I move as an unopposed motion—

We heard some days ago already that Mr. van der Merwe was not in good health, but it was nevertheless a great shock to learn this morning that he had passed away. Mr. van der Merwe did not look it but he was 68 years of age. He had an interesting career. He obtained the B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree at the University of Stellenbosch and was a brilliant student there. For example, out of the 18 subjects that he took in this course, he passed 16 with distinction. After completing his studies he entered the Public Service as an extension officer in the Department of Agriculture. There he had a great deal to do with the propagation of the co-operative idea and the establishment of co-operative societies. When he left the Public Service he himself went farming and took a leading role in various local organizations. Amongst other things, he was a member of the Farmers’ Association and Secretary of the Agricultural Society. In 1949 he became a member of the Provincial Council of the Orange Free State, and on 16 March 1955, he was elected as a member of Parliament for the Kroonstad constituency at a by-election. He first served in this House just a few days less than four years from 16 March 1955 to 10 March 1958, and then again from 16 April 1958 to 17 April 1962, one day longer than four years, in other words, a few days less than eight years altogether in this House. I know that hon. members who worked with Mr. van der Merwe knew him as a very fine person with a very gentle personality—a friendly person. He was a very loyal individual who loved his fellow-men and his fatherland. He was prepared to devote his energies to the interests of others, and modestly he himself wished to remain in the background. At the same time, however, he was compelled to come forward by his desire to serve. He was one who was loved, who easily made friends, and it is a source of great grief to all of us that he was taken out of our midst so unexpectedly.

On behalf of all his friends on this side of the House, all those who were close to him, I should like to express our deep sympathy to his relatives. To them his passing is certainly a grievous loss and we share their sorrow.

I second the motion. Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to associate ourselves with the words which have fallen from the lips of the hon. the Prime Minister with regard to our deceased colleague. Over the period of nearly eight years that he served in this House, we got to know him as a moderate person, as somebody who was not vitriolic, as a quiet person with a very charming personality. He was a well-liked person, People liked him in his capacity as an extension officer, as a member of the Provincial Council, as a farmer and as a Member of this House. That is not surprising because he was a man who was undoubtedly more interested in agriculture than in politics; he was more interested in the service that he could render to others than in his personal progress in the political sphere. We shall miss him in this House, because although he did not speak much, his contributions were of a high standard and he remained on very good terms with members on his own side and also on our side of the House. We would like to associate ourselves with the message to his family and assure them that like them we too shall miss him very much in the days which lie ahead.

From this corner we also want to associate ourselves with the words of condolence expressed by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Motion agreed to unanimously, all the members standing.

I want to raise a matter with the Minister in connection with the price received by wattle-growers in the current season for their bark. I want to preface what I say by explaining that the wattle bark is supplied under quota, and a very strict quota indeed. Although there was an Act put on the Statute Book some three or four years ago, the Committee established in terms of that Act was not appointed until this year, so that the quota system has not been operated by a statutory body but by an ad hoc body which has been doing the best it can for everybody under the circumstances, and I do not question its sincerity and the work it has done for a moment. The point I wish to make is that wattle-growers are supplying bark under quota, and the quota even sets down the time of delivery, so that a wattle-grower may be given a quota and he is at the same time given the period during which delivery must take place. A grower can be told to deliver his quota at so many tons a day on such-and-such days and even between such-and-such hours of the day, so as to provide for an orderly intake into the factory or the mill concerned. Therefore the time and the date of delivery of a planter’s bark is something which is completely beyond his control. Now, halfway through the season the price for wattle bark was raised and I put certain questions to the Minister earlier this Session, on 20 February, to ask whether there had been an increase in the price, and the Minister explained that an increase in the price took place on 1 February 1962. Now, on the face of it, growers who have already delivered their bark in terms of their quota by 1 February would not obtain the benefit of the new price, which was as much as R1.63 per ton for green bark and R2.73 for dry bark higher, an appreciable increase, and the grower who had delivered their quota before 1 February did not get the benefit of the increased price. I asked the Minister what the reason was for the increase in price, and to explain the answer I received, may I quote from documents that were issued by the Wattle Growers’ Union in 1960, which explained that there would be set up a retention fund. That was an amount of money which was deducted from the price paid to a grower for his bark, to be kept as a retention fund, but it was all taken from the growers and it was to be utilized, according to this document, for three specific purposes, firstly to protect the traditional wattle markets against competition from Quebracho, secondly to compensate manufacturers and millers from potential losses on stocks already delivered at the old price, and, thirdly, to hold the fund as the property of the growers. Of course, it was the property of the growers ab initio, but the third reason advanced was to hold that money as the property of the growers. Now when I asked the Minister what was the reason for the change, he said that he had been informed by the Wattle Growers’ Union that it was—I quote from his official reply: “As the result of the increase in the selling price of vegetable tanning extract on the world market.”But on 1 February there was issued by a very large tanning extract company in Natal a circular to growers, which said that “due to adjustments in the retention fund contributions we have pleasure in advising you that from 1 February the prices to be paid to growers for all grades will be increased”; Now this is the reason for the question: If in fact that extract company is right and it is due to an adjustment in the retention fund … [Inaudible.], and if there is an adjustment it should have been spread over all the growers and an “agterskot” should be paid to all the growers who delivered their bark before 1 February, when the price went up, because it was their money. How can the mills now take that money, which is part of the retention fund, and increase the price only for a selected group of growers who delivered their bark after 1 February? It was not the choice of the growers to deliver before 1 February, and it has nothing to do with the price of bark in the world market. That is why I asked the Minister whether he would not consider an “agterskot” for the growers who delivered their bark before 1 February. It was their money that was being dealt with. How the mills came to give that information to the Minister I do not know, and that is not my concern at the moment. My concern is that until such time as a statutory body has taken over the job, we must look to the Minister for protection. The two reasons given are poles apart and I want the Minister to look into this matter. This is a matter which affects I do not know how many growers, both large and small growers, but it is affecting them in regard to their own money which they have been paying into that fund over a long period and it is manifestly unfair for the distribution of that money to take place in the form of higher prices for bark which on quota they could not deliver before 1 February. They are now being prejudiced.

I want to come to another matter. I have pointed out before that in the figures that come before us under this Vote there is nothing to show us how the Government sawmills are getting on. and I think that Parliament should have that information. If you look at the foot of page 39, you will see that the gross income of the sawmills is R8,500,000. That is a large sum of money, and of that R5,500,000 will be allocated to loan receipts. Quite frankly I do not know what loan receipts are. whether it is a refund of loan moneys or a refund of capital invested by the Government in that department. But when there is a trading undertaking of the Government which produces a gross of R8,500,000, I think we should know precisely what the position is in regard to that trading. We provide moneys for salaries of all kinds and there is nothing to show what proportion of the salaries and how many of the staff concerned are associated with the Government’s sawmilling activities, and how much in regard to Forestry proper. I think we in Parliament should have clearly set before us the figures showing what the position is. When the Government embarks upon an activity like sawmilling in competition with private millers, we should know precisely what is happening. We should know whether the Government’s activities result in a profit being made, and on what basis. We have to be perpetually careful that the Government, with the vast resources of the taxpayer behind it, will not enter into competition with private people in such a manner that those vast financial resources of the Government can be used to depress the position of private sawmillers. The Forestry Department with its sawmills has done a magnificent job, as I am the first to admit, and also in other ways, but there is a vast field of endeavour for the Department and as far as this question of sawmills is concerned, and where so much money has been spent on private sawmills, in the private sector, the Government should not carry on sawmilling without giving Parliament full particulars to show how this undertaking is being run.

I should like to express a few thoughts in regard to the smaller sawmills for the consideration of the Minister. It is those small sawmills which cut up short lengths of timber for the purpose of making vegetable and fruit boxes. As the hon. the Minister knows, these sawmills were mostly erected during the war years when no supplies could be obtained from abroad to comply with the requirements of the fruit and vegetable farmers. These sawmills performed an important function in supplying the farmers with the necessary boxes for the marketing of their fruit and vegetables. In addition, they also benefited the Department in so far as they used the short lengths of timber, which would otherwise have been wasted, for the making of boxes. One is somewhat concerned about the future. It sometimes seems that we will not be so prosperous in future. The position is that increasing use in being made of cardboard containers, but we are convinced that it will still take quite a few years before cardboard containers will completely replace wooden containers for the packaging of fruit and vegetables. Then there is also the fact that the Department now has a sale for these short lengths of timber to the paper factories and that it has exported an appreciable quantity for the manufacture of paper. Then also these sawmills have no firm basis on which to work. In the past the Department treated them very reasonably and made available to them the supplies they needed, but in view of the fact that in future quite a lot of this timber will be supplied to the paper factories and will even be exported, they fear for the future, and one wonders whether it is not possible to arrange a long-term supply of timber for them. If these people can be told that they will receive sufficient supplies for a period of five years, they will at least have a certain measure of certainty. It will be realized that this is an industry which requires appreciable capital. Many of these sawmills cannot produce economically because they do not have enough certainty for the future in order to buy the necessary machineryto enable them to produce economically. In addition, they must invest an appreciable sum of money to provide accommodation for their non-White workers, which also requires capital. I think it is essential that these people, who supply the requirements of agriculture in so far as fruit and vegetable boxes are concerned, should at least have a certain measure of certainty and that they should be able to rely on sufficient quantities of timber for a period of, say, five years in order that they may continue their production.

The Department encourages these people to enter into long-term contracts. It is of course in their interest if they are able to enter into those long-term contracts, because then they get a plantation which they can exploit and their income is assured for quite a few years, but then they must necessarily concentrate on the production of commercial timber. We feel that the farmers should in any case be assured of obtaining the necessary fruit and vegetable boxes in future. In the past also the Department usually delivered the timber needed by these sawmills by road. I understand that in recent years they mostly had to collect this timber themselves in the plantation, which of course increases their production costs. If these people can be assisted by means of a longer contract in terms of which they will be assured of the necessary supplies for quite a few years, and if perhaps the timber will again be delivered to them by road as in the past, it will considerably relieve their position. Many of them would like to go in for long-term contracts, but sometimes the site has to be transferred, which is accompanied by appreciable capital expenditure for the removal of machinery, of their factories and also their Natives’ accommodation. Many of them are simply not able to shift in order to be able to enter into long-term contracts. If they can be assured of the necessary supplies for a reasonable period, they will continue producing boxwood for their own benefit and for the benefit of the State and also of the fruit and vegetable farmers. We trust that something will be done to give them a certain measure of security for the future.

I would like to ask the Minister if anything has been done since his visit to the Argentine some two years ago with a view to improving and expanding the wattle market overseas. We know that the hon. the Minister made representations to the Argentine Government in relation to the ending of the agreement between the Quebracho industry interests and the wattle industry. The producing of wattle products in this country is on a very strict quota to-day, and very many growers are not re-establishing their plantations and are looking to other branches of farming to provide the necessary income to enable them to make a living on the land. Extract is more important, of course, from the angle of the wattle industry than the wattle bark only. We have difficulty in relation to our bark export to China and the East generally. After the Minister came back he gave us a report as to how far he had got, and I wonder what more has been done in the meantime, especially as the Wattle Industry Control Board only came into being in recent months. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister if there is any hope in the future of an overall agreement between Quebracho chestnut and the wattle industry as such in relation to the market overseas.

Then the other question that I should like to put to the hon. the Minister is the question of boxes for the citrus industry. We know that until import control was reintroduced, certain sections of the citrus industry were importing their timber for boxes. Surprisingly it was actually cheaper for the citrus industry to import, and a better quality was imported. When import control came into being, of course, the citrus industry could not continue to import, and we then proceeded to utilize our own timber, which from the point of view of the grower of timber is, of course, a very good thing. But the price was higher than the price which had been charged to the citrus industry by the import companies, and then when the citrus interests called for tenders—I believe that was the position last year and this year—all the prices quoted by local sawmills in reply to the invitation for tenders were one and the same price from various people, and we think that is not a good thing. The crux of the matter is that if the citrus industry cannot get their boxes at an economical figure, they are going to go over to other types of packaging. They have been experimenting with cardboard containers and they are going into the question as to what other containers can be used. If by any chance an industry like the citrus industry, using some millions of cases a year, should find another container which is cheaper and more economical, and is satisfactory, that is going to hit our boxwood industry in South Africa tremendously. I am given to understand—the Minister can tell me whether this is correct or not, but it is the price laid down by the Government sawmills as well as the price that they charge wholesale for the long timber, that leads to the standard price and obviously some agreement between the people concerned who, when tendering, put in one and the same price for boxes. I am told by a member of the Citrus Board that is what is happening, and I think that it will be to the detriment of the timber grower and of the timber industry if our citrus industry started getting its boxes from an industry other than the timber industry. I think it would be a great mistake; it would do us a lot of harm and it would be a bad thing for the country, and so I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if what I have just said is correct, and if he will take steps, if it is correct, to see that this matter is thoroughly investigated and to see whether some arrangement cannot be made whereby the citrus industry can get their boxes at a more economical figure.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) raised the question of the price of wattle bark that is paid to the producer, and he also mentioned the appropriate fact that during the season the price of wattle bark had been increased, but that those who had supplied their wattle bark before the increase did not get the “agterskot” to which he thinks they were entitled. I would like to say that the hon. member has put up a prima facie case, but as he probably knows the whole object of the Bill which we passed last year was to leave control in the hands of the growers and the processors.

With an appeal to the Minister.

Yes, I am coming to that. A very important addendum to that was that they had the right of appeal to the Minister. I put in that provision; I thought it was essential to have it included. But no appeal has been made to me. If an appeal comes to me, I give the hon. member my assurance that I will go into the matter very thoroughly indeed.

From whom could the appeal come from?

The appeal must come from the Wattlegrowers’ Association. The appeal must come from some organized body. I cannot just allow anybody to appeal, but if any organized body comes to me I am perfectly willing to go into the matter. The hon. member spoke to me about this some time ago. I do not want to poke my nose into their business; we are trying to leave the matter in their hands, subject to the right of any interested party to appeal to me, and if an appeal comes to me I can give the hon. member my assurance that we will go into the matter very thoroughly indeed. But I think he will agree with me that it will not be proper for me to consider this matter unless an appeal has been made to me.

Fair enough.

The hon. member asked me about the value of products sold by the Government sawmills. It was R4.6 million last year. He said that he thought it would be a very wise thing if full details with regard to the activities of the sawmills could be supplied. I would like to inform the hon. member that the Auditor-General in his report gives a full report on the activities of the sawmills, and I would like to refer him to that report. I agree with him that it is very necessary that it should be done.

Then he raised another matter which is important, and I think he rather suggested that we were acting in competition with the private miller.

I said you could be.

I thought he rather suggested that we were. I would like to repeat what I said last year as to what my policy is. Originally the majority of the wood sawed from Government forests was sawed by the Government sawmills. Then my predecessor made an agreement with the private millers that it would be on a fifty-fifty basis, and as the result of that 50 per cent of the wood was reserved for Government sawmills and 50 per cent was reserved for the private mills. I went considerably further and I said that no more Government sawmills should be started, unless it was for specialized reasons, that is to say, for some special wood which the private millers do not want to work, but that in the ordinary course of business we wanted to leave it to free enterprise as far as possible, and I said that no more Government sawmills would be erected. I went even further and directed that those Government sawmills that were not working on an economical basis should be disposed of. We disposed of the one at Pretoria and of the one at Stutterheim and I think one of the others. I feel that we must retain the mills that we have at present. It would involve a loss of capital to dismantle them. I do not want to go any further but I believe in private enterprise. Our wood is increasing and the amount sawed every year is increasing, and the result is that the proportion that is sawed by the Government mills decreases every year, as a percentage of the total, and the proportion which goes to the private millers increases every year as a percentage of the total. That is my policy and I think hon. members will agree with me.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) asked me about my visit to the Argentine and what the results of that visit were. I explained here last year that when I was in the Argentine I had discussions with the Argentine Government and with the Quebracho Industry there with regard to the question as to whether we could not come to some agreement with them to stabilize the price. As hon. members know, the low price of mimosa bark is a result of the lowering of the price of the Quebracho. I also said that I thought the discussions had not been unfruitful. Well, during the course of last year the Under-Secretary for Forestry, Mr. Malherbe, again went to the Argentine where he had further discussions with their Government. We had very frank discussions in which both parties laid our cards on the table, but the question arose whether any discussions, if they took place, should be at Governmental level or at the level of industry. As the result of my visit there and especially as the result of the Under-Secretary for Forestry, a conference is to be held very shortly in London. We are sending a delegation to London, and this delegation will consist of the processors and of the producers. They will leave for London quite shortly. It was brought to my notice last week that they are now in the process of selecting the deputation who will go there.

I am informed that the price of local citrus boxes is very little above the price of the imported Portuguese boxes; the difference is very little. I am advised also that the quality of the local boxes is better than that of the imported boxes, as only boxes with the South African Bureau of Standards mark on them are sold by us. The local production is about 3,500,000 cases, and the total is about 8,000,000 cases, so at present slightly more than half the boxes are being imported.

*The hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie) referred to this question of fruit boxes and expressed the fear that we might not make available sufficient timber for the production of fruit boxes—not only orange boxes, but I assume also vegetable boxes. I can give him the assurance that he need have no fears in that regard. In the nature of things fruit boxes are absolutely necessary in the marketing of fruit, and, since we have State sawmills, we would never dream of not giving sufficient timber to the manufacturers, whether they be private entrepreneurs or whether they be State sawmills, to meet all the requirements in connection with the manufacture of boxes here in South Africa. But the hon. member also suggested that it would perhaps encourage the private mills, and particularly the small millers, if we gave them long-term contracts. The position is that we call for tenders for the supply of timber. In the first instance, we do not usually invite tenders for the supply of timber over a very long period because, before giving anybody a long-term contract, we want to make sure that the successful tenderer will maintain the necessary standard, and that he will be able to run his factory advantageously. Once we have the assurance after three or four or five years that he has good machinery and supplies a good product and that his proposition is an economic one, then we are perfectly willing to give him a long-term contract and, as a matter of fact, we are constantly doing so. I may just say in connection with this whole question of the provision of timber to private mills and the question of competition which the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) might have thought there was between us and the private mills, that to-day the relationship between the private timber millers and the Department is probably better than it has ever been before. I am constantly in touch with them, and we are co-operating very well to promote our common interests, because we are also in this business to-day. and there are very few complaints from them with regard to the activities of the State. I would rather emphasize the dependence of our mills upon the industry as a whole and vice versa. The relations between us are very good. When there are complaints we go into them and, in most cases, we resolve the difficulty. We have one common complaint, and that is that we are producing sufficient timber in South Africa for a much bigger consumption, particularly by builders—not to meet all the requirements in South Africa—but there is room for a much bigger consumption than there is at the moment. But there is a prejudice against South African timber. There was a time when there might have been some reason for that prejudice perhaps because, during the war years when we were unable to import timber, sawmills arose everywhere. They sawed bad timber; they did not properly dry out the timber, and many of the building contractors were disappointed in that timber. We have now laid down strict standards for that timber, through the Bureau of Standards; we guarantee that the timber is good, and here I want to make an appeal again to hon. members and to everybody outside to make use of it where they can get South African timber bearing the mark of the Bureau of Standards and to give preference to it over imported timber. I may say that, together with the other millers, we have now entered into an agreement with the wholesalers in timber here in South Africa, under which the wholesalers are now going to promote the use of South African timber, where it is available, whereas they used to concentrate on imported timber. I think that this will prove very advantageous to us. But I want people in South Africa to know that the building timber that we are producing, and which bears the mark of the Bureau of Standards, is good timber, and that they should stop using imported timber, purely as a matter of habit or because of prejudice, when South African timber is available.

Under Head A of this Vote there is a new item of R10,000 for the expansion of establishments. I would like to know how this money is going to he allocated. Then under Head E. “Museums”, the Vote, which was R1,000 last year, has been increased to R15,000 this year, and we would appreciate some explanation as regards this development. Then under “Publicity” there is an increase from R15,000 to R20,000, and I was wondering what publicity the hon. the Minister sought. Is the Minister selling products in competition and advertising them? R20,000 seems rather a large sum for publicity.

Then as regards forest research, this Vote has also been increased by something like R10,000. I want to ask the Minister whether the chemical preservation of timber will now improve. Perhaps the Minister can also tell us what the position is as regards the timber borer beetle here in Cape Town. Is that coming under some control?

Then I would like to voice a complaint. The Department of Forestry supplies thousands of fencing poles to farmers, and the penetration of the preservative in many cases is very little, which almost indicates that these poles are put into the preservatives before they are dried out sufficiently. Many of them turn white within a year, and it means that these poles have to be replaced quite early, involving the farmers in an enormous expenditure. These poles are not lasting 25 to 30 years, as indicated to the farmers when they are sold.

I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for the explanation he has given. I appreciate his point of view that he wants the complaint to come from some recognized body. But I do want to say to the Minister that the appeal to the Minister for which provision is made in the Act was strongly supported by us, and the hon. the Minister knows that in the private negotiations that took place beforehand we supported that. I want to say that it arises from a fact which we have to bear in mind and that is that in the wattle industry you are dealing with a miller-cum-planter in the same way as you do in the sugar industry. The wattle miller who owns vast plantations is himself a grower. The extract manufacturer who owns a big factory for extract is also a grower and has bark plantations. They are growers for the growers’ part of the industry but they are millers or extract manufacturers for the purpose of the bark side of it, and the interest which they can have on both sides of the fence is one that the pure grower who has no interest in the mill or the factory, cannot lose sight of; so I merely want to make this point that we are not going to lose our right in Parliament to bring these matters direct to the Minister’s notice from time to time, because otherwise that would permit of manipulation taking place —I do not say it would, but it could—wherein the big interests who are controlling the extract factories and the bark factories can take charge of the growers’ side as well because they are the big growers in the country. So this appeal to the Minister must be an appeal that we can make here in Parliament as well as outside. I accept the position which the hon. the Minister has put in regard to complaints generally, that they must come from a recognized body; that is fair enough, and I will deal with the matter outside this House on those lines.

Then I want to deal with the question of a further and a better process of establishing the tannin content of the bark. The hon. the Minister knows that I have raised this matter for many years. Sir, I do not want to give away any secrets, but one of the big wattle extract factory people told me only a few months ago that they have themselves perfected a system now which allows of an easy analysis for the purpose of determining the tannin content. I think that our wattle research station associated with the university in Pietermaritzburg probably may have some knowledge of this; I do not want to go any further than that, but I do want to say that it is quite clear that not only has such a process been established through private research but it is in use. Sir, I can go no further than that except to appeal to the Minister that is a basis on which the growers will be paid for bark. The millers, the extract manufacturers and the growers with whom I have discussed this over a very wide cross-section, have all agreed without any dispute whatever that the fair way of paying a grower for his bark is on its tannin content; then you pay for what is going to be used in the manufacture, and it is quite clear that there are diverse percentages of tannin in the bark grown in one area and in another area, or even in different portions of the same farm, so that a grower may find that it pays him, on the basis of payment for the tannin, to grow wattle on a portion of his farm and not to grow it on another portion. It is the fair way. I believe that the process has now been simplified and it could be put into effect, so that we can get away from this hit-and-miss method of looking at the colour of the bark and the way it is packed and whether it is dried out. All these factors which are taken into account have nothing to do with the tannin content; they can be thrown aside and the man can be paid for the tannin content of his bark because that is the feature which is required and of which use is going to be made and for which he should be paid. The man who produces a high tannin content bark will get a high price and the man who produces a low tannin content bark will get a low price. That is how it should be and then nobody can complain.

Firstly I want to thank the hon. the Minister for having stated clearly that there will still be an appeal to him through an organized body. I accept that the Wattle Growers’ Association as such, which is an organized body, is able correctly to handle their interests in this regard to see to it that justice is done.

But I really rise to bring to the Minister’s notice a matter affecting his policy as a whole. I want us to recognize the fact that we have eight producing sawmills and five preserving institutions. This department, unlike any other department, is really to some extent a commercial department, a trading department. The Minister and his Department are to some extent traders, but traders who cannot compete with private initiative. Nor does he want to do so, because his task is properly to protect the ordinary private initiative and to care for their interests in regard to forestry. I want to point out that in our sawmills the timber received from the Forestry Department amounts to 32,000,000 cubic feet and that the sawmills of the Department itself deal with 12,000,000 cubic feet of this 32,000,000 cubic feet, a tremendous amount. The earnings from the sawmills alone amount to approximately R4,000,000 per annum. It is accompanied by all the business risks, and I find it interesting to see that last year’s report shows that only .014 per cent of the boxwood manufactured by the sawmills was rejected. That indicates a very high degree of efficiency. Now it is the task of this Department to make this work economic, but also to set an example to the private sawmills, so that all our timber will comply with the standards of the Bureau of Standards. I think we have made great progress when we compare the position with what it was a few years ago and we see the quantity of timber grown in South Africa which is being used to-day, as compared with three or four years ago. I think, e.g., of Public Works and the Railways; all those bodies are now using much more South African timber as the result of the splendid example set by the Forestry Department.

Apart from the sawmills section, we have afforestation. There we find that 262,000 morgen have been planted with pines and 6,000 morgen with gums. Then we still have our mountain catchment areas for which the Department must care and which comprises 1,250,000 morgen. In addition, we have 300,000 morgen of indigenous forest. Then the Department also has the task of controlling the dunes and planting grasses on them to ensure that they do not spread further, and that already comprises 54,000 morgen. In regard to afforestation alone, the revenue is now R4,000,000 also, and the expenditure in regard to the State plantations and sawmills combined comes to R9,000,000. That R9,000,000 also includes capital investment. There are 23,000 members of the personnel.

Now in regard to this Department there is this difference, that any business undertaking has its profit and loss account and its balance sheet and its cost accounting to evaluate the efficiency and to do planning. But the Auditor’s report in regard to this Department deals only with expenditure, we have no auditor’s report in regard to the revenue. That does not enable us properly to determine how efficiently the Department is acting, because the auditor’s report in connection with this Department is like those of the ordinary departments, whereas we are dealing here with what is to a large extent a trading department, which is also in the difficult position that all the private sawmills know what the price structure of this Department is. The prices charged by this Department are made public, and the tenders become public property. Therefore they cannot to the same extent act on a competitive basis like the other private traders and industrialists. Apart from that, this Department still does a tremendous amount of training. We know that they have 370 posts for technical officials, for training. They are people who are after matriculation receive two years’ training, and the work they do is also available to the public. In my opinion the Department devotes too little money to research. I see R110,000 is voted for that, and then there is still another R60,000 for allowances to institutions, e.g. at Stellenbosch. But now I want to plead that consideration should be given to divorcing this Department to a large extent from Treasury control. There is Treasury control in connection with all the other departments, but none of them is a trading department. They are just ordinary State departments. Secondly, I want to ask that this Department should to a large extent be freed from the control of the Public Service Commission, and I will say why. If we look at our economic structure in South Africa, we nowhere find that the remuneration of State officials in any way compares favourably with that of people in private industries or factories. I think, e.g., of the fact that in regard to one of the oil companies the salaries go up to R12,000 and more. One never finds that in a State Department. Now we have the difficulty that we have a department which must compete in the commercial and industrial sphere with the ordinary commerce and industry in the private sector, and it has to do so under Public Service control, which does not always take all these factors into account. I think in this regard it would be a good thing if, instead of receiving only an auditor’s report in regard to expenditure, we received also an auditor’s report reflecting efficiency, so that we can clearly see where there are defects. We as a House know nothing about this Department, at least not officially. We only know what the expenditure is, and the expenditure falls under the ordinary Treasury regulations which do not take into account the trading aspect in general. I think it is imperative for us to realize that this Department has done much to make the building industry and the public conscious of South African timber, and it is a department which must act not only for to-day and to-morrow. The culture and character of a nation are judged by its planning, and afforestation is one of the things designed to benefit future generations. Because that is so I want us to regard this Department in a different light from, e.g., the Department of Pensions or the P.W.D. This is a trading department. [Time limit.]

I am very grateful that the Minister again said something this afternoon about the use of our own building timber. Everybody will agree with me that if there is a Department of which one can be proud it is our Forestry Department, particularly in regard to the excellent research done in the past and which is still being done to-day. The great thing is that there should be a proper standard for building timber. South African timber is softer than imported timber, because the trees grow faster here, although we have less water here than in other countries. In any case the result is that the timber is generally softer than imported timber. However, if the timber is dried properly one has a useful and worthwhile article, but if it is not dried properly it results in great difficulty. I know of cases—I do not want to mention where it was purchased—where building timber was purchased which simply could not be used. Superficially it looks very nice, but within a few days, in spite of all precautions, it becomes warped and one needs a spanner with a four or five-foot handle to straighten it when the one side has been fastened in its place. I want to ask whether the Minister will not consider having a standard fixed. I know the Forestry Department has a standard and that we obtain suitable timber there, but there are many people who market timber which is not suitable and that gives our building timber a bad name. The news spreads and people become afraid to buySouth African timber, and if one wants to be patriotic and prefers to use one’s own product, one becomes afraid of doing so. I say that because I regard myself as patriotic enough to use our own timber wherever possible. I ask again whether it is not possible to fix a standard in some way, whereby it can be assessed whether the timber is usable and therefore marketable. I do not know how it can be done, but I know of instances where people were very disappointed. I just mention this in an attempt to remedy the matter before serious mistakes are made and there is ill-feeling because unsuitable timber was purchased. Perhaps people can be compelled to have the timber tested by the Bureau of Standards. I do not know whether that is practicable. But I suppose one can fix a standard according to which timber should be dried and matured and rendered suitable for any use in the building industry.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) asked about the R10,000 increase in the establishment. If the hon. member looks at the production of wood, he will find that we have increased from a production of under 750,000 cubic feet of wood in 1941 to over 4 1/3 million cubic feet, 20 years later. Therefore he will realize that the business is becoming very much bigger than it was, and I expect that from year to year there will be increases in the establishment as our activities develop. The increase in respect of museums and exhibits is mainly in respect of exhibits. We have been at various shows, we have given big exhibits at the Pretoria Show, the Rand Show, the Cape Town Show and also in Salisbury. We actually put up houses made of wood. This all cost money, but it is all an advertisement for the business. The increase in regard to research is mainly due to the establishment of tree-breeding experiments which we have now started to try and get better types of trees. Take for instance one of our ordinary pines. We find that some trees are much better than others. What we do is that we graft branches of the good tree onto stocks, and then we use the seeds and in this way we can increase the number of trees that are really selected trees, and we use the seeds of those trees for propagation in the future. In this way we get a higher average of good trees in our plantations.

Legitimate graft!

Yes, this is a perfectly legitimate graft. The hon. member referred to bad poles. Well, you get bad poles everywhere, and if the hon. member will bring them to my notice, where anybody is supplied with bad poles, we will undertake to supply him with better poles in future.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) came back to the question he dealt with before and he seems rather afraid that the control of the industry might get into the hands of people who are both processors and growers.

Miller cum planters.

The hon. member knows that this matter has been discussed repeatedly, and I think we took the necessary precautions. The hon. member assisted me to get the millers to accept our proposals and that has made the position pretty safe. The hon. member has said that the tannin contents should be the test when the bark comes to the mills and that some chemical process should be used. It is the only way to really test the bark. That is done in the case of sugar and in the case of grapes which are supplied for wine-making, and if we can find some practical form to do it, it is the best way. After the hon. member raised this matter last year, we enquired from the Research Station in Pietermaritzburg whether some practical system had been found, but they replied that such a system has not yet been found. If it is discovered, that is the only practical way to do this work and is the only fair way of testing, but until we find some practical solution so that it can be practically applied, I don’t think much can be done.

It is being done at one factory, but they can’t pay on that basis.

If it is found to be practical, then in the set-up that we have now that could be made compulsory and I am quite certain that they would take that step.

*The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) raised a very important point. He says that the Forestry Department has ceased to be an ordinary Government Department and has become an industry and that therefore the whole question of control becomes relevant. This is a matter of fairly high policy, and I do not think the hon. member desires me to reply to it at the moment. However, I think I can tell him that we are considering the matter. The Railways also started as a Government Department, and it became too large, and it has now become independent. The Department of Forestry may also develop in that direction. We are in a process of development. Actually we now have two divisions, a business division and the ordinary administrative division. We are beginning to devote attention to the matter, but I do not want to say now what the eventual solution will be. It may be that a whole new system will be preferable. The hon. member asked whether we have proper cost accounting and whether the business is run on sound lines. In reply to that I just want to tell him that we have cost accounting and I believe that the business is well managed, because we can sell timber in competition with the best private sawmills, and we would not be able to do that unless we applied business methods. Now the hon.member should not say that we get our timber for nothing. That is not so. The sawmills pay the same price that is paid to us by private sawmills for our timber. The same price is therefore paid for the timber, and the comparison I made was quite correct.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Rissik) (Mr. de Kock) asked whether standards could not be fixed for timber. I replied to the question when the hon. member was evidently not here. The Bureau of Standards has definite standards. The hon. member referred to certain timber which bears the mark of the Bureau of Standards. The timber bearing that mark is timber which was properly dried and which was sawn and treated in the correct manner, according to the standards laid down. They first had one standard, but approximately 18 months ago they introduced a more advanced system of standards. If one buys timber which bears the mark of the Bureau of Standards, one knows that it is good timber, and when we advertise timber and ask people to buy South African timber, we urge them only to buy it if it bears the mark of the Bureau of Standards. We are trying to get all the small sawmills to adopt the standards of the Bureau. At the moment all of them do not do so, but most of them do, and their number is increasing every year, because those who do not find that it is very difficult to sell their timber, and that the small extra cost involved in complying with the standards of the Bureau is to their benefit.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Albany that in regard to advertising we do our share generally to advertise South African timber. In regard to research and advertising, we do much more than we did a few years ago, because we are a very important producer of timber and we realize that we have to contribute our share towards advertising timber.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 9.—“Public Works”, R19,731,000,

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to kindly give us some information in regard to a number of items on this particular Vote, on pages 38, 39 and 40, dealing with a number of projects of buildings, mainly for defence purposes. We find a number of defence buildings there, for instance at Bloemfontein (Tempe): “Magazine for Explosives”; “Cape Town: Conversion of Hangars and other Buildings” for different purposes such as for instance a Technical School for the South African Navy; alterations and additions to the Military Camp at Oudtshoorn, and various other items like that. In the Estimates for the year just completed, there was a matter of R797,000 provided for such buildings, but we find that during the year itself the total expenditure on many of these items was nil. Of the R797,000 provided, only R275,000 was actually used and for the coming year there is only provision for a total of R104,000. The majority of the items are in connection with defence expansion, and I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us what the reason is why this delay has taken place and the apparent delay which is going to take place during this year in respect of items which are urgently needed on the defence side. The same thing applies in regard to page 39 where we have a matter of R480,000 provided on the Estimates for this year. Nothing was spent last year and we are only going to spend R81,000 during the current year 1961-2. Incidentally amongst those items I notice a matter of R120,000 which was provided for the establishment of two new churches at Voortrekker-hoogte, in respect of which nothing at all was spent. In view of the very large call-up of young people now who will be stationed in that area, one wonders what the reason is for the delay of these necessary buildings there. On page 40, we have exactly the same thing. For instance very substantial amounts are provided for Ganspan (these are new works), Pretoria and other centres. One wonders whether it is shortage of staff in the planning stage which is delaying the building of these new works, but on examining the establishments of the Department of Public Works, on pages 32 and 33, one finds an increase all told, on the administrative, the engineering and the architectural side, of 61 in the staff. The hon. the Minister of Defence in reply recently to a question I asked said that the bulk of this work was being done departmentally. Is that the reason for the delay? Would it not be more beneficial to do a certain proportion of the work by contract? Particularly as the majority of those items figure very importantly in the expansion of the Defence Department, the Workshops for the Manufacture of Ammunition, the hangars for the new planes and other items of that nature. Could the hon. Minister give us some information about that?

I think the hon. member realizes that with all these estimates a department comes along with a programme and gets various items on the Estimates which give them the assurance that these works will be undertaken and then discussions take place between us and the particular department as to priority, and they all realize that the majority of these works cannot all be completed in one year. I for instance see here that the revised Estimates of the Defence Buildings are just over R3,000,000 and the estimates expenditure for this year is under R500,000. A large number of these buildings have been put on in the last year or two. There are various reasons why the amount of R438,000 is not bigger than it is at present. One is. and that is the most important reason, that Defence do not expect us to complete all these buildings immediately. If a building is erected for a certain use, an ammunition depot for instance, or an air force station, then Defence have got to be ready to take over that air force station or storage depot for ammunition, and they tell us that they will require these buildings at a certain time. In the meantime they are recruiting personnel and whatever else is required and they tell us that they want this in one year or two years or four years time, as the case may be. We plan accordingly. As the hon. member will realize a large number of these projects have been thrust upon us in the near past and they are still in the planning stage. With regard to the planning stage, the hon. member will also realize that when our architects are planning the buildings (we also employ private architects in cases of big buildings), there is always a great deal of discussion between the architects and the Department who require these buildings before the plans are completed. If the hon. member has had my experience of these matters, he will know that when any Government Department comes and asks us to erect a building say, at about R500,000, by the time the architects have finished drawing the plans it costs R700,000. Because after they have stated their requirements they usually discover half a dozen other things which they also want to be added to the building. These are all matters which cause delay. As far as the actual building is concerned, we ourselves build very little. The hon. member wanted to know why we did not use contractors. We do. We only erect small works and then we undertake repair work. Any building of any size is to-day done by contract. It is, however, done by contract with perhaps a private architect but under the general control and management of my Department. I might just say that if we get behind with the buildings which Defence require, the hon. member can rest assured that Defence will immediately approach us and express their concern at the fact that we are delaying the construction of the building. Hitherto they have been satisfied with the progress we have made. That is the best answer I can give the hon. member.

There are just two matters that I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister briefly. The first is the provision of adequate public buildings in our rural towns. Here I am thinking especially of magistrates’ offices, police stations and post offices. The local magistrate is not only responsible for the maintenance of law and order; he is also the channel that is used by various Government Departments. He occupies a sort of omnibus position. For example, the interests of Social Welfare and Pensions have to be looked after by him; the Departments of Land and Agriculture make use of him; he is the returning officer at elections; his clerical assistance often leaves much to be desired, and we should at least see to it that he has proper office accommodation. The fact of the matter is that many of these magistrates’ offices and police stations date from the previous century. Sir, the absence of proper facilities strikes everybody who visits these rural townships. I just want to ask that when it becomes possible to do so a little more money should be placed on the Estimate for this purpose.

The second matter that I want to state briefly also is in connection with the purchase and the preservation of historical buildings. I know that the Government has already done a great deal in this respect. We have the case of Rheezicht that was renovated by the Government and converted into a ministerial residence. There is also the case of the Old Supreme Court. But there are many other buildings which are still worth preserving. I might also remind the Committee perhaps of the fact that in the case of the old Castle, Mostert’s Mill and Hope of Constantia the Government in some cases acquired and in others retained these properties and saw to it that they were preserved in a proper state of repair. We are grateful for what the Government has done but, as I have already said, there are still many other buildings which are worth preserving. There are two ways in which the Government can help by means of this Department for which the Minister is responsible. One is to purchase these buildings and to do with them what was done in the case of Rheezicht. These buildings can be acquired, repaired and then utilized by the State. The other way is to subsidize the Van der Stel Foundation. This organization was specifically called into being with the object of bringing about the acquisition and preservation of historically important buildings. Since the establishment of the Foundation they have only been able to collect something like R30,000.

Order! The purchase of historical buildings and the question raised by the hon. member in connection with the Van der Stel Foundation fall under the Department of Education, Arts and Science.

I am thinking here of subsidization under Head A of this Vote; I thought it fell under that Head. But I can leave it at that if there is any difficulty in connection with the Vote under which it falls. I simply want to add that I should have liked to see the hon. the Minister go a little further than he has gone hitherto. I think so far the subsidization has only amounted to something like R10,000. I should like this Foundation to be supported by the State, because that would give it status and greatly facilitate it work.

As far as historical buildings are concerned, I do not think anybody can accuse me of not having made a great contribution with a view to preserving our old and historical buildings for the nation. During the short period that I have been Minister of Public Works, the residence known as Hope of Constantia, the Old Supreme Court and Rheezicht have been purchased. Before I became Minister the old Mostert’s Mill was renovated through my intervention. We have been purchasing about one old building per annum. I speak subject to correction but I believe that the Foundation to which the hon. member referred falls under Education, Arts and Science, and I think it would be a very good and popular thing if the hon. member would encourage the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science to give a certain amount to the Foundation. I hope that request will not fall on deaf ears.

Then the hon. member talked about public buildings which are so essential in rural towns. They are essential in the rural areas and also in the cities. But I do not think he fully understands what the position of the Department of Public Works is. We do not go about saying, “Here is a magistrate’s building which is old, dilapidated and the Department of Public Works is now going to erect a new building”. We erect the building for the Department of Justice. It is for the Department of Justice to come to us and say, “We want to have a magistrates office at Putsonderwater”, or wherever it may be, and we then proceed to build it. But we do not build it until they tell us to do so. We take care of the repairs and we are responsible for the maintenance of the buildings. But if the hon. member wants a new magistrate’s office in his town, then he must approach the Minister of Justice. If he wants a new office for the collection of debt—I find that is always a popular building, particularly for rural districts—then he must go and ask the Minister of Finance. If one of those Ministers then tells me that they give high priority to one of those buildings, then my Department will take the necessary further steps. That is our function, but it is not our function to go about looking out for dilapidated buildings, which my colleagues apparently neglect, and then to erect new buildings. They have to approach me and only then do we act. I think the hon. member now understands what the position is.

I was very pleased to hear the hon. the Minister say the big works were being done under contract. I was a bit surprised the other day when the Minister of Defence said that it was being done departmentally.

In regard to the non-expenditure of money provided, I quite appreciate the reasons given by the Minister. They were sound reasons. The fact that the money has not been spent has nothing to do with the Department of Public Works. They cannot start unless they get the necessary information and the authority to go ahead. But it does seem to show that the figures which appear on the Estimates should be scrutinized much more closely. It does seem that under a Vote like this, a very large sum is provided for expenditure but which will not be spent during the year. And the savings on that particular Vote will then be transferred to Loan Account. This does not seem to be sound financing to me.

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this statement is correct that the procedure is, as I understood it, that the various departments submit their requirements to the Department of Public Works and that it is then his Department which finally decides how the available funds are to be allocated to the needs of the various Departments, and that his Department is also responsible for determining the priority in respect of the various buildings, and that it rests with them.

Yes and no.

I think that is the position and therefore the hon. the Minister is not as innocent as he would like us to believe!

A certain amount of money is made available every year for new buildings, and then every Department submits what buildings it wants. Then there is a discussion between my Department, the various departments and the Treasury. It is then decided that we will allocate so much, for example, to justice. Now we do not just take any of the magistrates’ offices and build it. We get a list from Justice showing the priorities. We start building from the top. If the office which the hon. member would like to have is high enough on the list it will be considered. But it is not I who puts it high on the list. It is Justice which puts it there.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 10.—“Foreign Affairs”, R3,273,000,

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half an hour. We do not propose to detain the hon. the Minister unduly long this year on the subject of his Vote. Most of the important aspects of foreign policy in regard to our relations abroad, have already been discussed under the Prime Minister’s Vote. We have discussed our relations with Africa, both political and economic. We mentioned the question of the possibility of making contact with Nigeria. We raised the question of the legislation between the United Kingdom and ourselves and the Commonwealth and we raised the question of the High Commission Territories and of the Federation and the question as to what the position of South Africans in the Federation is going to be. We also raised the question of our relations with the Far East and India. The hon. the Prime Minister replied meticulously and at great length to all the questions which were raised. It is quite true that his replies did not get us very much further and that his replies revealed on the whole a non “possumous” attitude which, to my mind, was unsatisfactory and typical of the Laager mentality in to which the Government has driven itself. At the same time the hon. the Prime Minister did speak for his Government and what he had to say was the last word as far as Government policy was concerned. I do not think there is much use in raising them again with one of his lieutenants. Nor do I think that he will be likely to throw any more light on those questions than the Prime Minister did himself.

The Prime Minister made it clear under his Vote that he did not wish us to pursue the question of South West Africa at this juncture and we complied with his request. In view of the developments which are taking place, I think it is wise in the country’s interests to continue to restrain ourselves on that subject. Although any further information which the hon. the Minister may be able to give the House will be very welcome because that is a matter in which everybody is taking the greatest interest. Any information as to what preparations are being made for the visit or what arrangements are visualized in order to make it as fruitful as it is possible to make it. would be of interest to the House. A propos of this, I do not know to what extent it has been done or can be done, but I do think that in matters of this nature it is desirable if possible to arrange for simultaneous releases of information from New York and from here. Because at the present moment people are gleaning all they know about these matters, from Press reports from New York or the wireless. I think it is desirable, if possible, that statements should be issued simultaneously from both ends when there is anything to announce.

The hon. the Minister tabled a White Paper the other day giving an account of the recent meetings of UNO and of his activities in New York on that occasion. It is a very important document, Mr. Chairman. I would have liked to have received it sooner than we did receive it. After all the proceedings did end in November and the White Paper is nothing more than a precis of the proceedings. I think it would have been a good thing if we could have had the White Paper earlier than we did. I do not think it should have taken four months to prepare it because it is not a very long one. It is not only an important document but I think it is a very alarming one too. It is alarming particularly in regard to the attitude of, and the views expressed during that Session of the United Nations by, the Western Powers and by members of the Commonwealth, particularly the older members of the Commonwealth. Because without exception they expressed quite forthright and unqualified condemnation of the race policies of this Government. When the hon. the Minister returned from New York, the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, welcomed him as a returning hero.

Was he not?

I have no doubt that there are people on that side of the House who are itching to get up and say so. I am not going to argue about it. It is purely a matter of opinion. I do not think there is any need to argue about it, particularly as in this debate I am anxious that there should be no personal attacks on anybody. Some people might, of course, regard him as a victim rather than as a hero. I say a victim because some people might say that he had an impossible task and that in effect when the Prime Minister sent him to New York last year, he was throwing him to the wolves, wolves who certainly made strenuous attempts to bite him. The hon. Minister’s mission on that occasion was and still is to sell his Government’s race policies to the rest of the world. But the rest of the world, unfortunately, will not buy them at any price. I think that, in a nutshell, sums up the problem of the hon. the Minister. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister did his best. If you look at this White Paper, Sir, you will see how painstakingly and in what great detail he did reply to the things that were said there. He replied in circumstances at times of great provocation. But alas, Sir, as far as I can see, it was all of no avail. I think one can or should draw certain conclusions from this White Paper if we wish to have a proper perspective of the position in which we find ourselves to-day.

In the first place, taking the hon. the Minister’s Pretoria speech as a declaration of policy —which I think it was—one is bound to come to the conclusion that during the year since he made that speech, he has achieved precisely nothing in implementing that policy. In fact, one may say that the position has steadily worsened ever since he made it, not because he had not tried or did not want to implement that policy, but simply because I believe it was inevitable that he should fail.

In the second place, Sir, leaving out the Afro-Asian bloc, I think this White Paper is significant in that the Western Powers have never been so outspoken as they were on this occasion. I referred during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote, to a speech by the United States delegate, Mr. Plimpton. Incidentally, I did ask the Prime Minister whether approaches had been made and if so what reply had been given—Mr. Plimpton talked about the official but private representations which were made to our Government to the effect that a change of policy was necessary. The Prime Minister, in his reply to me, said that was dealt with in the White Paper. I think he must have misunderstood what I said or else I am very much remiss, because I can find no reference to it in the White Paper. That speech of Mr. Plimpton was a pretty harsh speech. There is one sentence which he used which is not quoted in the White Paper, because the White Paper is obviously only an abridged version of what took place. He said this—

One must bear in mind that Mr. Plimpton was not expressing his personal opinion. He was making a carefully prepared statement and making it on behalf of the United States Government.

Are you sure?

If the hon. the Minister can tell me I am wrong, I shall be very glad to hear it. But I will be very surprised to see any South African delegate at UNO get up on the rostrum and make a speech of this nature without having prepared it properly and without having obtained the authority of his Government to make it. When you realize that, Sir, you realize just how difficult our position is. From those speeches I conclude also that in the cold war which is at present going on, we are regarded not as an asset, but as an obstacle in the fight against communism which is being carried on in Africa at the present moment. In this speech of Mr. Plimpton’s he brackets Soviet Russia, China and South Africa. Apparently he places them all on the same level. He would scarcely do that if he regarded us as an asset in the cold war which is being fought against the Russians and the Communist Chinese in Africa at the present time. I think that we have got to realize, as far as this question is concerned, that we are only a pawn in a very much bigger game. As anybody who plays chess knows, a chess player is very ready, in order to check-mate his opponent, to throw away a pawn or two without any hesitation at all. We are tremendously concerned about our own personal domestic relations. They are of paramount importance to us. But I am afraid we have got to realize that, unfortunately for us, that we have become involved in a very much bigger game, where we are nothing but a pawn, which is being played on the Continent of Africa at the present time. I think I can conclude from this White Paper and from the attitude taken up, that if—I say “if”—or when the United Nations did make a move in the direction of trying to compel us in some form or other to conform to their wishes, the indications are that the Western Powers—certainly the United States of America in their present mood—will support such a move.

What move?

I did not say any move. I said that if the United Nations did decide to make a move, the United States would be inclined to support them. To what extent they would be prepared to support them I cannot tell.

You are referring to sanctions?

Sanctions; not necessarily military sanctions.

Lastly, I think we had a very narrow escape last November from having a two-thirds majority against us in regard to the imposition of sanctions. I would say that unless the climate changes substantially between now and next September, there would be a very grave danger that a two-thirds majority might be obtained. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that. If that happens, how does the Minister visualize the position? Does he really think that it is possible for the United Nations to impose effectively sanctions on this country? I think that is a question which has to be faced. It may be that it is not possible. The hon. the Minister is in a much better position than I am to express an opinion in that direction.

Sir, I mention these things not to attack the Government. I mention them because I do think that it is of supreme importance to emphasize the gravity of the position with which we are all faced to-day. If we do not realize it, we are not likely to make a proper assessment of the way in which we ought to behave.

On the administrative side we would like to ask the Minister, under the new conditions in which we find ourselves, what his intentions are in respect of the expansion of our diplomatic representations. As he is aware, there are large gaps at the present moment in our sources of information and our knowledge of what is going on. Just to give an example: At the present moment there is something like a cold war developing between Russia and China. Russia is apparently putting economic screws on China to make her toe the line in regard to policy. Now we are completely cut off from both those countries. I would like to know what information has this Government as to what may turn out to be a most important development in world affairs if this friction continues to develop as it has developed in recent months. I could give lots of other examples, but the point is that we are not in a position to keep ourselves as fully informed about world events as we were a year ago, and what steps are we taking to make good that deficiency? The same thing applies to our Consular Corps. We have a certain number of consuls in different parts of the world, and I notice that on the Estimates the Minister has a token sum of R1,000 for future consular appointments.

It is only a token.

Yes, but the point is that Great Britain has already got 24 consuls appointed and settled in this country, doing consular work, and if we are going to wait another year and simply make a token effort, what is going to happen to our consular service throughout the world? How many consuls does the hon. the Minister think he will require in the United Kingdom, to begin with? Throughout the world we shall have to have consular representation. It may be that in some of the countries with which we do little trade, honorary consuls may serve the purpose, but where there is any considerable trade we will have to have consuls. I understand that the Minister is trying to recruit people, and I should like to know what success he is having. Is he just going to recruit junior people, or does he propose to recruit senior people as well for a start? It has been done in the past, as the Minister knows, and I know of at least two senior men not in the public service who were appointed consuls abroad and who rendered very valuable service for some years. I think this consular service question is an urgent one, and I hope the Minister will tell us what steps he is taking, and, at the same time, he may tell us what consultations he is having with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in regard to expanding our trade, because those two things go side by side. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has once more made his annual speech, but I must say that this year he was not as pessimistic and aggressively sharp as he was last year, and we are glad of it. But once again he commenced his speech with a few clichés, a few generalities, which we really do not appreciate any more. What does he mean by our “laager mentality”? That is something he is so concerned about, but can he make any suggestions? He spoke for almost half-an-hour, but told us absolutely nothing, and when the Leader of the Opposition spoke on the Prime Minister’s Vote he also told us nothing. They just utter generalities and put questions, and I suspect that those questions are not even put to obtain information, but are just quibbles, just to get in a dig to embarrass South Africa. That is the impression he gives. I know he does not mean it that way, but there are people who listen to him very critically, and I really think it is time for him to weigh his words more carefully. What, for example, was the object in referring to the Minister of External Affairs in such a belittling manner? The whole of South Africa welcomed him back with gratitude, but not the hon. member for Constantia. He is one of those petty people who deal out petty pinpricks and drag petty matters into the debate. I am not going to follow him, but he expatiated at length on certain things he said, but did not give us a single indication of what the Opposition’s reply is. We can expect the Opposition to tell us what they would have done in these circumstances if they were in power, because they still demand that they should be regarded as the alternative Government. We know the country no longer regards them as such, but they still think so and therefore it is their duty to make serious alternative suggestions and not simply to voice critical generalities.

He said that we have lost the support of the world. Even if that were true, can he tell us how to regain it? What would they do to regain that confidence? Has he any suggestion at all? Has he any constructive criticism of what the Government has done? No, he merely asks questions. What is the alternative? What would their foreign policy be if they were in power? He cannot get away from it by merely smiling and shaking his head. South Africa and the world want to know what the policy of the United Party is in regard to these serious problems. But he merely speaks superficially. He says we are a pawn on the chessboard. Of course we know that we are not one of the great countries, but he should not forget that to our nation we are of the utmost importance, and that we are of great importance to Africa and that we are in a strategic position. But he says we are pawns and do not count. Must we just accede to world opinion? Is that what he means? He does not dare to reply. He has no reply and I again put the question to him: Does he want us to accede to the demands made of us by the world? How many members of his party in this House want us to accede to all the demands made of us, and if we are not to accede to all those demands— because that is what their reply will be—we ask specifically to what demands are we to accede? I hope we will get a reply. In the meantime, seeing that there has been no serious and constructive criticism from that side of the House, I would like to ask the Minister, because it is of general interest, what our plans are in regard to diplomatic representation in Japan? That is a country with which we are building up much trade. Do we intend following it up with diplomatic representation there at the highest level, or will it remain at consular representation? Also, in that regard, what are our relations with Japan? What attitude did Japan, e.g., adopt in the discussions at UN and the criticism levelled at us? Did it follow the other countries, or was there any deviation which is of interest to South Africa?

A second question is this: Here I must tread a little more carefully, and the Minister will not reply unless he deems it advisable. It concerns the most recent attitude adopted by the U.S.A. at UN. Am I right in saying that I observe a certain amount of change? Is there any change, or is it still just the same policy? In this regard, is he able to tell us anything in connection with America’s recent attitude towards Africa, and not just towards the Republic? Because there, too, it appears that there is possibly a changę. In the event of my observations being correct, I would very much like to have the Minister’s corroboration. and if not. I would be glad if he would tell me where I am wrong.

Finally, I would like to put this to the Minister: Would it be correct to assume that, in case of need, America is prepared alone to finance the actions of UN in the Congo? In the event of her being so prepared, what are the implications? Tremendous implications. on a world-wide scale, could be involved in that. I prefer not to say too much about it. I shall be glad to hear if the Minister has anything to say in this regard.

The hon. member who has just sat down was very angry with my colleagueon the ground that he asked a lot of questions, but his own whole speech consisted mostly of questions. I, like my colleague, cannot just abandon what is contained in this White Paper. If one reads it intelligently and with the fear of the future of one’s country in one’s heart, it can bring nothing but alarm. Sir, at this Session at least 18 countries who are not members of the so-called Afro-Asian group spoke against us, and they included the United Kingdom and the United States, and all the old Dominions, and on going through this report the friendliest words I could find were those uttered by the French representative, who said: “Patience and determination will ultimately overcome the obstinacy and blindness of apartheid”. But unfortunately he also said this: “The French delegation had consistently and categorically, both inside and outside UN, condemned South Africa’s policy of apartheid. France’s traditional position in that respect is well known. It looked upon apartheid with amazement and dismay. Frenchmen find it difficult to believe that in the present-day world men who claim to be representative of Western Christian civilization could still be guilty of the crime and folly of apartheid.” Sir, those are harsh words, and the Afro-Asian States used harsher words and obviously wilder words, but when it comes to such words from our erstwhile friends we must take heed of the course on which we are.

And do what?

I do not want to enter into any arguments with any back-benchers. It is solely due to the policy of the Government that we are in this position. I repeat that 18 countries, erstwhile friends of ours, spoke against us, and some of their words are very much like the words used by the Afro-Asian countries. I will not give the list of those countries, but I commend the Report to all hon. members opposite who are so sure that this policy of their Government is correct and that we are powerful enough to stand by ourselves. I hope they will read this report closely, as we did. I have no intention of attacking the hon. the Minister personally. He showed courage and stood up to them. He had an indefensible case. That was dealt with by my colleague, and I would just like to pass on to one or two practical matters now.

I should like to stress this question of consular representation. Obviously consular representation must be tied up with trade representation. The Minister must work hand in hand with the Minister of Economic Affairs. We recently sent trade missions all over the world including the Far East, and in the Far East we have at present only one ambassador, in Japan, and one trade commissioner in Singapore. I think my information is correct. If not the Minister can correct me. Under present-day conditions I do not think many business men will be courageous enough to go wandering about the Far East if they have nobody to refer to when they get into trouble. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us who, until such time as he makes his appointments, our nationals will have to refer to when they go to the Far East? The Olympic Games are going to be held in Tokyo the year after next, and there will be a large number of our people moving about in those parts of the world, and it may be essential for them to be able to refer to our representatives. The Minister said that the R1,000 provided in the Estimates was only a token amount. I hope he will expand on that and let us know what he intends to do during the coming year, because it is most important. I should also like him to tell us, if he will, whether he is accepting the refusals from the African states to the north of us to accept our offers of technical aid, or whether he is accepting them on the surface and informally trying to arrange for more friendly relations.

One final question is this. There have been very large increases in staff, proportionately. In Germany it was from 20 to 30. In Greece, from 7 to 13, in Rome from 18 to 23, and in Switzerland from 9 to 16. According to the Estimates, all these increases represent junior staff. I do not want to be flippant, but I would like to know if it is necessary in those countries to increase the staff to such an extent.

I rise to do something which the United Party has failed to do, something which I think the whole country would expect this House to do. I think the whole country expects us in the first place to convey our hearty congratulations to the Minister on the fact that the University of Pretoria has conferred upon him an honorary doctorate in law.

Hear, hear!

This has been done in recognition of a lifetime of service to his fatherland, a period of service which certainly reached its zenith at the last Sitting of the United Nations. We have had expressions of appreciation of what he did there from all quarters and from all bodies in South Africa, except from the United Party. I think the latest tribute to which I should refer is the following — and I do so because I take more notice of this body than of the United Party, because even though this body is of a local nature, it is of more importance in South Africa than the whole of the United Party. I refer to a report in the Natal Mercury—

Hear, hear!

I do not think I can sum it up better than in the words of Prof.Rautenbach of the University of Pretoria, when he said the following—

Sir, it was my privilege last year to be with the hon. the Minister at UNO for ten days, and there I listened with pride how he not only stated but also defended South Africa’s case. I had abundant evidence there of the high esteem and admiration in which he is held in a very wide circle. As the result of the contribution which he and South Africa have made to the character and the survival of UNO itself, the hon. the Minister — and I want South Africa to know this—is one of the few statesmen of stature and of unquestioned integrity at UNO. But apart from that I also listened there to scandalous and bitter attacks upon South Africa. I also sat there listening on the day when Mr. Sowden, the assistant editor of the Rand Daily Mail—and he is still there—made an improper, unmannerly and seditious attack upon South Africa. In this connection I want to ask the hon. the Minister, since this person was a guest of the American Government, whether representations were not made to them and what the outcome was. I say that I listened to these bitter and scandalous attacks, and last week when I listened to the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote, and even this afternoon to the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Water-son), I felt that I was back again at the UNO. The way in which these people talk is the way in which our enemies at UNO talk. Every single little thing that is bad and wrong in South Africa is fastened upon and attacked. Listening to the United Party last week particularly, it was just like listening to the Afro-Asian States. Let me add here that what is said here is in any case used by those people against us at UNO.

But there is another remark which was made here by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) and which I cannot allow to go unchallenged. The hon. member stated that personal disputes between South Africa and diplomats at UNO and other missions, prejudiced South Africa’s case. I want to say that there is nothing that is further from the truth.

You misunderstood me entirely. You are completely off the rails.

Talking about rails, who is really off the rails? But the hon. member also asked for a new team of diplomats. Let me just say this. The diplomats who have been appearing on our behalf at UNO in recent years, and that includes our present ambassador and everyone who assists him, form an excellent team and they are held in high esteem. I have personal evidence not only that they are acquitting themselves well of their task but that they are popular amongst the diplomats at UNO and that they are respected. They are doing excellent work there and I take exception to the remark and the proposal that we should send over a new team of diplomats.

I was talking about the politicians and not about the diplomats.

The question is sometimes asked whether it is worthwhile to be represented at UNO. Well, that is a reasonable question that many of our own people are asking. I want to say at once that we must realize that whether South Africa is represented at UNO or not, UNO still has the right, and even in our absence they would still exercise the right, to take steps against South Africa. Last week the United Party talked about diplomatic defeats that we had suffered. I know of no single diplomatic defeat that South Africa has suffered in recent years. On the contrary, I know of various great victories, and certainly moral victories, particularly at the last Sitting of UNO when the motion of censure was under discussion—unless, as the United Party apparently argues, one can only achieve a diplomatic victory if one changes one’s attitude. I want to make it perfectly clear that my opinion is that South Africa’s attendance and participation at UNO was essential and fully justified. It is a good thing that South Africa was represented there and I think in taking the action it did— and here I refer particularly to the weekly broadcasts which came from the hon. the Minister over the radio—the South African representation brought home to our people here, in their own interests, the importance of the international situation. I have not the slightest doubt that the correct attitude, according to civilized yardsticks, adopted by South Africa on all big occasions outside UNO, has increased her prestige. Our action in Korea and in Suez are cases in point, and the punctual meeting of all our obligations is not passing unnoticed. These things have gained respect for South Africa. And let me refer to the censure motion last year. That motion certainly benefited South Africa. I just want to refer to two matters. On 13 October the Washington Evening Star wrote something that was at variance with what the hon. member said here to-day, and that is why I say that he spoke as our enemies do. It said—

The New York Herald wrote as follows also on the 13th—

Those Africans who led the General Assembly in its vindictive censure of the Union of South Africa took another step to threaten the UN from within. The real loser was not South Africa but the United Nations. Any restriction on free speech undermines the integrity of the Assembly itself.

I say that it increased South Africa’s prestige, and I say therefore that is a good thing and that it has been worthwhile for South Africa to be represented at UNO in recent years. I have the fullest confidence therefore and the fullest right to ask that we should remain in UNO and that we should go there again this year with a strong delegation. I know what personal deprivations the hon. the Minister has to endure, but even in spite of that I want to ask him to go again, because South Africa can do no better than to be represented there by him. There is no doubt that the disappointment in the Africa states is mounting. The developments in Africa and in Goa are not to the liking of the West and they are beginning to realize that what they have to deal with is hypocrisy, and that they do not understand Africa. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I think we make too much of criticism of the Government being used in foreign places. We are constantly being told that what is said in this House can be used by UN or in other countries or by the Press. I do not think that matters very much. I do not think we should restrict our freedom of speech, because we are afraid that what we say will be repeated elsewhere. We are too much concerned with our dignity and prestige and saving face. That is the mark of a person with an inferiority complex, and we do not have that in South Africa. We have a great deal to be proud of.

Now the task of diplomacy is not to argue and to strike postures. That is not the work of the diplomat. It is his work to inquire, to negotiate and to cultivate friends, even when he has to deal with people who are opposed to his policy. That is what he has to do on behalf of his country. I was very grieved the other day to hear the hon. the Prime Minister refer to the Prime Minister of a friendly State, Nigeria, Sir Abubakar Balewa, as a fanatic.

A friendly State!

It is a friendly State; it is a State in Africa, and according to Press reports, the Prime Minister of that country has expressed a wish to visit other States in Africa. I do not know how much truth there is in that, but that was the report in the Press. Sir, we have a connection with Nigeria. A former Governor of one of the States in Nigeria told me that amongst the old veterans in the Nigerian army—they now have their own staff officers and officers—amongst those veterans there were men who boasted that they had served with South Africans and of course they did. They were brigaded with the South African Forces. I served in a brigade with the Nigerians in World War I, and they were very proud to be with us. We got on extraordinarily well, and I think it does not add to our prestige abroad when our Prime Minister, who has an international reputation as Prime Minister of this country, refers to another Prime Minister in that way. I was very sorry indeed that he did so.

I come to another friendly nation, the recently created nation, Tanganyika. Tanganyika has just celebrated its coming of age as an independent nation. I would not expect Mr. Nyerere to invite South Africa; probably he did not invite us.

He did not.

Well, I would expect that. I should have liked the hon. the Prime Minister to say this to him: “Would it not be possible on the day of the celebrations for an ex-serviceman from South Africa—for example the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) …

What are you talking about?

I am thinking of the men whose names are there in the Queen’s Hall who served in Tanganyika and who are buried there—South Africans. Would it not have been possible for us to suggest that an ex-serviceman of that campaign could lay a wreath on the war memorial in Dar-es-Sa-lam on that day? Could we not have asked for that? Would it not have been a friendly gesture? After all, someone said here the other day that our aim is to make friends and influence people. Those of us who travel abroad, and some of us do, are always anxious to defend the case for South Africa. We have a case to put. I remember suggesting to the hon. the Minister of the Interior of those days, who is now the Minister of Finance, that I was quite prepared to lecture overseas about South Africa, at my own expense, but I would not put the Nationalist Government's point of view, I would put the point of view…

Of Helen Suzman.

… that is common to us all in South Africa: I would just put the case for South Africa. And I think we have a case to put forward.

Now I want to raise another minor matter. Someone referred the other day to the Colum-bo plan in the East. The manner in which it was extended had cultivated good relations with the Eastern nations. I think we could do the same in South Africa. We could make it possible for some of our young Africans who have been well educated at our universities to accept posts in the North.

White or Black?

I am speaking of the people who wish to be referred to as Africans, just as the hon. member wishes to be referred to as an Afrikaner.

No I am a White African.

I am sorry; I thought the hon. member was an Afrikaner, but that is by the way. I think it would be all to our advantage if we could allow these young men to accept posts in the North. We have refused them permission to do so. I would go further; I would make it possible for their students to come here. In our old Fort Hare University College we were able to do that. I want to see South Africa take a lead in this Continent. I do not want South Africa to say that we cannot cultivate friendly relations with the other nations; that they are preparing to invade South Africa. I do not want to find the members of our Defence Force, led by our Minister of Defence, saying that we are expecting an invasion. I do not want to hear the Chairman of the South Africa Foundation saying that he has information at his disposal of plans being made for attacking South Africa, information which he has not given to the Minister of Defence. Sir, if I had information of that kind I would take it to the Minister of Defence and of course to the Minister of External Affairs. I think it is our duty to do that. We should go forward and cultivate a common South Afeican view in foreign affairs. We have had a very vigorous foreign policy in South Africa. Our difficulty has been that we have had an Al foreign policy and a C3 defence policy. That has been our difficulty. We have never had a defence policy good enough to support our foreign policy. We should build up our Defence Force and that is what I am anxious for South Africa to do: that is why we have supported the new movement to build up our Defence Force. But for many years we have argued and asked for that, and we now make an appeal to the Minister of External Affairs to cultivate more friendly relations with the people of other nations. I know he is doing his best. We do not want to shoot the man at the piano: he is trying his best for South Africa, and we want to assist him in doing that. But to say that we resent criticism is just the mark of a juvenile country; it is the mark of inferiority.

I do not think we have been greatly impressed by the debate of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) on “how to win friends and influence people”I just want to remind the hon. member of the fact that the various attempts made by this side of the House over the whole long period to create the necessary friendships with the other African States have unfortunately not yielded the desired results, not because of a lack of enthusiasm on our part about the matter. Nor is it clear to me how the hon. member can refer to, for instance, Nigeria, as a friendly state. That makes me think, with due respect, Sir, that the hon. member has not read the White Paper which has been placed at our disposal.

Do you regard Nigeria as a hostile state?

That brings me to the first point raised by the hon. member namely the question of the freedom of speech. I cannot recollect any occasion on which any hon. member on this side of the House has ever in the past objected to the Opposition exercising their lawful right to speak freely, but what we did object to were the irresponsible remarks and the ascribing of wrong motives to our actions, things that can so easily be used by our enemies at UNO. It is not necessary for me to give examples of things that have been said here and quoted at UNO. Both the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) and the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) have referred to the very important White Paper which the hon. the Minister has placed at our disposal. I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the Minister for having submitted that very important document. It is the first of its kind that we have had since 1958 and although we know that both the Department and the Minister himself are extremely busy they nevertheless found time to prepare this important document for us and we wish to express our appreciation to them. The hon. member for Constantia said he was disappointed because it was not issued earlier. I think all of us would have liked to have had it earlier but when you think of the enormous amount of work which the Department concerned and the Minister have to do it is clear that it was made available to us at the earliest possible date. Both hon. members referred to that important document because it was so alarming. Of course its contents are alarming, not only to the Opposition but to us as well, but that is no reason for us at all to become alarmed or to depart in any way from our principles. That important document which has been submitted to us gives us a picture of what has happened at the whole session and when you study it you are struck by certain important characteristics. The first impression I got when I read the document for the first time was that the attacks was made on South Africa at the sixteenth Session had been carefully planned. The attacks were not sporadic as in the past. The attack was properly planned: and you must note the fact. Sir, that the attack on South Africa was made right at the beginning. We had the unheard of and unfortunate incident when the President made an attack on South Africa in his inaugural speech. He said these words—

The hon. the Minister immediately objected to that criticism, to that unjustifiable criticism made by the President in his inaugural speech. The hon. the Minister stated his standpoint very clearly there. When you study the debates, as given in the White Paper, further, one thing becomes clear and that is that the attack on South Africa was systematically planned. It could not have been a mere coincidence that the various aspects on which South Africa were attacked were as logically calculated as they were and those attacks make me believe that specific tactics were resorted to. The first point I wish to deal with, to judge from the White Paper, is that an attempt was made in the first instance to try to break the spirit and the courage of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. After the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had made that important speech of his on the 11 October before the General Assembly, a speech with which no fault can be found no matter how objectively you regard it, a furious attack was made on the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that was followed by an unheard of motion by Liberia that the speech of the hon. the Minister should be deleted from the records of UNO. As hon. members know that motion was not accepted, but let me just illustrate the vitriolic language which was used when that motion was under discussion—

There are many examples in this document of this type of personal attack on the Minister. I cannot do otherwise but conclude that an attempt was made to break the spirit and the courage of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Even the motion of censure which followed was aimed at the person of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In that motion Liberia attacked him because of a “statement here to-day which was offensive, fictitious and erroneous”. The speech of the hon. the Minister is fully reported in this important White Paper and he stated South Africa’s case with the greatest sincerity, honesty and clarity and following upon that speech by the hon. the Minister you have the spectacle that a fellow member moves a motion of censure because a speech had been made which, he alleged, was “offensive, fictitious and erroneous”. Can anyone blame me, therefore, when I say that an attempt was made in the first instance to break the spirit and the courage of the hon. the Minister. [Time limit.]

I should like to give to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) the advice which he regularly gives our opponents at UNO and that is to make sure of his facts before he criticises. It is perfectly easy for any member to get hold of the Hansard report of another member’s speech, and if he looks at my remarks under the Prime Minister’s Vote, he will see that his criticism is based on an erroneous representation of what I actually said.

Now that the Government has decided in favour of what one can call “a more relaxed approach” in respect of our relations with UNO with regard to the question of South West Africa, I wonder whether the time has not come when we should also re-assess and reconsider our attitude in respect of developments on the Continent of Africa. Of all the setbacks that we have had in recent years in the sphere of international politics, the deterioration of our position in Africa and the Government’s inability to retain even the limited foothold that we had in Africa, may still perhaps hurt us most and cause the greatest harm to our future welfare. The fact of the matter is that formal relations with South Africa are being terminated one after another; and while every country of importance in the world is trying to-day to extend its sphere of influence in Africa, we are engaged in withdrawing more and more. Our diplomatic links with the rest of Africa have now shrunk to four, one of which, our link with Kenya, might very well disappear before the end of this year. We are being excluded from one conference chamber after another and forced out of one common body after another, and even ordinary passage for a South African through Africa is becoming more difficult by the day. It must be stated here that no blame for these developments can be laid at the door of the staff that mans our Department of Foreign Affairs at home and our diplomatic posts abroad. It is conceded even by our enemies that from ambassador Gerhard Jooste down, South Africa has at her disposal a corps of diplomatic talent that is as competent and as respected as any in the world. As a matter of fact, it is remarkable—at any rate that is how I read the record—how well our professional diplomats fare, in contrast with our professional politicians, whenever any task is entrusted to them at UNO and elsewhere. Only recently I still received an enthusiastic report from friends in the United States about the excellent impression made on television by our chief representative at UNO, Mr. Brand Fourie, and the goodwill that his personality creates there for South Africa. He deserves the highest praise of this House for the way in which he has just handled the conversations with the Chairman of the South West Committee. Our difficulties do not lie with our diplomatic professional staff; they lie with the fact that our political authorities, in the ordinary handling of foreign affairs, are far too concerned about party political interests in this country. In order to promote its internal position the Government tries, in the first place, to create the impression in our minds that the whole of Africa is one Congo as it were, and the picture of Africa is painted as dark as possible. However,when all the facts are taken into consideration, when we look at the numerous states in Africa which have become independent in recent years—to-day there are something like 30 independent states in Africa—we find that with few exceptions, this difficult transition has taken place reasonably peacefully and successfully. Of the 180,000,000 Africans who have become independent, at least 90 per cent are making a reasonable success of self-government in Africa. And where there is dictatorship here and there, dictatorship in any event is just as much a disease of the West as it is in parts of Africa, and I am afraid worse things have taken place already under Western dictatorships than have taken place under any present dictatorship in Africa. And it would not surprise me at all if Africa’s political development, generally speaking, takes place more peacefully than the developments that characterized the attainment of freedom in most other Continents in the world.

The second impression that the Government continually tries to create for domestic consumption and for party political purposes is that the whole of Africa is in the clutches of Communism, and that even the Western powers which have interests in Africa have become a willing instrument in the hands of Communism. I think that is an extremely unfair attitude. The ambitions of the Communists in Africa must certainly not be underestimated, but comparatively speaking the Communists in Africa have achieved little success so far. The few Communist parties that we find in Africa are faring extremely badly, and on the diplomatic front the Communists have achieved very little success in Africa. They have even experienced positive setbacks, for example with the closing of the Communist embassies in the Congo and with the expulsion of the Russian ambassador from Guinea. One competent observer after another testifies to the lack of success actually achieved by Communist diplomacy in Africa. The only thing which still gives the Communists some semblance of success is their vociferous support of anti-colonialism, but, to-day even that is suspect everywhere, because Russia is the last country to-day which is able to attack colonialism with clean hands. I have before me, for example, the Bulletin of the Africa Institute. In the edition of the 15 March, 1962, there is an analysis of Russian diplomatic action in Africa, and the Institute testifies as follows—

The Bulletin of the Africa Institute further confirms the fact that “as yet there are no really effective militant Communistic groups in Africa.” [Time limit.]

The attitude of the Government to the Africa states is perfectly clear. The Prime Minister has stated that attitude on more than one occasion, and so has the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Its attitude is that where an opportunity is created for co-operation and for the Republic to grant assistance to any Africa state that wishes to make use of it, we are anxious to co-operate and to grant such assistance. There are numerous examples where the Republic has co-operated in the technical sphere and where, in spite of attacks made on the Republic, this assistance has nevertheless been granted. There is no doubt that where assistance is needed we are always prepared to help. But I can quite well understand why the hon. member who has just sat down and who spoke about politicians who are not successful, regards himself as one of the frustrated politicians. There are probably some of us too who, if we had been in the position in which the hon. member finds himself, would also have felt frustrated and would also have regarded ourselves as unsuccessful politicians. As far as these matters are concerned, the hon. member should rather remain silent. If the hon. member had had a political career which was worth of emulation and which was a model of success, he would have been justified in making these remarks here to-day in connection with successful politicians.

But I rise really to make another observation and it is this: It is very noticeable that members on the other side have tried to create the impression in the debates that we have had this Session that we should not take so much notice really of the Africa states or the Eastern states; that we should try to retain our friends in the Western countries. You will recall, Sir, that they said that we were losing our Western friends. But then hon. members on the other side stood up and began to complain that we were losing our Africa friends. One can only draw the inference from that hon. members on the other side, if they had been in power, would have been prepared to do anything to retain the friendship of Africa, of the Afro-Asian group and also of the Western nations.

When the hon. the Prime Minister returned from the Prime Ministers’ Conference in London, it was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who stood up and said to him that all he should have done in London was to remainquiet and to allow attacks to be made on the Republic. That was his advice to the Prime Minister. In other words, if he had been there, he would have been prepared to allow South Africa to be humiliated there; he would have remained silent and done nothing about it. What happened subsequently was that when South Africa’s attitude was stated, hon. members on the other side sharply criticized the Government instead of defending South Africa and adopting the sort of attitude that one would expect from a political party which is proud of its country and concerned about the honour of its own country. One would have expected them to refrain from criticizing the Government or, on the other hand, to join us in defending this country for the sake of our country’s honour where it is necessary to do so. But look at the spectacle that we have had here. In the first place when South Africa was attacked by newspapers, or even when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was interrupted at UNO by the sub-editor of the Rand Daily Mail and when indignation was expressed throughout practically the whole of the Republic, the Opposition remained absolutely silent, and up to the present moment not a single word has been said on the other side, from the Leader of the Opposition down to the humblest back-bencher, to join us in condemning this deed. In no single case where South Africa has been attacked by a non-White country have we heard a single word from the other side of the House in support of the Government. One can well understand that, because was it not the hon. member for Kensington who said just a year or two ago that he was ashamed to be a South African? Was it not that hon. member who made that observation?

No.

The hon. member wants to deny it now, but that is the Opposition’s attitude. It was vey noticeable that when the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) stood up to praise and to pay a tribute to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, his statement was greeted by derisive laughter on the other side of the House. Furthermore, it is very noticeable that what is demanded of us, and what has been demanded of us particularly in recent debates, is that at all costs we must make friends with the Africa states. But not a single hon. member on the other side mentioned a single state with whom they would wish to start making friends. Would they start making friends, knowing what the attitude of those states is, with states like Ghana and Nigeria? Are they prepared to adopt towards the next Prime Minister of Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta, the attitude that they want to dictate to us? Are they prepared to adopt that attitude towards Nasser of Egypt? Can they point to any Africa state with whom they want us to enter into bonds of friendship? Let any member on the other side stand up and tell us with what states they would start making friends if they came into power. I submit that if hon. members on the other side were in power and if they acted according to the attitude that they have revealed here, and if they acted according to what they say on public platforms, they would not defend South Africa at any cost and on all occasions. Starting with the Prime Ministers’ Conference, if they had been in power at the time, they would have allowed anything to be said against South Africa and against her Prime Minister; they would have accepted it in silence. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stood up here and give the advice to the Prime Minister that he should have remained silent and that he should have allowed himself to be humiliated there.

You know better.

If they had been in power, they would also have done exactly what their attitude reveals here to-day, and that is that they would not have cared whether an Africa state showed hostility towards us or whether it insulted us. They would have tried at all costs to establish contacts, and if that effort had been accompanied by insults, they would have swallowed those insults.

I want to submit therefore that the attitude which has been adopted on the other side in recent times is that we must adopt an attitude towards the Africa states which simply amounts to this that we should allow the Republic to be humiliated, that we should allow our Prime Minister to be humiliated and that we should abolish all our apartheid laws to satisfy those Africa states. Let me tell hon. members that there is also a price to pay. The Africa states are asking a certain price and hon. members on the other side are prepared to pay that price.

No.

If what I say is not true, the hon. member can stand up and tell us what concessions they would be prepared to make to the Africa states with regard to our colour legislation in order to win their friendship. I contend that hon. members on the other side would be prepared to break down our whole political structure in order to win the favour of those states. If they are not prepared to do that, let some member on the other side stand up and tell us how far they would be prepared to go in breaking down our political structure. Where would they draw the line in this process? I think we are entitled to say that they are prepared to break down our whole political structure to satisfy the Africa states. That is why I say that what hon. members on the other side are expecting of us at the moment is that this Government should break down our political structure in order to satisfy the Africa states in return for a very doubtful friendship, because up to the present moment these same states have simply taken what they have been able to get from countries which are well disposed towards them, from all the European countries, from England and France and other countries; they have not even said “Thank you” and they have left them in the lurch all along the line. If hon. members expect us to take part in this general attempt on the part of the Western countries to court the Black states of Africa, to win their favour, then they know as well as I do that we would never do so.

On a point of personal explanation, the statement made by the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) about me personally is untrue. When this statement was made three years ago I said that it was untrue. It is still untrue.

I am not getting up to answer in the same vein that my hon. friend, the member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) has indulged in to-day, perhaps feeling annoyed by what he believes to be the wrong attitude of this side of the House. I suggest in fact that this side has been a remarkably moderate Opposition in so many respects, and I will say why. Take this debate. A most moderate attitude has been adopted by all the speakers on this side. I think one can fairly say, where it is asked of us why we don’t condemn some statements by various critics of ours round the world, that our best answer would often be that we treat those statements whence they come. But another point, and a more important point—and I hope hon. members opposite will bear this in mind when they repeatedly come with these attacks against us—is that the most effective answer is our attitude of support of all budgets in regard to the Ministry of Defence. We have not hesitated to show our support, as has been stated by our side, and on the grounds stated by our side. Surely that is an appreciable matter, and indeed certain organs of the Government party have given expression to that fact. I would say this to hon. members opposite, that their policy of taking this country outside the Commonwealth was one which inflicted a very grievous wound on many people that support the Opposition, and yet this party and the people in the country have taken that action of the Government in a spirit, I suggest, which has justified certain plaudits that have been directed towards it. Indeed certain organs of the Government themselves have not foreborne to cheer and to praise the steadfastness and the spirit in which that has been taken by this side.

Since the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Dr. J. H. Steyn) asked us to make some comments or criticism of Government policies, lest it be thought that this side has not got very serious criticisms, I would like to touch on this question of the policy of members opposite in taking us from the Commonwealth and some of the very serious results that has had.

Do you think anything can be gained by taking up that stand?

We were asked specifically by the hon. member for Potchefstroom to state criticisms of the Government’s foreign policy, and I say that this is a corner-stone of the Government’s foreign policy and has been a fundamental point of their policy to take us from the Commonwealth. It is most recent and I suggest that we are reviewing the results of that action, and I suggest that they have been profound and serious and unfortunate for us.

Let us take our position at UNO, how that position has weakened. By way of illustration of the damage that has done to our security, let us just consider one tiny point. Much was said in the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote of the question of Goa and the fact that Britain did not come to the aid of Portugal. But Britain said, and she made it clear to Portugal when Britain was asked, that she would not come to the aid of Portugal because she would not be prepared to attack a Commonwealth country. Now we are no longer in that position.

What a pitiful excuse!

That is merely one illustration, because I think it can be said that it has been noticeable how at UNO there has tended to be a rounding upon us particularly since that time.

Now again in support of the point how this has damaged us, consider our defence expenditure and how it has rocketed in the Budget before us. I know the hon. the Prime Minister has said: Ah, but the expenditure of Great Britain and Australia was equally high. I want to point out—I have the figures here which I sought from the British and Australian embassies—that these figures show that their defence expenditure has been extremely constant over the last ten years, whereas ours, by contrast, unfortunately, represents a rise this year over last year of 67 per cent, and so far as the previous year is concerned a very substantial proportionate rise too. Consequently the point is that it is not possible to say that there has been an equivalent or even similar rise in the expenditure of other countries compared with ours. This very expenditure of ours cannot but be directly related to the new situation in which we have recently found ourselves as a result of Government action.

Let me take it a stage further and come to the economic aspect. I pointed to the fact last time how it led to an embargo on export of foreign capital and I will say no more about it. But I want to say this, that it may well be that Britain who is now negotiating for entry into the Common Market, may find that she is able to secure an advantageous position for the other Commonwealth territories. I do not know whether she will be able to, but there are certain territories associated with France which have a favourable positionin the Common Market as a result of their link with France. And Britain, certainly as far as we can gather, is negotiating for a similar favourable position for the Commonwealth countries. We unfortunately can no longer hope to get anything of that kind.

Australia is not so sure of that.

No, I do not say that it is a matter of certainty, but she is negotiating for it and it is an advantage which we have lost as a result of Government policy.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom said: “What must the Government do?” Obviously of course we regret that they have taken us out of the Commonwealth against the interests of South Africa, quite apart from any sentimental reasons which hon. members of the Opposition may have.

But I want to deal also with other points, and these indeed were foreshadowed by the hon. member for Constantia when he said that he felt that the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs had a wellnigh impossible task to improve our position in the face of Government policies. Clearly therefore, and the background to this whole debate is, that we believe that our policies, while they are policies which preserve White leadership, will make an appreciable difference. We suggest that if our foreign policy is conducted against the background of our policies, it will make a tremendous difference to our position in the world. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) is back again on the Defence Vote, and he says that side of the House supports the Defence Vote. If I understood the position correctly, they accepted it, but they greeted it with very faint praise. It is perfectly clear to me to-day that basically they object to this R120,000,000 that we are spending on defence. The hon. member comes along and levels the reproach at the Minister of Foreign Affairs that it is as the result of his attitude and that of the Prime Minister that we are outside the Commonwealth and that it is because of that we have to vote this large sum for defence. Let me tell the hon. member that he is completely wide of the mark, because whether we had remained within the Commonwealth or not, basically we would have had the same problems. What is more, England herself, the United Kingdom herself, would have had the same problems basically in saying farewell to the Commonwealth. Practically speaking there is no longer such an entity as the Commonwealth. That is not what I say, but that is what the Australians say who are still in the Commonwealth. Let me read out to the hon. member a quotation from the journal, The Australian Quarterly. There I find an article about the “Common Market” dealing with England’s policy of joining the Common Market. The argument of the writer of this article is that the Australians must not hold this against England because England’s position has weakened so much that she has no choice other than to leave this sinking ship called the “Commonwealth”. On page 9 of the Australian Quarterly there is an article by Mr. Agafonoff, who is “an economist of the Economic Research Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia”. He is not the sort of person that one finds behind every bush. He writes—

That is the reason why they are seeking to join the 186,000,000 people of the Common Market. Then on page 131 read this—

All that remains for all of us is to go ahead under our own steam and to write off the Commonwealth for what it is worth or for what it is not worth. The hon. member can forget the idea that we have this big Defence Vote because we are no longer a member of that Commonwealth.

But that is not really why I stood up; I rose to reply to the attack made by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) and the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). If I understood the hon. member for Kensington correctly, he created the impression that we were the people in Africa who refused to co-operate with the rest of Africa. There are many things which I cannot understand but I simply cannot understand how the hon. member for Kensington can make such an allegation. Are we not a member of the C.C.T.A., and have we not been making a great contribution there every time? I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will tell us what contribution we have made to the C.C.T.A. since becoming a member. Then there is also our membership of FAMA. We are no longer popular there. Why? Because a bitter struggle is being waged against South Africa there, a struggle that was started by Mr. Nehru who has been trying over the past 12 years to isolate South Africa. Not because he hates us but because he wants Africa as a market, as a colonial territory where he can offload his millions. He is seeking expansion and there is no better place for him than East Africa because it lies at his doorstep,and East Africa has the same sort of climate that India has. But there is one element, balance of power, that stops him, and that is South Africa. That is why he has to fight the Republic. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will tell us what our contribution to those two organizations has amounted to in terms of knowledge and money. Then there is our membership of the telecommunications organization. That is something which is in the interests of all of us and also of the people in Africa. But what do they do? They try at all costs to drag in our internal policy. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will tell us what really happened recently at the Telecommunications Conference. I shall also be very grateful if the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs can see his way clear to tell us to what extremes they went at the economic conference that was recently held in Africa and at the Conference on soil conservation, where the African states could only gain from our experience and our willingness to give them information. For our part we are prepared to do everything we can, but time and again we find that the door is slammed in our faces.

And then a responsible hon. member comes along and talks about Nigeria as a friendly country—a country which organizes boycotts against us—and that another hon. member interjects and says, “After all, is it not a friendly country?” He apparently has only two nuances in his vocabulary; he thinks that a state is either friendly or belligerent. But there is a whole series of stages in between. For example, one can say that a particular country is not a hostile country. Although diplomatic relations may not exist perhaps and although there is no state of war between the two countries, one can always have the situation where the policy of a state is one of a sort of armed neutrality. It is not we who refuse to co-operate; it is the other states in Africa that refuse to accept the good faith that we offer to them. They want to do more than that; they want to govern here in their own way and not in our way.

What has struck me is the way in which the hon. member for Kensington and the hon. member for Benoni have tried to dissociate themselves from the image which exists in respect of South Africa. The hon. member for Kensington says, “We are concerned too much about what we say in this House”. In other words, we can display as much irresponsibility as we like; if what we say here is repeated elsewhere we must not take any notice of it, because after all we are exercising our freedom of speech. But do the hon. members for Kensington and Benoni not realize that everything that they say here is cabled overseas through an obliging cable service both by SAPA and the various foreign “stringers” so that the Press in the outside world can pursue this cold war even further? They are lauded for it; ammunition is even given to them, and that ammunition comes from this House, from the Opposition.

Sir, if you study this White Paper given to us by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, you will see that whatever sentiments have been expressed by the other side over the past ten years have been cabled abroad in detail. For example, I have in mind the debates that we had here about our allegedly being a police state; I have in mind the debates that we had with reference to influx control and the pass laws and the accusations that were allegedly violating elementary human rights. I have in mind the debates that we had on the Church Clause and the accusations that we were violating freedom of religion, that we were violating the right of freedom of movement, that we were violating the elementary right of association, that we had a police state here. All the arguments advanced by hon. members on the other side are reechoed at UNO.

Are we not allowed to criticize the Government?

Sir, the hon. member for Salt River is a newcomer in this House. I am talking about the past seven years that I have been here. But I know that this started as far back as 1948. Hon. members opposite kept on asking, “What is apartheid?” They referred to it sneeringly and ridiculed it. They kept on asking questions as though it did not exist. They accused us of not being honest. As recently as the beginning of this year it was still said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we were not honest with that policy. All those accusations are to be found in this White Paper. They are repeated in every debate at UNO. It is part of a big plan. I do not know whether hon. members of the Opposition are aware of it— it may be that they themselves are just being carried along willy-nilly but the role of the Opposition in this cold war is to do in this House what the people at UNO, our enemies, want them to do. What they say here merely brings grist to the mill of those people. If the hon. member for Salt River feels like coming into this debate, let him give me the answer to this question: How does it come about that an unpatriotic Opposition is quoted in every debate at UNO, either specifically or by means of sentiments expressed by them? If he is unable to reply to that, then he can go home either in the blissful dissatisfaction or in the unblissful satisfaction that he is also taking a hand in this vile campaign to throw South Africa to the wolves.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 18 April.