instance the Opposition also refers in its amendment to our national security which is allegedly in jeopardy. If the United Party says that in view of the attitude of UNO and of the Afro-Asian countries, then I want to ask them whether they are prepared to make concessions which will be acceptable to these Afro-Asian countries. Are they prepared to make the position of this country safe by making the concessions which are being demanded by those countries?

You know what our policy is.

Yes, the Opposition’s policy is that we should make concessions. The Opposition also say in their amendment that we have lost the friendship of the West and that we must win it back. Is the truth of the matter not that this Government is and always has been on terms of good friendship with the Western countries? That is the position. Is South Africa not the strongest bulwark against Communism in the whole of Africa?

Yes, under this Government.

But if friendship with the West is to mean that South Africa must submit to the demands of UNO and of the Afro-Asian nations, then I ask the United Party whether they are prepared to make those concessions. I want to say at once that speaking for myself we are not prepared to pay that price. We are not prepared to make those concessions, and if they are prepared to do it, they should tell us so.

The United Party have also told us to-day that they are prepared to make adjustments; that with their federal policy they are prepared to make adjustments so as to win back the friendship of the West, a friendship which I contend we have never lost. Let us look into this matter for a moment. What determines the attitude of the West at UNO towards us? Is it not a fact that the attitude of the West is determined by what the Afro-Asian nations think of us? What do the Afro-Asian nations think of us? They do not think; they demand the immediate surrender of the reins of government by the White man to the Bantu. They will be satisfied with nothing less than surrender by the White man, and the United Party knows that. The West is revealing a guilt complex to-day in connection with the non-Whites of the world. Must I assume that the United Party is prepared to accede to this one important demand? That is the only demand which is really at issue to-day. United Party supporters have said repeatedly that they are prepared, as far as race relations are concerned, to make such concessions as are necessary to win back the friendship of the West for us. Is the United Party also prepared to make these concessions which would result in wiping out the 300-year-old civilization in this country? The policy of the United Party is one of racial discrimination, and so is the policy of the Progressive Party. The only difference is that the one party’s policy will produce the end result a little sooner than the policy of the other party. What do the Bantu in Africa think of the policies of the United Party and the Progressive Party? When we look at what is happening in the State which is our northern neighbour and find that their policy, which is also described as a progressive or a federation policy, does not satisfy the Bantu, then we know that our policy in this country will not be accepted either whichever party governs this country, whether it be the National Party, the United Party or the Progressive Party. What is being demanded to-day is immediate surrender in favour of the Bantu peoples of this country. The events in numerous countries in Africa clearly indicate that UNO is acceding to the demands of the Afro-Asian nations. Britain is withdrawing from Kenya and from Tanganyika, and in the Federation Britain is turning her back on those people.

And you are withdrawing from the Bantustans.

The National Party differs from the other parties in this respect that it tells the voters and the world that it also believes in the right of self-determination and in the survival of the Whites in this country. It also thinks of the survival of the Whites here and not only of the survival of the other races. We are prepared to support this policy and to defend it, even by force of arms. At the same time, however, we do not refuse to recognize the right of any other race to exist in this country. That is why we believe in the development of the Bantu territories in this country.

The United Nations are not concerned about what becomes of the Whites in South Africa and in Africa. It is the duty of this Government to ensure the survival of the Whites in this country. The National Party and the Government will continue to defend the interests of the Whites in South Africa, and fortunately there are many Whites in this country, not only in the ranks of the National Party but also in the ranks of the other parties, who support the Government in this matter. Is it not necessary to-day, more than ever before, that we should stand together? And in saying this, I am not referring to the Whites only; I include all the other racial groups in this country, because the survival of the White man in this country will also ensure a peaceful existence in this country for the non-White in the future. This is not the time to talk about a so-called chasing together of the Whites into a “White laager”. This is no time to ask where the danger is or whether South Africa has any guarantee that it will get the assistance of the West. In posing this last question, do members of the Opposition want to suggest to the agitator abroad that South Africa cannot look after herself or that if South Africa is attacked, the West will raise no objection? Is it not better to adopt the attitude that South Africa must take care of herself, and that we should equip ourselves accordingly? Surely it is better to adopt this attitude rather than the attitude of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) who wants to sit and cry over lost friends when in point of fact we are still on friendly terms with the West? It is time he also grew up, just as we in South Africa are grown up and prepared to fight our own battles. Is it not true that a strong Defence Force is the best guarantee against aggression from outside and that the greater the premium that we pay, the greater the security cover we have? I believe that the determination of the present Government in strengthening our Defence Force to this extent, in devoting these large sums to Bantu development, in undertaking this huge Orange River scheme, creates confidence not only here in South Africa but also abroad. Mr. Speaker, this testifies to the stability of the Government of to-day and it creates confidence in the future of South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down started off by blaming Mr. Macmillan for Black nationalism in Africa. He said that Mr. Macmillan’s “winds of change” speech had been the cause of Black nationalism, but he ends his speech by saying that we are friends of the West, that we have the friendship of the West, when he himself spent half his speech attacking our potential friends, attacking Great Britain whose friendship we need, attacking the Prime Minister of Great Britain …

That is not true.

… accusing him of being responsible for Black nationalism. The hon. member wants to know why we do not thank the Government. Must we thank a Government which has members who attack our friends as that hon. member has been attacking them? The hon. member who has just sat down and all hon. members on that side of the House—the Government as a whole— have been taken in and bluffed; they have swallowed the whole bait of the African and Asian statesmen; they have fallen for the claim of the African and Asian leaders that they will only accept “one man one vote”—not “one man one goat”; I am not referring to the noises that come from the other side. Sir, they have heard this cry repeated by the non-White African and Asian leaders and they have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The hon. the Minister of Lands has to get up and make a special speech because of the difficulty in which the Government found itself on this issue as to who is responsible for the position in which South Africa finds herself to-day. The Chief Whip had to call off a member and the Minister of Lands came into the debate to try to throw the same smokescreen across the issue as this hon. member has done —the smokescreen, the fallacy, that the policy of the United Party would be no more acceptable than the policy of the Nationalist Party. If ever there was a complete fallacy and a complete surrender to the propaganda tactics of the Afro-Asian States, then it is the way in which the Government has swallowed that little bit of bait dangled in front of them. They swallowed it completely. But how naive can they be! Do they really believe that it is purely the fact that there is discrimination or that there may be discrimination, that has created the enemies which South Africa has? Have they forgotten the Commonwealth Conference where the Prime Minister took South Africa out of the Commonwealth and when one of those Asian States said that they would be quite happy if the non-Whites of South Africa were given representation on a separate voters roll? He actually named the number; he said that they would be satisfied with 10 members in this Parliament. The hon. the Prime Minister who took South Africa out of the Commonwealth knows that statement was made. If only we had given that little concession of a separate voters roll with 10 members …

They hoped that there would be more in the future.

Has the Prime Minister no confidence in the ability of the White man to control the future of South Africa? Is he to be dictated to by Black and Asian States? What about other States in the world? What about the solution of the Cyprus problem where you have in effect a race federation, a separate group Parliament for the Turkish and for the Cypriot members—a separate Parliament with separate voters rolls for the race groups. Sir, the world accepts that. That is the same principle as the race federation plan of the United Party—the recognition of groups. But, Sir, these members have been so taken in by the demand of the political leaders and agitators that they believe—I think they do believe—that there is only one solution and that is “one man one vote.” Let me say clearly in reply to the hon. member who has just sat down that this side of the House, through our Leader and through all our Leaders, has stated categorically that we will not under any circumstances accept the demand of “one man one vote” which is made upon South Africa. We know and hon. members opposite know that we have in the world friends whom we can and whom we will win back on a policy not of surrender, not of fear but of moderation and recognition of the dignity of people, a policy of moving towards the better treatment of people instead of moving away from decent treatment. Sir, it is not the Afro-Asian States that we have to please and satisfy. It is the Western world whose friendship we want—the countries with power and with tradition, tradition in statesmanship, tradition in diplomacy, which this Government so sadly lacks. It is the Government’s complete lack of diplomacy which has brought us to the state in which we find ourselves to-day.

What about Kenya?

Before the suspension of business, I was dealing with the ham-handed and naive diplomacy of this Government, and I hope in a moment to come back to that subject when the hon. Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs is present. We have now had two days of Budget debate, and for the first time this afternoon, when the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) spoke, from the Government side mention was made of either the Budget or economics. To-day for the very first time there was a reference to economics by the hon. member for Paarl. We have waited in vain, Mr. Speaker, for one voice of criticism from the Government benches in regard to this Budget. Not one voice has been raised in criticism from any member on the Government side, and hon. members opposite will agree with me that implies that they are completely satisfied with the Budget which is before the House.

Naturally.

The hon. member for Cradock says “naturally”. I hope that the public of South Africa will note this blind acceptance, without question or criticism, of the contents of this Budget. I want to tell hon. members why. All we have had from that side of the House, except for one isolated suggestion from the hon. member for Paarl, has been a drooling praise of how good this Government is. And what has been the basis of their arguments? The basis was that it could have been worse. That is the yard-stick by which they test the welfare of the people of South Africa “that it could have been worse”. They are not interested in whether it is good or bad. They are interested solely in whether it could have been worse. They have compared in this debate South Africa, with Kenya, with Rhodesia, with African states, with Asian states, with all the lower standard of living states in the world. That is the standard which these members set for South Africa. They compare us with Kenya, they compare us with Rhodesia, they compare our investment capital with the position in the Congo, and this country and the other. That is the standard which they set for the economy of South Africa. They don’t say to us that those are countries in which the ratio of Whites varies from 1:26 to 1:400, against our 1:4. They have set as the standard of our economy, the standard of the developing states of Africa. But not one of them has come with an answer to the charge that they have no confidence in the economy of South Africa as evinced by this Budget. This Minister of Finance has either under-estimated the revenue of this country, or else he is saying to South Africa that he has no confidence in the economic development of South Africa. I hope that the people will take note of the smug satisfaction with which Government members have swallowed this Budget. Let them go back to their constituencies and explain how they sat here and said “Nqiyabonga Nkosi— Thank you Sir”. They thank the Government for the increase in taxation, for laying an extra burden on the people of South Africa. Let them explain that to their constituencies. We have had statistics quoted ad lib in this debate, but, Mr. Speaker, this Government fails to tell the people that only one country of the civilized countries in the world has a higher rise in cost of living than South Africa. If you compare the cost-of-living increases over the last eight years, you find that South Africa is the second highest of all the countries quoted: West Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, the United Kingdom and all the other dominions.

It is not the cost of living, it is the cost of high living.

That is the attitude! That is the attitude of the Government to the ordinary man in the street in South Africa. This Government accuses the people of South Africa of high living. Mr. Speaker, they talk of the rise in the national income. Under the United Party, from 1945 to 1948, the rate of increase was 3½ per cent per year; in the next five years it dropped to 2.8 per cent; it has now dropped from 1954 to 1960 to 1.4 per cent. That is the test. An increase of 3½ per cent per year under the United Party Government and 1.4 per cent now. I hope that the worker of South Africa on his way home at night when he stops for that well-earned sundowner, will remember this Minister of Finance, when he pays an extra cent on the drink which he has earned with the sweat of his brow. I hope they will remember this Minister and will realize why they have to pay that additional cent. I hope that the wine-farmers who are to-day pressing their grapes, will remember that it took the representative of a wine-growing constituency for the first time in the history of South Africa to place a tax upon unfortified wine in South Africa. In 50 years of Union, not one Minister of Finance has ever taxed unfortified wine. I was in that hon. Minister’s constituency on Friday night, and I have a few messages to convey to the Minister. But Mr. Speaker, not one of them would pass the test of parliamentary language. I was also on the other side of Worcester on Saturday night and I spoke to wine-growers there …

Order! Hon. members are very noisy. The hon. member has a loud voice and I can hardly hear what he is saying.

It is not only the worker, not only the wine-producer, but also the motorist filling up with petrol. I hope he too will remember the price that this Budget is squeezing out of his pocket. And what of the pensioner? What will he think when he draws his miserable 5 cents per day extra? I hope he will remember that in ten years under this Government—and you can check it with the White Paper—the expenditure of South Africa on social services has dropped from 44.3 per cent to 40.1 per cent, a drop of 4.2 per cent—R32,000,000 which would be in the pockets of the pensioners, the persons enjoying the privilege of social services in South Africa, had this Government not been forced to reduce the social services by 4.2 per cent in the last ten years. The hon. the Minister can talk in globular figures, he can say “I have increased the pensions”. If he looks at the Head “Social Welfare Pensions”, there is a miserable increase of R1,088,000, but if the social pensioners, the people who can enjoy social benefits, were getting the same, just the same, not one single ¼ per cent increase, as what they were getting ten years ago. they would be getting this year R32,000,000 more than what they are in fact getting from this Budget. These are not just statistics, these are hard, cold facts.

Sheer nonsense!

Not sheer nonsense. If that is sheer nonsense, then this White Paper is sheer nonsense. Look at page 18, “Social Service”.

Get somebody to explain it to you.

I don’t need the hon. Minister’s explanation. The expenditure on social services has dropped by 4.2 per cent. That is the issue.

On what?

R32,000.000 is the equivalent of 4.2 per cent of our Budget expenditure this year, and that is what the hon. the Minister is doing to the poor and needy of South Africa in this Budget.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have had in this debate nothing but airy fairy stories about everything in the garden being rosy. The Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs stood up here and quoted reams and reams of figures. What did he deal with? First of all he accused the Sugar Association of mishandling their negotiations in regard to the sugar price for South Africa. He said that had they stood by their rights, the position might to-day have been very different, because they would have demanded the old price for sugar. I am not interested in the rights or wrongs, the legal issue, but I am interested in the ham-handed attitude of the Minister. After the Sugar Association gained for South Africa a benefit of some R5,000,000 over the world price, this Minister now comes along and says: You should have taken legal action and should have jeopardized any hope of getting a long-term agreement. But that is not all the hon. the Deputy Minister said. He accused the Leader of the Opposition of doing a disservice to South Africa because he stated that it was unlikely that we could join the Common Market. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs whether it is his intention to apply for associate membership or full membership. Because I want to remind him that firstly such an application requires a unanimous vote of the council, secondly, that the preamble reads—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to take South Africa into the Common Market on the basis of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Title III requires—

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to withdraw all restrictions on the movement of people, service and capital?—

And then it continues and under “social provisions” it says “free trade union rights”. I want to ask the Deputy Minister of Labour whether he or his Government are prepared to accept those conditions for South Africa. If not, then the hon. Deputy Minister’s attack on my leader was unjustified, unfounded and politically dishonest in regard to the issues before the country.

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to accuse an hon. member of “political dishonesty”?

The hon. member should withdraw that expression.

I withdraw those words and say that it was an attempt to attack unjustifiably the Leader of the Opposition for making a statement based on facts. The hon. the Minister should know that it would not be possible to accept these conditions which are laid down in the Charter of the Common Market. But the hon. Deputy Minister spoke here for his full time and he made no reference whatsoever to the fact that in the last 4½ years, from 1957-8 until to-day, there has. in fact been a decrease in the number of people employed in South African industries; in the manufacturing industry employment has dropped by 12,000 people; the total employment is almost exactly the same, 1,642,000 as compared with 1,663,000 now. As far as the Whites are concerned, exactly the same number are employed to-day as were employed in 1957-8, but the population of South Africa increased by 2,000,000 people in that period. I have got the statistics here and the Minister cannot deny that. From 1957-8 until to-day, our population has increased by a fraction under 2,000,000, but the number of people employed in manufacturing, construction, transport and communication and the Public Service, and mining, together has increased by a fraction. In the manufacturing industry there was a drop; in the construction industry there was a drop of 13,000, in transport a decrease by 18,000, and so forth, a drop in employment despite the fact that there are 2,000,000 more people. And what has the Minister told us as to what he is doing about it? They say “to blazes with the unemployed!” They are not interested. They reduce the unemployment benefits of the workers in a Bill before this House. They could not be worried less whether people have a job or not, as long as they are good nationalists and they are going to vote right. We, Mr. Speaker, are interested in the economic development of South Africa and the welfare of the people. There are 2,000,000 new people, new South Africans, and our employment in the whole of industry, construction, state services and transport has shown no change during the last four years. Where are those new people? Where are they employed? So one could go on. Everything in the garden is rosy. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has announced a relaxation in import control. In the meantime import control goes on. People have to beg on their knees for permits like beggars for charity. Industry and commerce are not allowed to expand because they are limited by permit allocations. And the Minister talks lightly of this rosy state of affairs! But these hon. Ministers know of the cases that come to them, the appeals and requests for permits, and industry is hamstrung by the fact that they cannot expand without the say-so of the Minister and his Department. The hon. Deputy Minister said no word about the Bantustans or about border industries. He did not explain why in this Budget for the development of industrial resources there is the magnificent sum of R100 under the Vote for “Commerce and Industry”. Plus a total of R100 for the development of border areas! That is the extent to which this Budget helps the development of industries either in White areas or in the Black areas! He has not explained what is going to happen when these Bantustans start to control the labour working in our White factories, when they start to control the wage rates. He quoted a lot of figures, but he has not said one word about what he and his Department are doing to protect the industry of South Africa against the policy of this Government of creating competitive industries in the Bantustans. The Transkei Council has already demanded a levy on mine labour, has demanded a control of recruiting. All we have had from this Government is the cry that “everything in the garden is rosy”. Let the people of South Africa who have to pay these taxes know that these taxes are necessary as a result of the Government’s own lack of confidence and their own mismanagement of South Africa. [Time limit.]

It is no wonder that the Opposition Whip has gone to shut up the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) because we have really to-night experienced one of the great nights in the economic life of South Africa; we have had a mighty speech about the economic position of South Africa. We know that hon. member. He said that not a single word has yet been spoken by hon. members on the Government side about the economy of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, speeches of high standard have been made from this side. But let me say that one must be able to understand such speeches in order to appreciate them. I think the greatest compliment to the Budget of the hon. the Minister is the debate carried on by the opposite side of the House. The hon. member’s complaint is that no criticism has been voiced by the National Party in regard to the Budget. Sir, it is difficult even for the Opposition to criticise this Budget. Why then does he expect it from the National Party?

The hon. member pretended that the threats emanating from the African states are really nothing at all. His words were: “The Nationalist Party swallowed the whole bait of the Afro-Asian states”. Now he says: “They must just give them a little bit”, and then he gives the example. He says that Abdul Rahman said that he would be quite satisfied if we only had ten representatives of the White and the Black people of the country in this House. The United Party itself realizes that is not the end of the story. I have in my hands the Federation Plan of the United Party, and this is what they say—

The whole idea in their minds is that the White man can keep control in his own hands only for the immediate future. But we need not look at South Africa. Let us look just beyond our border, at Rhodesia. Southern Rhodesia decided to let 15 out of the 60 members be Black people, and that gave no satisfaction. But let us look at Kenya. The White man is leaving that country and leaving his property behind, but concessions such as the hon. member is suggesting were made there.

What are the race relations there?

The so-called economic speech of that hon. member consisted of only two things, and I am not quite sure which one he discussed most seriously, namely sugar and liquor. Sugar is important, but liquor infinitely more so! I do not blame the hon. member, because if I were to have a history such as that of the United Party I would also seek solace elsewhere. I have in my hands something, and it so happens that I had it here whilst the hon. member was talking, which reminds me so much of the history of the United Party, and I would like to read it to him—

Sir, we have many problems in our country, but I think one of the fundamental problems in South Africa to-day and for the Government is the question whether we should devote any attention to what the United Party says. The question with which we are faced in this Session more than ever before is whether we should take any notice, in the interest of South Africa, of what the United Party has to say, when we consider national matters. The whole course of the Session has proved it. This is a different type of session. Just ask the older members in this House like the hon. member for Cradock and others. They do not know this Parliament any more. It is a different kind of Parliament. It is a futile Session for the United Party. I think there is only one way of describing them: They have become a party of ruins. Last year I had the privilege of visiting the Zimbabwe Ruins, and we walked around those ruins and saw no sign of rebuilding. In recent days I have delved into the history of the United Party somewhat and, Sir, I felt I was back amongst the Zimbabwe Ruins. I felt like somebody walking around amongst those ruins. If one looks at the history of the United Party, it is like an old ruined city where grass grows on the pavements. In the streets there are holes and the only sign of life one finds is people who are fast leaving. The United Party is now twenty-eight years old. It was born on 5 December 1934.

They are completely toothless now.

Yes, like an old ewe with no teeth. Their cuds are falling out. Since the establishment of the United Party they have shown no sign of growth. The hon. member for Constantia has asked the Prime Minister to evaluate the political situation in South Africa. Very well, let us get an evaluation of the political situation in South Africa. It makes no difference how great our problems are. The fact of the matter is that the political situation in South Africa will determine how those problems will be tackled and solved, and if one looks at the history of the United Party one is dealing with a dying party, because there is steady deterioration. That is one of the things which started while it was at its height.

Why are you concerned?

I am concerned because I have to pose the question as to whether we should take any more notice of them.

Half the people still support the United Party.

In 1935, the first session of the United Party, they had 115 members in this House. In 1938 they had 111. In 1943, only 89, in 1948 it had fallen to 65, in 1953 there were only 57, and in 1958 only 53, whilst to-night there are only 49—a picture of systematic deterioration. On the other hand, the National Party started with 19 members and increased by 552 per cent until to-day it has 115 members in this House. But Mr. Speaker, in 1938 the United Party for the first time came up against the National Party, and what has happened since then? Since 1938 the National Party took 67 seats from the United Party and retained all 67. In the same period, from 1938 until now, the United Party at times gained altogether six seats from the National Party, viz. Malmesbury, Worcester, Prieska, Paarl, Hottentots-Holland and Vereeniging, but they did not retain a single one of those six. All those representatives are sitting on this side to-day.

Tell us about the delimitation.

My goodness, now the hon. member is talking about delimitation. One cannot blame them for having rejoiced a few weeks ago about too few seats in the Johannesburg City Council. That sort of thing has gladdened them just lately, and that was their own delimitation. But the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), who is always so loquacious, says that they still have the majority of the people behind them.

Half.

The hon. member is of course counting people of all colours, but I am talking about White people. Since the establishment of the United Party, the number of votes cast for that party has decreased steadily until in 1960 when there was a majority in favour of the Republic of 74,580, and that victory in respect of becoming a Republic was nothing else but further deterioration for the United Party. And allow me to tell the hon. member that the general election of 18 October last year proved that the United Party will forever be a minority party in South Africa. In the 51 constituencies in which the National Party opposed the United Party the year before last—that is the only yardstick we can use—the Republican majority was 118,000. Last year the National Party majority was 125,000, a further growth of 6,522 for the National Party at the cost of the United Party. Therefore I say that the United Party is now for once and for always a minority party, so much so that one can measure their deterioration every year. They are no longer even representative of the country. As that party sits here they have only seven of the 68 seats rural seats, and they no longer even have the majority of the urban seats; they only have 42 out of the 88 urban seats. If ever there was a party which represented a section of a section, it is the United Party. But if we come to this House, we find that ex-members of the United Party are now sitting on our side.

Are you counting Frankie also?

Of course I count the hon. the Minister of Information also. But that is not the only thing. Do you know, Sir, that since the establishment of the United Party. 48 members who sat in this House as United Party members have come over to the National Party? And that is not all they lost. In addition. there are 14 who joined other parties or who left the House. In the 23 years since the establishment of the United Party they have lost 62 Members of Parliament. That is what the National Party gains in this House are. The United Party has lost 62 Members of Parliament who joined this party or other parties, and in that time they got only two in addition, viz. Mr. Sullivan in 1947 and Mr. Eaton, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

And Japie Basson.

We know the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) does not count. He has not yet joined the U.P. In any case, during the years when 62 members left them, not a single member of the Nationalist Party has sat on the U.P. benches in this House. That is what deterioration looks like, Sir; that is what it looks like when a party is dying. Can you therefore blame me if I call that party a party of ruins? If one looks at the hon. member for Turffontein, it really seems as if he is walking around amongst the ruins. However, that is not only the position in this House, but even in the eyes of the electorate the U.P. no longer exists. The Leader of the Opposition no longer exists and has no more stature in South Africa. Even the newspapers which carried that party all these years are beginning to desert them. I have here an extract from the Rand Daily Mail, one of the great protagonists of the U.P. in past years, and what does this paper say now? It says this—

The editor proceeds then to support what I have just said by saying the following

But, Sir, the U.P. itself realises this. The U.P. last year held a congress at Bloemfontein. On that occasion they had a secret agenda. Here I have that secret agenda. It is marked “Vertroulik”, or “Confidential” for the benefit of the hon. member for Durban-Point. Let us now see what their own members say of that party. Here is e.g., the resolution of the Mossel Bay Branch of the party—

Then the Pietermaritzburg Branch had the following resolution—

That. Sir. is what the U.P. thinks of itself. But one finds that not only at their congresses, because their members in this House feel the same. I have here an extract from the Argus of the 14th inst., which says the following—

He is a saboteur!

The deterioration and frustration of the U.P. have been reflected in this House during the present debate.

On a point of order, Sir, is an hon. member entitled to call another a saboteur?

On a point of explanation, Sir, I said that what the hon. member said, according to that quotation, indicated sabotage. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir, I and other hon. members over here clearly heard the hon. member for Ventersdorp say that the hon. member for North-East Rand is a saboteur.

Order! Did the hon. member call the hon. member for NorthEast Rand a saboteur?

I said he was a saboteur, and I withdraw it.

Sir, I am glad that this dispute has been settled, but in any case we know what the people outside this House say. I was busy proving that the frustration which prevails in the U.P. is revealed even in this House on the occasion of this debate. I pity the reporters who have to listen to everything said from that side. But this is a different kind of Session, and therefore one should not judge too harshly because we have to seek the reason for it in the changed political situation we have in South Africa to-day. One thing is certain, that the political situation which prevails in the Republic is not the same as it was in the Union. Disputes about the flag, the National Anthem, the appeal to the Privy Council, citizenship, the Constitution, etc. are matters of the past and those things are to-day the property of cur people. I should like to give a picture of what the political situation was in past years, in order to put the present situation in the correct perspective. In 1919. for example, the following was said about the peace deputation—

In 1939 and in the consequent years we saw division and splintering in South Africa, and violence such as we had not seen for a long time.

Like the Rebellion.

No. like the attack made on the building of the Transvaler in Johannesburg. But I was just giving a picture of the position as it was, but is no longer.

Like the blowing up of post offices and the derailment of trains?

No, but like the Torch Commando convoy which in 1953 marched through Cape Town, and all the violence which accompanied it, even the desecration of the Groote Kerk here. Even in 1960 Natal wanted to segregate from South Africa and the hon. member for South Coast wanted to march, goodness knows where to! But he is still with us. What I want to emphasize, Sir, is that was the political situation in South Africa until we became a Republic. But now all that is at an end. Even to discuss the Commonwealth in this House to-day means that one is interfering with the domestic affairs of other people. That is how the political situation in S.A. has changed. And it is a fact that the National Party did not stop growing as the result of this change. I see in the Burger of the 26th inst. that the Leader of the Opposition said in a speech in Florida that the time was ripe for the United Party to put the Government out of power. He motivated this statement as follows—

It is true that they have almost all been realized, but now we have again set great ideals by means of this Budget, on which the people of South Africa can continue building. There are the Transkei Plan, separate development of the races, the Orange River Scheme and the development of a greater South African patriotism. These things create the atmosphere in which the National Party will continue to grow. Apart from that, however, the struggle for freedom by the National Party has made it strong. But everybody knows that the members who have come over to us from the other side did so not because of our struggle for freedom, but in the first place because they have confidence in the Coloured policy of this party. That is well known. Therein lies the power of the National Party.

But what about the United Party? In the 28 years of its existence they have undoubtedly succeeded, by striving to have closer bonds with Britain, in keeping a large number of English-speaking people within their ranks. General Hertzog summarized it very well when he said—

Britain did a lot to keep the United Party together, and did so by glorifying the late General Smuts. He was a member of the War Cabinet; he was in the forefront in regard to their domestic affairs and their international affairs. They even made him a field-marshal. Therefore I say that Britain did much to keep the United Party together by covering General Smuts with glory. In 1929 General Smuts still spoke as follows—

That glory is past, and that is the change in the political situation in South Africa to which I referred, because by means of these slogans the United Party will no longer succeed in keeping the English-speaking people away from the National Party. The United Party can no longer depend on a dual loyalty. Formerly the method was to bring English and Afrikaans-speaking people together by means of compromises, but to-day there is no longer any talk of coalition or of sacrificing that which is one’s own. We shall not only defend what belongs to the Afrikaner, but maintain it. That which is dear to the hon. the Minister of Information and the hon. the Minister of Labour will be preserved by them. But, more over, we will assist each other in preserving what is our own. It is no longer a political struggle. The cold facts of politics in Africa to-day are the real reason for our politics to-day. Actually the only matter at stake is the preservation of the Government of the Republic in the hands of the White people, and also in this respect, the struggle put up by the National Party stands as a mighty beacon for all, and as a credit to this party. Just cast an eye at Kenya and the Federation. If it were not for the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminister, and if it were not for the struggle for freedom which followed on that, until we became a Republic, South Africa to-day would have been in the same position in which Kenya and the Federation find themselves, and Whitehall would to-day also have dictated to us as it does to those two countries. And the English-speaking people realize it to-day. They realize that if it were not for the struggle of the National Party to free South Africa from foreign bonds, we would have been in the same position as Kenya and the Federation. This realization, and the manner in which our becoming a Republic was handled here, resulted in greater unity in South Africa than we have ever had before. It is the growth of this South Africanism which is the reason for the deterioration of the United Party. In fact, if one looks at history one finds that two things run parallel, the growth of South Africanism and the deterioration of the United Party. South African patriotism was the greatest destroyer of the party opposite, and there are unmistakable signs that • the will of every man and woman in South Africa to keep the Government of the Republic in the hands of the White man will be the cause of the final downfall of the United Party. Instead of constitutional disputes we now have a mighty South African patriotism concentrated around the National Party and in particular around the Prime Minister and the forceful leadership which emanates from him. Never before has this House or the people of South Africa so felt the impact of statesmanship as is the case today. Never before has South African patriotism been at a higher level than to-day, and never before in our history has there been greater unity in regard to racial matters than there is to-day in regard to the racial policy of the Nationalist Party. As against that, the downfall of the United Party need no longer be measured in terms of years, but can now be measured in terms of months. The Transkei Plan has been announced. Aliwal North lies like a horseshoe around the Transkei, but what happened there? The National Party obtained a greater majority there than it did in the election last year. The position to-day has already been consolidated to such an extent that if anyone, inside or outside South Africa, whether he be White or Black, wants to change our pattern of life, or the peace and quiet of Cape Town or Windhoek, a patriotism on Which South Africa can depend will come to the fore. To me that is the characteristic of the changed political situation we are experiencing in the Republic to-day, as contrasted with the situation we had during the days of Union, and it is this political situation with which the United Party cannot cope.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) has given a striking exposition of the history of the United Party and of the deeds of omission and commission of that party. I do not want to expatiate on that, and still less do I want to subject the House to a history of the Progressive Party. I should like to devote the time available to me to making a few remarks about the Budget itself. [Hear, hear!] Then I should like to raise another matter in regard to which I want to make certain suggestions which in my opinion can stimulate the economy of South Africa, namely an improvement in our system of pledges in South Africa. However, I shall come to this later.

In regard to the Budget, I want to say that the criticism expressed by the United Party of the Budget is to my mind the best proof that it is a sound and well-balanced Budget. If one studies their amendment, one finds that in it they adopt a “copy-cat” attitude. The objections embodied in it are not new, nor do they contain anything new in so far as comment or criticism are concerned. The only things they stated in it, in fact, are the three pillars on which this Budget rests. In other words, they delved into the knowledge of the hon. the Minister of Finance and then came along with suggestions to improve his proposals. In the first place, they asked, for example, that our economy should be stimulated. That, however, is exactly one of the pillars on which the Budget of the Minister rests. Now they make use of it and say that the economy should be stimulated further. A second point of criticism is that the Minister has not been magnanimous enough to the less privileged people in our country. Thirdly, they asked that the increased threats to our national safety, threats which they say emanate from the particular policies of this Government, should be averted. These three points are the points of their argument, but the Minister in his Budget speech already laid great emphasis on those points. However, they now merely ask for more provision to be made in respect of these three matters. Nothing new is produced. That is to my mind the best proof that this in fact is a sound and well-balanced Budget.

I should like to make a few comments in regard to what was said by hon. members opposite about the increased pensions. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) belittled the concessions made in this regard. Viewed from his standpoint, he perhaps made a reasonably good analysis of it by saying that these concessions really only amount to five cents a day, and asked what that was really worth. If we, however, keep the whole picture in mind, i.e. the granting of pensions and family allowances which altogether amount to R3,550,000, we get quite a different picture and one which the hon. member for Constantia prefers not to see. Still, I want to say that even though it is not enough for the liking of hon. members opposite—and we must remember that we can never give enough in the way of pensions—the pensioner is still very grateful for it. The pensioners appreciate it very much. It is therefore not good enough of the hon. member for Constantia to belittle it. I can understand it if he says it is not enough, because he wants to attract extra votes thereby, but he is not justified in belitting it.

Large amounts of extra expenditure are being asked for in regard to two spheres of our national interests, namely with regard to Defence and the provision of water. We notice that the Opposition has not really attacked the increased Defence expenditure, but still they carp on it. These carping remarks are intended to intimate that the proposed increased expenditure for Defence is the result of and is connected with the policy of this Government. It was also alleged that this Government is isolating us. In this regard the hon. member for Constantia said that not only is the policy of this Government rejected by the whole world, but also by the overwhelming majority of people in South Africa. I will not for a moment admit that this allegation of his, particularly the last-mentioned Dart of it, is true, even if one lumps together all the population groups in our country. It is the greatest nonsense to link the increased Defence expenditure with the policy of the Government. In fact, the policy of hon. members opposite in this regard will not make the least difference to the attitude of the world. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) even stated that their policy was in essence the same as ours, or in other words, that it also amounted to discrimination based on race and colour. But if it is necessary to obtain confirmation for the necessity that our country should see to its defences, one need only listen to the radio or read the Press. If one does so, one soon realizes that to-day the world is a boiling cauldron of unrest. That is the reason why most countries of the world are to-day wisely looking to their defences. How does our Defence expenditure compare with that of other countries of the world, particularly the Western countries? This year our Defence expenditure constitutes 12 per cent of the total expenditure of our country. In Germany that percentage last year was 27.2, in Canada it was 27.8, in France in 1960 it was 29.4, in Australia it was 15.5 per cent, in the United Kingdom 23.9 per cent, and in the U.S.A. 57.5 per cent. As against that, our Defence expenditure is only 12 per cent of our total expenditure from revenue and capital funds. If one therefore looks at the expenditures of other countries on defence, one must come to the conclusion that our expenditure in this respect has no relationship to the particular policy followed by the Government. In fact, even if the United Party were in power it would not have made the least difference to the attitude we must adopt in regard to defence.

But let us investigate a little more closely this policy which hon. members opposite are so keen on attacking. It has always been hurled at our heads, not only by them but also by other countries of the world, that our policy amounts to racial discrimination. What hon. members opposite do not realize, however, is that the policy favoured by them will evoke the same reaction from the other countries of the world. It is no use hon. members shaking their heads now. Now I want to say that although racial discrimination has hitherto been applied, it will disappear eventually if the policy of this party is implemented to its logical conclusion. At the same time I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they are willing to change places with any other state in Africa? Are there any of them who want to change places with any other state, where there is also multiracialism, in the sphere of economics and national safety? We are a multi-racial country and therefore I can compare us only with other countries where the non-Whites are also in the majority. Who are really the racehaters in Africa?

You are!

Hon. members over there say that we are the real race-haters. Now I want to talk to them very calmly. When I say “us”, I am not talking only of this side of the House, but of the White man in South Africa, i.e. both we on this side and they on that side of the House. We are all being accused of being race-haters. But are we as White people who want to live in peace with the various non-White races and who want to give them full privileges for development in future, really the race-haters? Or are those who say “Africa for the Africans” the real race-haters? And is that not the policy of the non-White states in Africa? And if this policy were to be implemented, where would they find themselves? But it is not we who are the race-haters in Africa, because we are willing to grant the Black man also every right to continue developing. The true race-haters are those who do not want to grant any person with a White skin any place in Africa. And the tragedy of the matter is that this is regarded as honourable by a large section of the world, because it is cloaked in the slogan of freedom. Therefore freedom is granted to the Black man in Africa, but not to the White man. I predict, however, that our problem in Africa with its millions of non-Whites will be the problem of the world to-morrow. Therefore I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they cannot see that we should find points of contact, and that it is essential that in our approach to this problem we should stand together?

For that you need a new Opposition.

That side of the House must surely realize now that their policy will be just as unacceptable if they should be given the opportunity to implement it. The attitude of the world will be the same towards that policy as it is to-day to the policy of this Government. We realize—and I think they also realize—that compromise means only one thing for the White man in Africa, namely his doom. Therefore we dare not enter into a compromise.

I should now like to say a few words in regard to water conservation, in respect of which increased expenditure is also being asked for in the Budget. I am firmly convinced that water is the basis for all development in South Africa, industrial as well as agricultural development. However, there is often fear expressed when we ask for money for the provision of water. It is then said that it is a lot of money and the question is asked as to where it is to come from. We often find the opinion publicly expressed that so much money is being spent here which actually pays no dividends. I want to controvert that idea to-night. I want to say that the money spent on water conservation is more productive than any other investment we can conceive. It not only enriches our soil, and by that I mean that where land is worth perhaps R10 a morgen, when it is under irrigation it is worth perhaps R1,000. By water conservation and irrigation we can make the soil of South Africa worth millions of rand more; it also increases the production of our country and provides more food and employment for our people, and gives our population the opportunity to make a better living. But above everything it is a productive investment and I should like to mention a few examples. In my area in Robertson £1,000,000 was spent 12 years ago in providing water, and nine years after the commencement of the scheme the increased revenue derived from income tax was sufficient to pay the interest and redemption on that £1,000,000. I can go further and mention the increased production as the result of that scheme. The excise on those products is sufficient to pay for that scheme in one year. That is what we get from water conservation. The other day the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs asked here for an ex gratia payment of R4,000 to the Angola Irrigation Board in that area. During that year when the pipeline was washed away the farmers made approximately R400,000 as the result of the water they brought to their land otherwise than by means of that pipeline. But the Government collected more than £1,000,000 in excise alone, apart from income tax and other indirect taxation. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) said that we should be careful not to overload future generations with loans. I want to tell the hon. member that in regard to water conservation we can never do so, because as soon as that water is utilized it is productive and starts paying for itself. We are living at a time to-day where not only are there threats from outside, but in South Africa we are waging a war against the scarcity of water, and we can only do so by making the best use of our water resources. That is why I am so gratified to see that in this Budget so much more money is made available for water conservation, and I hope that in future even more funds will be made available.

I now want to say a few words about the matter I referred to a moment ago in regard to pledges and the extension of that system in order to stimulate our economy. Our system of pledges in South Africa is really very antiquated in comparison with the modern tendencies in the world. I should like to see improvements made to our system of pledges, or our system of mortgage and pledge. I want to suggest certain improvements, but I want to say that when improvements are made we must ensure that they will at all times fit in with our present system of pledges which is based for the most part on our common law, apart from an exception here and there where special provision is made by legislation. We must review as a background the various methods of affording security in respect of loans, as they exist to-day in South Africa. In regard to immovable property, there are of course the ordinary mortgages with which we are not really concerned here. Then there is the pledge of movable property which we can compare with the notarial bonds in Natal. One of the unfortunate aspects of the matter is that our system of pledges is not even the same right throughout South Africa. We have one system in Natal in regard to notarial bonds and another system in the rest of the Republic. In Natal we have a system of notarial bonds whereby if an article is specially pledged it is ipso facto regarded as if that article is kept in the possession of the pledgee, and therefore he has all the benefits of an actual handing over of the article pledged. But in the rest of the Republic it is different. A notarial bond in fact has very little value. It only gives the mortgagee a preference in the case of insolvency. But where property is specially bonded by a bond registered in the Deeds Office, when the article is not handed over, it gives no security and that article can be freely sold to a bona fide purchaser who does not know of the bond, and then the bondholder cannot get the article back. There are also such matters as the question of securities and rights of collection which we should like to improve, and then there are also hypothecs which are not really applicable here. But the very absence of an effective system of pledges is the reason why in practice certain forms of conditional sale arose. In other words, I sell an article on condition that the ownership of it does not pass over to the purchaser until such time as he has paid for it. It is obvious that it is as the result of the defects in our system that such practices arose.

The great weakness in our system is the fact that the article pledged need not necessarily be handed over to the pledgee, without which the pledge is valueless. It is obvious that this system has serious defects. A manufacturer buys machinery for hundreds of thousands of rand. He would like to borrow money on the security of that machinery but it is immovable property, and how can he hand over the machinery to the pledgee as security for the loan, because he needs that machinery in order to produce? In other words, it makes it impossible for that man to pledge that machinery which is immensely valuable in order to obtain the necessary financial facilities. The same applies to stock-in-trade. People want to do business with their stocks and cannot pledge those stocks, and the same in the case of manufactured goods. That is the great weakness in our system of pledges in South Africa. Consequently our business is often hampered, because we realize that particularly to-day the whole set-up of business is based on credit, and it is for that reason that our credit houses and financial institutions are expanding increasingly, because increasing use has to be made of credit facilities. But this credit provision can be improved tremendously if we want to adapt our system of pledges to it. Therefore I say that if we can improve our system of pledges there will be more entrepreneurs in business, because they will be able to obtain the necessary finance in that way. We shall also possibly be able to prevent businesses which are in difficulties going insolvent, because they can obtain the funds necessary to tide them over their difficulties. We can also enable the financier to have better security, which will enable him to do more business.

Now, what is the solution? As I see it, the first prerequisite is that there should be proper publication to the world. Proper publication is essential for the pledgor. The second prerequisite is that there should be a simple and cheap system. Our system of notarial bonds to-day is so expensive and so complicated that by the time you have repaid your loan the notarial bond has often not even been registered yet. The system of registration must be cheap and easy. I should like to mention three examples of what may be considered. The first is that in cases where a pledge is given in respect of a loan there must be publication in the Government Gazette, or perhaps in the local newspapers. But I do not regard that as a very effective system. In the second place we may pass legislation to provide that all companies or even private individuals who pledge their property must divulge it in their balance sheets. I do not think this is very practical either. What I regard as the most practical procedure is registration, but it will necessitate the establishment of a whole new system of registration, e.g. in the Deeds Office to register pledges. That might require additional staff, but fees will be levied for this registration, and the fees can pay for the extra staff. But the greatest requirement is that it should be done speedily. It must be cheap and easy and it must be able to be traced easily. That is an essential prerequisite for an effective system.

But that is not sufficient yet, because even though a pledge is registered, if the pledgor remains in possession of the article the purchaser of such an article cannot be punished because he bought an article which was subject to a pledge. The innocent purchaser cannot be punished, and therefore it is necessary further that there should be some deterrent which will prevent the pledgor from selling the article he has pledged. We have such a system in the Hire Purchase Act, which provides that if anybody sells a motor car or some other article bought by hire purchase, it is a criminal offence and he can be punished. Therefore I think it is essential also to make it a contravention to sell a pledged article. There are certain examples in the United States which may possibly be followed. There they have a system of warehouses and warehousemen, and they also have a system of chattel mortgage. I do not want to say much about that because I do not have sufficient details available to me. It is no new course I am advocating here; it has already been done in various ways. We are doing it, e.g. under the Co-operative Act, but because it is not generally applied in South Africa that is really one of the weaknesses in our present system. The business man to-day finds himself in an uncertain position because the co-operative may have a pledge over crops which have not even been sowed yet. The co-operative which supplied the farmer with seed and fertilizer has a pledge over the products produced. But what about the ordinary shopkeeper or business man? He does not know about it, because there is no registration. It is a hidden fact, and as such it is unsound. In the same way we have the system of pledges in the Land Bank. In other words, we have such a system, but only to a limited extent, and not to the extent where it can facilitate the business of the ordinary man in South Africa. The fact that we have it only in certain Acts also makes the position more difficult. It creates uncertainty. If possible, unregistered or unpublished pledges should be obviated completely. We cannot accurately estimate the value of a proper system of pledges, but one thing is sure, that if we review our system of pledges it will stimulate the economy of South Africa enormously. I want to ask the Minister concerned to consider, if necessary, appointing a commission to investigate the whole matter and to see in what respects we can improve this system of ours.

I hope the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech. He addressed himself to the hon. the Minister on specific matters, such as changing the system of mortgages in South Africa. I want to say only one thing to him, and also to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet), and that is that both of them make the mistake of believing that South Africa is comparable with the other states on the Continent of Africa. My contention is that there is a vast difference. The difference is this, that this country has the largest settled White population in Africa, and secondly, that the non-White population of South Africa is far more advanced and developed and civilized than the non-White populations elsewhere in Africa. So the two are not comparable, and until South Africa has offered the non-Whites in the country a reasonable compromise which they have rejected, only then is anyone entitled to say that the non-Whites of this country will not be satisfied unless they have everything that is demanded by the Africans in the rest of Africa. But that has never been offered to them. They have never been offered a reasonable compromise by a Government in power, and until that has happened I do not think we are entitled to assume that there is no other solution to the problems of South Africa other than a White laager.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark quoted a lot of figures to prove that the Nationalist Party has been gaining in strength over the last 15 years, and I think his figures have to be accepted. There is no doubt that the Nationalist Party has been gaining in strength, and I believe that is due to two reasons, firstly that a true alternative policy has not been presented to the White electorate of this country, but the real issues have been obscured by side issues. The second reason, unfortunately, is something I have learnt from sitting in this House for eight years and watching the propaganda machine of the Nationalist Party in action. I have learnt one thing, but unfortunately it is possible to fool most of the people all of the time. I have watched the Government’s psychological warfare, undermining the core of resistance to its policies, resistance which at one time, as the figures of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark have shown, numbered the majority of the enfranchised people of this country, but to-day that has dwindled until unfortunately there is very little left. This Government did not need a Reichstag fire; it did not need anything as melodramatic as that. It needed simply the use of certain measures of propaganda, and it used them well. It used fear and racial prejudice, and most of all, it used the greediness of White South Africans who were not prepared to share any of their privileges with their non-White fellow citizens. So we have had a softening up of the core of resistance in this country and the Government has seized on every single incident that happened in the rest of Africa to foster its policy of White domination, be it troubles in Kenya, in the Federation or in the Congo. All that is seized upon by the Government as proof positive that only a strong and relentless White Government can save White civilization in South Africa. Not once do we hear Radio South Africa telling us of developments in Nigeria, for instance, or of the steady progress of the Fench Congo. Not once has Radio South Africa reminded us that despite all the troubles in Katanga, Union Miniére has lost only one day’s production. None of these things are told us by Radio South Africa, but only the disasters which face the populations of Africa, so that we may believe that the rest of Africa is in turmoil and only in South Africa where there is a strong and relentless White Government, determined to maintain White domination, is there any hope. And as if that is not enough, we have had stories of poisoned wells and the threat of internal disorder, and this year of course we have had the dark threat of legions lined up on our borders—Black legions ready to invade us. And of course there have been more subtle threats uttered. People are lead to believe by strong utterances of Government spokesmen that anyone who criticizes Nationalist Party policy is a traitor to this country, and unfortunately this, too, has had its effect. We saw this very recently when one of the last of the great bastions began to fall in South Africa, and that is an uninhibited and free Press, which has now agreed to impose censorship on itself. I believe that if ever a man had reason to be proud of himself, it is the Prime Minister. He has good reason to be proud of himself. He has panicked White South Africans into coughing up R120,000,000 not, I maintain, to protect us against outside aggression but in order to maintain apartheid by force. [Interjections.] That is the only way in which apartheid can be maintained. Because I do not agree with Government policy I am told that I am a traitor to this country.

And you are still here.

Yes, because I am not frightened, and I intend to stay here as long as I possibly can. [Interjections.] This has been called a “defence Budget” but in fact this is a Budget to preserve the socio-political atmosphere of which the Minister has spoken, and of course, as was pointed out to-day by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), the irony of the situation is that most of the contributions which will have to be made to maintain this structure and this socio-political atmosphere will have to be made by people who for years have been pleading for a relaxation of apartheid measures in order to dilute the socio-political atmosphere. I refer, of course, to the people who provide 90 per cent of the revenue of this country, people engaged in commerce, industry and mining, who have expressed their strong disapproval at least until recent years or recent months, when under the leadership of Field-Marshal Montgomery they seem to have become the apologists for the Nationalist Government. But these are the people who are going to supply the greatest contributions to revenue to maintain this socio-political atmosphere. And perhaps it is what they deserve, because they have long ago abdicated from their political responsibilities in this country. They have been far too busy with their own businesses and forgot that the largest business in the country is government. Unfortunately they have abdicated those responsibilities. The result to-day, I maintain, is that this Parliament must be one of the least representative Parliaments of economic interests in the world.

Are you talking about yourself?

Even including myself. We have scores of farmers. We have dozens of political party organizers and quite a lot of lawyers, and we have a number of retired teachers, like myself, and a fair number of retired doctors, but I do not believe there are a dozen people in this House who truly represent the major contributors to the economy of this country. That is why we are discussing this week a Budget which is tailored not to the economic needs of the country but to this socio-political atmosphere which this country would do very well to get rid of. As I said before, something which of course irritated the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), the taxpayers of this country can expect to pay more and more to implement the ideological plans which are recklessly wasteful and to defend ourselves against our internal enemies, which we never need have had. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) got very cross about this remark that I made about the Budget. He said that I and the party I represent want an integrated society where Whites and non-Whites are forced to mix. He went on to use a little more colourful phraseology as to my position in such an integrated and mixed society. I wonder where the hon. member gets this idea from, but I want to assure him that I and the party I represent have no intention of forcing him to integrate with people who are of a different colour from himself. It is entirely up to him. [Interjections.] I never talked about an integrated society, but about a multi-racial country and an integrated economy, and I said that South Africa ineluctably is a multi-racial country and that we have to accept the consequences thereof. It is a multi-racial state and I do not know why the hon. member thinks there is anything extraordinary about that, because that is exactly what it is. We have persons of all races living in it and all races contribute to our economy, and I maintain that we have to make the adaptations that are necessary in the second half of the twentieth centry and we have to allow people who have reached certain standards to share rights and responsibilities in this multi-racial country. [Interjections.] I do not know what the hon. member means by “integration”. If he means miscegenation, I am not in favour of that, but I say we must accept the facts and make reasonable concessions now before it is too late. If we had a Government which was prepared to make these neecssary adaptations and to give equal opportunities to people of all colours to reach certain standards and to exercise certain rights and responsibilities, we would to-day have been discussing a Budget of a very different nature. We would have been taking a good, hard look at our economy and we would have been taking the necessary steps to ensure an expanding economy that can take care of a growing population. I am going to indulge in a little wishful thinking for the next 15 minutes or so and imagine that we do have a normal Government with a normal Minister of Finance, with all the normal aspirations of a Minister of Finance in charge of a growing, modern industrial country. I am sorry I have to take the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) into my dreams at this stage, but I must say that when he finally wrenched himself away from my integrated society, he made a comment which I thought was very sensible. He referred to the fact that our greatest industry, gold mining, was a wasting asset and quoted from a statement made by the State Mining Engineer on the lifespan of the gold mines on the Rand. I was interested, listening to the Budget, to hear the significant remarks made by the Minister of Finance in this regard and to note the very perceptible pause in the sentence when he said that “gold production would continue to increase, though perhaps not quite so rapidly as in recent years”.

Now, what is the significance of all this? Here we have a Government milking away the greatest national resource of this country, knowing full well that from 1971 onwards, less than ten years from now, we can expect a contraction in revenue from this major contributor to our economy. Estimates for the next seven or eight years show that the amount paid in taxes will be a declining amount from 1971 onwards. We will be getting about R100,000,000 in 1962 in taxes and leases, representing 42 per cent of the total revenue of the gold mines. By 1963 the mines will be paying R113,000,000 to the Government, representing 46 per cent of the revenue. By 1965 the mines will pay R126,000,000. representing 50 per cent, and by 1970 R134,000,000. representing 60 per cent, but from 1971 revenue will fall to roughly about R126,000,000, still representing 60 per cent …

60 per cent of what?

Of the revenue of the gold mines, not of the Government’s revenue. Thereafter the amounts will continue to fall. Now I want to emphasize that these Estimates make adequate provision even for the great mine we heard so much about last week, the Western Deep Level Mine. The Government is busy planning a great Orange River Scheme, which is of course all to the good if it ever comes about, though I must admit that I get the same disembodied feeling about this Orange River Scheme for which I believe something like R2,000,000 has been put on the Estimates for this year, for a scheme which will cost R450,000,000 when it is completed I get the same sort of disembodied, vague feeling I get when I consider the independent, sovereign, economically viable Bantustans. But the Government is planning to spend all this money, and it is planning to spend millions on defence and on other ideological programmes, while the golden goose that is to provide the money, or a large share of it, to pay for all these ventures is ignored to a large extent, despite the warning signs of a marked decrease in production in the not far distant future. Now, what would a normal Minister of Finance be doing to off-set this situation? He certainly would not recklessly be using up this treasure trove without making some attempt to provide for the future, and he certainly would not simply, as I believe the Minister is probably doing, trust to a miracle to save us. as miracles have saved us in the past, in this case the miracle of a rise in the price of gold. My normal Minister would be planning ahead and he would not be hindered by any obsessive desire to maintain this socio-political atmosphere. He would be planning, first of all, to keep the major industry in this country alive as long as possible and to keep the lifeblood of the country flowing as long as possible. Secondly, he would be doing all in his power to create a large internal market to absorb the products of manufacturing and agriculture. The Minister must sit down now if he is to preserve our golden goose and think up incentives to the industry to develop new undertakings, and an incentive to mine ore which is uneconomic at present. The Minister knows very well that under the present tax and lease formulae, the incentives are not being given to the industry to look for new ventures and to mine the medium-grade ore at deep levels. He knows, too, that it takes at least five years with our existing technical knowledge to bring a mine to production, and he knows that of the last two developing mines, one has already been brought into production and that the final one will come into production at the end of this year. Apart from the concessions the Minister made a few years ago to the deep level mines, no concessions whatever have been made to encourage this great industry of ours to explore further fields and to mine the medium-grade ore which is lying there at deep levels ready to be mined. The hon. the Minister knows that we have no risk capital coming from abroad, that it devolves upon the industry itself to provide sufficient money to invest further risk capital in the industry. He cannot expect the industry to continue to do so if he is intent upon maintaining the existing lease and tax formulae. I suggest that relaxation of the formulae is an immediate practical step in terms of the anticipation of the State Mining engineer of what we can expect by the end of this decade. It is a practical step which the Minister can take even in the context of present-day South Africa with its socio-political atmosphere. There are other things, of course, which can be done to help to try to bring down the cost structure of this major industry of our country. I suggest, for instance, that the time has come for a re-examination of the employment categories on the gold mines. Surely a Minister in the second half of the twentieth century cannot simply rely on outmoded methods of job reservation in an industry like the gold mining industry.

That brings me to the second phase of my wishful thinking and that is what steps will be taken by a normal Minister to develop the economy of this country in a way which will allow for an expanding population to live at a higher standard of living. The first step of course obviously is to remove all artificial restrictions on productivity which exist in this country. We often say in this country that our problems are unique. Hon. members opposite are always telling us that we have to face problems which no other country in the world has got to face. As far as I am concerned the only unique thing about this country is the way we deliberately inhibit the productivity of our people, deliberately limit the productivity of our natural and human resources. The hon. the Minister of Labour said in the Other Place that job reservation was traditional in this country. Sir, job reservation is outmoded. It is simply not applicable to the machine age. It might have been applicable in the good old days when labour was divided between highly skilled White workers on the mines and completely unskilled Black workers from the reserves. Those days are past. We are in an industrial era with semi-skilled machine operative jobs and job reservation is not suitable to this type of economy. But, of course, there are other restrictions on productivity which are just as bad as job reservation which people ignore when they talk about removing restrictions on productivity. The official Opposition always talks about removing job reservation, but that is only one of the restrictions on productivity. And in so far as job reservation is concerned, apart from on the mines and in a few industries, it is not fully implemented at all, and it is by no means as restrictive as other measures which exist in this country which must also be removed. I refer, of course, to restrictions on the mobility of labour, restrictions on influx which keep thousands upon thousands of Black workers bottled up in unproductive jobs in the rural areas, a vast potential which is not used in this country which could provide the field for this enormous internal market, a market which is going to be the solution to our economic problem. I refer also, Sir, to the restrictions imposed on non-White workers by the Apprenticeship Act, where lack of vocational training makes it impossible for them to get more skilled jobs. I refer to the definition of “employee” in the Industrial Conciliation Act, which makes it impossible for Africans to be employed in any job which is regulated by a closed-shop agreement. These are all restrictions on productivity. And the result is that although we have a population of over 15,000,000 people, it is significant that only a small percentage of those people earn a taxable income. Sir, figures were given to me in this House not long ago by the hon. the Minister. It is significant that out of 11,000,000 Africans only 2,603 earn a taxable income. Out of 500,000 Asians only 21,609 earn taxable income; out of 1,500,000 Coloureds only 95,000 earn a taxable income. Surely, Sir, it would benefit the entire country if all these people were brought to full productive capacity to provide us with this enormous internal market. Lower cost of production would follow and South African goods would be competitive in the outside world.

Still indulging in my fantasy, of course, I should say that this country should be exploring all possible means of increasing the external market, exploring all the fields in Africa and Europe to try to increase our external market. The Minister of Finance, when he made his Budget speech, pointing to the improvement in our balance of payments position, said “so much for boycotts”. Well, Sir, I say “So much more but for boycotts”. This country should not be on the official boycott list of 13 countries. This country should be the industrial hub of Africa and it should be able to sell its goods freely everywhere in the world. And my Minister would be making the necessary adjustments so that he could send trade missions and trade representatives all over the world to increase our external markets. Sir, if these aims and objectives were carried out by a normal Minister as part of a normal Government in a normal country, free of the obsession of racialism and all the dreary pessimism which goes with that sort of philosophy, we would find ourselves having to solve a problem purely and simply of poverty. It would be relatively simple for us to solve that problem because we happen to be a country with great natural resources. Just as industrialization solved the problem of poor Whitism in this country, so too could industrialization and the removal of restrictions solve the problem of the poor Blacks. Sir, in this way we would achieve a far faster economic rate of growth; we could widen economic opportunities for all sections of the population and we would achieve, not a socio-political atmosphere, but socio-economic stability in this country. If we do not do this, if we do not follow the aims and objectives of a normal Minister in a normal country, if we turn our backs on all sane and practical solutions of our problems, this Budget will be only the first of many such budgets and South Africans will be called upon to pay more and more heavily for that very expensive article, the White laager.

Mr. Speaker, I have studied the Budget and listened to the many speeches so far made and it seems to me that the whole set-up has an Achilles Heel. The Government has set out big plans which involve millions in money for Bantustans, millions for Bantu Townships on the border areas, millions for the great Orange River scheme and millions for defence. But how are all these plans going to be carried out? Money cannot work on its own. Money makes men and machines work, hut where are the men? On this I would like to make some comments which I intend to be entirely constructive, and I hope, being my maiden speech that they will be accepted as such.

Two years ago what I have to say now might have been construed as of a party political nature, but in view of the Prime Minister’s repeated requests for co-operation from the English-speaking section and in view of the appointment of a special Ministry of Immigration, I trust that my views will be acceptable to all parties as being purely constructive.

The many millions of money to be spent will require administration, they will require engineers, scientists, and technicians. These are essential to the whole set-up. Where are these skilled men to come from? We will require a vast number of men to match the money. This is my main point. These skilled men may be obtained in two ways; we may train them or we may import them. We will require the men urgently and there is a serious shortage of engineers, scientists and technicians in South Africa. The Department of Immigration will no doubt endeavour to import these men but there is a great shortage in all these categories overseas, and our scientists and engineers have been leaving the country. In the long run we will have to train them in South Africa, but when it comes to training them in South Africa that is where I find we have an Achilles heel. The Achilles heel is just this that there is a great shortage of teachers in South Africa and unless we concentrate on overcoming that problem we will find all our efforts at developing the country and all our efforts at maintaining our lead on the Continent of Africa seriously handicapped.

This is our basic problem, it is basic to every problem in South Africa. But what do I find is the situation? A situation has developed throughout South Africa in the teaching profession which I feel has reached such a stage of seriousness that urgent measures are needed. Not only from all four provinces, but also from the Central Government’s teaching departments, the shortage of teachers of both English and Afrikaans home languages has become acute. On all sides those in a position to speak with authority are declaring that the education of our youth is suffering not only through shortages of staff which in many cases means overworking existing staffs, and classes which are too large for scholars to receive proper attention, but also the necessity in many cases for utilizing teachers in subjects for which they are not qualified.

I would like to give a few quotations as being representative of large numbers of statements recently made in the end-of-the-year addresses delivered in different parts of South Africa. I quote—

Again from Pretoria in December, 1961 the Director of Education, Dr. A. H. P. van Wyk, warned about the serious shortage of English-speaking teachers in the Transvaal when he spoke at a Johannesburg College of Education Honours Day. He added—

Coming to the Cape Province, the Secretary of the Port Elizabeth School Board, Mr. P. N. Kruger, has, according to a Port Elizabeth newspaper, written to the local M.P.C.s informing them of the serious position in the schools and asking for their co-operation—

Mr. H. O. Skillicorn, headmaster of the Muir College, Uitenhage, in an interview with a Port Elizabeth newspaper reporter, said—

In the 1961 Magazine of Muir College he wrote—

Coming to the Western Province, the principal of the Boys’ High School at Sea Point, writing in a professional journal for teachers, pointed out that this year for all grades of English-teaching, there were 98 unfilled posts, i.e. 18 per cent compared with 45 such vacancies, i.e. 14.2 per cent, in 1956. He also pointed out that the picture was much the same for Afrikaans in which for all classes there were now 76 vacancies i.e. 14 per cent, compared with 45 vacancies, i.e. 10.1 per cent in 1956. In short, there had been a real as well as a relative increase in the shortage of teachers.

Now coming right up to date, I read from the Eastern Province Herald of the 26th of this month—

Prof. Malherbe was talking about the crisis in the teaching profession in the radio programme “Top Level”.—

Having heard those statements by leading men in the teaching profession, I would just like to add this one which many hon. members would have read from the American News Digest which circulates amongst all members of this House for February 1962. I just want to compare this with the statements I have read from leading educationists in South Africa—

Mr. Speaker, I think there we have a startling revelation of the position which obtains in our schools, a position which is fundamental to all progress which we hope to make in this country. There is a shortage of technical teachers, there is a shortage of scientists and there is a shortage of engineers. If we have to train these in our country we must have the foundation right, and the foundation is our primary and secondary schools from which we hope to train our future technical men and scientists for the development of South Africa.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I have been trying to impress upon the House is that the shortage of teachers in the past few years has been becoming progressively more alarming, and that the shortage is having serious repercussions not only in the English medium classes but also in the Afrikaans medium classes. As I have shown from the above quotations from educational authorities, the shortage of English teachers is so great that Afrikaans medium teachers are being used in English classes and so creating a serious shortage in the Afrikaans classes.

Back in 1956, as a member of the Cape Provincial Council, I drew attention to the fact that the shortage of teachers had been steadily worsening and I pressed for urgent action in two directions: Firstly, by taking all possible steps to make the teaching profession more attractive to induce more young South Africans to take up the teaching profession. Secondly: as a temporary measure that teachers should be imported from overseas. I was told that the increased facilities which were then being provided for training more teachers in South Africa would very soon cope with the backlog and that before very long there would be sufficient teachers for the province’s teaching requirements. Three years later when, according to official statistics, the position instead of improving had worsened, I again urged as a temporary measure the importation of teachers. As a result of my representations the Administrator agreed to increasing the amount of the fare paid towards bringing a teacher to South Africa from £50 to £75. As this amount did not cover the full fare the results in bringing new teachers to the Cape Province, were negligible.

The Transvaal Education Department in the meantime had accepted financial help from a privately raised fund and had paid the full fares. This resulted in somewhere in the vicinity of 100 teachers being brought in. The Province of Natal also by paying the full fares brought in about 100 teachers.

It is now quite obvious that something on a national scale will have to be done as provincial efforts have proved to be inadequate. I feel that the right course would be for the new Department of Immigration to institute inquiries through the provinces and through the Central Government’s Educational Departments, to ascertain just what are the country’s requirements with regard to teachers and then to make a joint and concerted effort to secure teachers from overseas.

While obviously only English medium teachers and particularly English-language teachers will be obtainable, yet from the reports I have quoted it is clear that the shortage of teachers of English, and through the English medium, is contributing largely to the shortages in the Afrikaans-medium classes.

With regard to the cost of importing teachers, I would like to point out to the House that the importing of teachers will not be an additional expense to the country. On the contrary. The cost of training a teacher in South Africa at not less than R2,000. Of this R2,000 roughly half is borne by the State and half is borne by the parents. Paying the fare of a trained teacher from Great Britain today would cost roughly about R200. So far from costing the country a lot of money to import teachers, financially it is a saving to the country. Let me state here that I am not advocating the importation of teachers for the sake of saving the country money as I consider it is highly desirable to train our own teachers. I am putting this forward mainly as a temporary expedient in order to ensure that the present generation does not suffer as the result of the shortage of teachers in the meantime.

But bearing in mind the experiences of the provinces in the past and the fact that there is a great demand for teachers of English the world over, I do not think that the mere paying of the full fare will bring outstanding results. When £1,000 has been spent on the training of a teacher in England and when we realize that South Africa will gain the benefit of that expenditure by importing that teacher, then surely it is only sound business to find ways and means of making offers sufficiently attractive to produce the desired results.

Taking the broader view for the need for immigration into South Africa, I can think of no sphere in which the newly appointed Minister for Immigration can render a greater service to this country than by going thoroughly into all the problems and difficulties—and I fully realize that there are difficulties—and of overcoming these difficulties, to get the required number of teachers. One of the problems connected with immigration is to bring in people with the skills which the country requires without putting South African citizens out of employment. This means finding out where there are shortages and filling those gaps. In the teaching profession there are now widely known shortages so by importing teachers the Department will be serving many useful purposes. Firstly, they will be filling the gaps in the teaching staffs of our schools, which as I have explained is so highly essential to-day. Secondly they will be bringing in a highly desirable type of citizen. Thirdly, they will be helping to improve the balance in our ratio between the civilized and uncivilized peoples in South Africa. Fourthly, they will be bringing in people in the key profession, the object of which is the spreading of knowledge to a country in which education is a first priority for the advancing of all knowledge. Fifthly, they will be helping to maintain the standard of English which is so essential for both the English and Afrikaans-speaking sections of the population, especially for the acquiring of scientific and technical knowledge. Sixthly, they will be bringing in people who carry with them capital stored in their minds. Lastly, it is all this and a saving of money too.

Here, Mr. Speaker, I submit is a channel through which the hon. the Minister of Immigration can render a great and lasting service to South Africa.

I wish to congratulate the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) very heartily on his maiden speech. He delivered his speech clearly and calmly and he confined himself to a question which is of urgent importance. I wish to congratulate him on having stated it as clearly as he did and I wish to express the hope that he will still be connected with this House for a long time to come in the future and that he will make sound contributions to the debates in this House. He himself stated that we were really dealing here with a serious shortage of English-speaking teachers. I hope he and hon. members on that side of the House will co-operate, particularly where he has in mind the possibility of getting suitable immigrants to assist with our education here, to paint that favourable picture of South Africa in countries overseas, particularly in Britain where those people have to come from, so that they will see in South Africa a possible country to which they would like to emigrate. That is why we hope he will not only leave the matter at this speech of his but that he will use his influence and that in future the hon. the Minister of Immigration will be able to depend on him for his hearty co-operation.

Mr. Speaker, to return to the Budget, I wish to state that I have listened fairly faithfully to the speeches and thus far the Budget is still what it was when the hon. the Minister of Finance, introduced it, as far as the main points are concerned. Nobody on the Opposition side has so far really successfully criticized any important feature of this Budget. As a matter of fact, various members opposite have welcomed the main features of this Budget. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said very clearly that they welcomed the Budget as far as the defence of the Republic was concerned, that they agreed that in the world in which we were living to-day the Republic of South Africa should be placed in a position where it could defend itself and that it should be kept in that position. In saying that hon. members opposite and the Opposition have associated themselves completely with a very important aspect of this Budget. Secondly, the non. Minister of Finance has placed the emphasis on economic stability and one of the aspects of that part of the Budget is the development of the big Orange River irrigation scheme. Even with that hon. members opposite could find no fault, on the contrary they wished that they had been the people who were submitting this scheme to-day. As a matter of fact, they went so far as to contend that they were really the father of this scheme. That makes you believe, Sir, that in regard to the important features of this Budget, in regard to the security of the Republic, in regard to the development and the expansion of the economy and the stabilization of the economic life of the Republic, the Opposition really had no serious criticism to offer. Another point mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Finance in connection with objects which detemrined the Budget, was the assistance and help given to the poor and the under-developed section of our population. The only minor point which was raised in this respect was in regard to social pensions. Hon. members opposite would have liked to see more money devoted to this. But they did not tell us how they were going to reconcile the tremendous increase in respect of defence and the developmental plans in respect of water conservation with an increased expenditure on social pensions and where was the money to be found.

That is why I feel happy that, at this stage of the discussions, I can congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on the Budget he has submitted. As far as I am concerned, the fact that our Republic is being placed in a position where it can defend itself in future reveals a sense of responsibility towards the public of South Africa—it is a future vision. Because of propaganda, perhaps also from the opposite side, the world outside have started to believe that the White man of South Africa will only remain here for a few years. The fact that the Government has now come forward with a scheme, via the Minister of Finance, the completion of which will take 30 years, is, I think, the best propaganda which can go from the Republic to the world outside. We can now tell the world outside that we are not only planning for two or three years, because it is possible that we may have a Dunkirk or something similar here, but that we are planning for the future; we are even planning ahead for at least 30 years. I am convinced that this Government will remain in power for 30 years. I even hope that this Minister of Finance will be introducing the Budget for another 30 years. I am also convinced that the people of South Africa will give the Government such support that it will be possible to bring this scheme to full fruition. Seldom has anything been presented to the people of South Africa which has been as favourably received as this Orange River scheme. Even as far as the terrific increase in regard to defence is concerned, I can tell hon. members that at a meeting last Saturday I made the remark that people may perhaps feel somewhat perturbed about the tremendous increase in the expenditure on defence and someone in the audience immediately said that it should have been more. During the past years the people of South Africa have become aware of the fact that we were going through serious times and that South Africa was being threatened from outside, particularly from African countries, a fact which we and the Government of the country could not ignore. The people of South Africa were anxious and concerned that the Government was perhaps waiting too long before placing us in a position where we could defend ourselves and developing our defence in such a way that the Republic of South Africa will in all circumstances or in the event of any ocurrences be able to maintain itself. I have honestly gained the impression that this expenditure is welcomed from all sides and that the future will show that this measure was not only an urgent necessity but that it really had the support of the whole country.

Let me say that this is not only in the interests of the security of the White man in South Africa. The Republic of South Africa also accepts responsibility for the Bantu and the Coloured races within the borders of the Republic. They too are included in this gigantic plan and the peace and security of the Republic of South Africa mean their peace and security as well.

What about the Bantustans?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has Bantustans on the brain. I have just said that their security was also guaranteed by the Republic of South Africa.

I wish to touch upon one other point in connection with the water conservation schemes. Allow me, Sir, to tell the Minister of Finance how much I appreciate the fact that he is not doing one thing and omitting to do another. Where the Government has come forward with this gigantic Orange River Developmental scheme the smaller water conservation schemes are not being thrown overboard as being of lesser importance. To give an example, in my constituency, in the Olifants River, the Government intends raising the dam wall at Clanwilliam during the ensuing year and an amount of R150,000 has been placed on the Estimates for that purpose.