When the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) spoke yesterday, he opened his remarks with the following statement: “Most of the important aspects of foreign policy have already been discussed under the Prime Minister’s Vote.” After detailing matters discussed, he went on to say: “The Prime Minister replied meticulously and at great length. He spoke 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.”

Mr. Chairman, I leave aside the somewhat contemptuous reference to myself, and his later sarcastic remark about my return as a conquering hero. I take that from whence it comes. True, he tried to speak with studied moderation, I grant him that. It must have been a great strain for him, knowing him as we do. He grudgingly admitted that I had done my best but at a later stage he even discounted that admission by quoting the remark about the man thumping the piano in a Wild West saloon.

I said nothing of the sort; I did not refer to a Wild West saloon.

The hon. member knows perfectly well what was in his mind. [Laughter.] So do hon. members who are laughing. The hon. member said that I had done my best and then he added: Do not shoot the man at the piano because he is doing his best.

I said nothing of the sort.

I am very sorry, but the hon. member did. That was a reference to the well-known saying about the drinking saloons of the Wild West: Do not shoot the man at the piano, he is doing his best. That was what he said.

May I point out that I said that, not the hon. member for Constantia.

What is the difference? I accept it that it was the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) who said it.

The attitude of the hon. member for Constantia and of his colleagues, in referring to me rather contemptuously, is in striking contrast to the feeling held by thousands of their fellow English-speaking South Africans in this country, most of them, I take it, being United Party supporters. Even while I was at UN. in New York. I received a large number of cables and letters from English-speaking South Africans, some of them unknown to me. others quite prominent men, and the letters are still arriving. Only a few days ago I had a letter from a very well-known man in the Eastern Province. Obviously I cannot give his name, but he is a gentleman well known to quite a number of the hon. members. He said that he was writing as a “ware” United Party man, but that he wanted to tell me that he supported the stand I adopted at UN, together with my delegation.

The attitude of the United Party and of the Leader of the Opposition last week, and also of some of their newspapers, reminds me of a remark once made by his previous leader. Gen. Smuts, when he referred to the old Arab saying: “Let the dogs bark, the caravan moves on.” The caravan of the maintenance of White civilization in this country will move on. in spite of the criticism of the Opposition and their Press.

What the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and some of his fellow hon. members and some of their newspapers do not understand is, that my delegation and I at UN were not fighting only for the Government’s policy, although in my statement in the general debate I stated our policy very clearly. What we were fighting for was the cause of the White man in South Africa. Government policy served as a convenient target for our enemies at UN. The actual attack there, particularly of approximately 80 delegations that participated in the debate in the Special Committee. was against the White man in South Africa, and not only in South Africa, but also in Southern Rhodesia and in the Federation.

There was a reference yesterday to the Prime Minister of Nigeria. He could not understand why our Prime Minister had not immediately invited Sir Aboubaker Balewa to this country. The hon. member referred to Nigeria as “a friendly country Sir, I can testify to the fact that both in the general debate and also in the Special Committee Nigeria took the lead in attacking South Africa. I looked through the summary record before going to lunch, and I find that the Foreign Minister of Nigeria said the following—

The attack is not so much against this Government. We are a convenient target. The attack is against the White man in our country and to the north, in Rhodesia and Kenya and elsewhere. There was the remark of the Foreign Minister of Ghana, who said that they were quite content for the Whites—not the Government—to remain in South Africa, but they must remember that they would remain here on sufferance. That is the attitude of our enemies.

We had the somewhat sorry spectacle, not only this Session, but also during the last session of Parliament, of hon. members opposite virtually taking sides with our enemies at UN. For instance, I was attacked last year and also this year, and also in their Press, for hitting back when attacked by our opponents, and for showing up their hypocrisy, as for instance when Ghana poses as a democratic state. We know what the position is there.

I return to the opening remarks of the hon. member for Constantia where he referred to the fact that they had raised all the matters on Foreign Affairs on the Prime Minister’s Vote, and that as far as they were concerned, that was the last word and that he did not think it was much use raising these matters again with one of his lieutenants. Sir, I think I have the right to ask what is behind that statement. For the past four years the Opposition has made a point of deliberately raising even ordinary matters relating to Foreign Affairs on the Vote of the Prime Minister, also during the time of the late Mr. Strydom. They are fully entitled to do it. and the points having been raised, it is the duty of the Prime Minister to reply.

This is part of the tactics followed during the past few years. I want to recall what happened four years ago. We were informed by a prominent member of the then Labour Party, that he had been approached by the Opposition Whips, who had told him that when my Vote was called, they could remain seated, and they asked the Labour Party members to do the same. The Labour Party declined to fall in with that scheme, and informed one of the members on our side of the House, who told me about it. I upset that plan by getting up to speak immediately after my Vote was put. There was obvious consternation on the other side. This was the plan. They would remain seated and they asked the Labour Party to do the same because they said—“We want to make Louw look like a fool.” I afterwards taxed the Chief Whip, the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty), with what had happened. He did not deny that they intended to follow those tactics. He added that it was for the Opposition to decide whether to participate in the discussion of the Vote. That was the petty tactics which were followed then, and which was done also in with this debate. I am quite sure that this sort of thing would never happen in the British House of Commons. Our parliamentary system is largely based upon the British system. I cannot imagine the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Gaitskell, saying that they would not discuss foreign affairs on the vote of Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, who was not popular with the Labour Party, and that they would ignore him entirely. That would be contrary to the traditions of the House of Commons, and I suggest that it is also contrary to the traditions of this House.

The hon. member for Constantia confined his remarks to the White Paper which I laid on the Table, and which gave a comprehensive but condensed account of the discussions at UN. He raised a few administrative matters which obviously the Prime Minister could not deal with. So also in regard to the White Paper, the only one who knew what had happened at UN was the delegate, i.e. myself.

In view of the rather contemptuous attitude of the hon. member for Constantia, I was strongly tempted to ignore his statement, but it so happens that he raised certain matters in connection with the happenings at UN to which I would like to reply, and it gives me the opportunity of doing so. I welcome that opportunity.

The hon. member for Constantia laboured the point made by his leader on the Prime Minister’s Vote, and also by other members in the motion of censure in the beginning of the Session, namely that South Africa's colour policy is unacceptable to the outside world, and that it is therefore the cause of the hostility to South Africa at UN. Sir, I want to put the question to the Leader of the Opposition, and to the hon. member for Constantia: Was General Smuts’ segregation policy—he himself called it a segregation policy—acceptable to UN when he was the leader of the South African delegation in 1946? Was Mr. Lawrence’s policy acceptable to UN, i.e. the policy of the United Party, when he was the leader of the South African delegation in 1947? I suggest that the memory of the hon. member for Constantia is conveniently short. I have here a White Paper issued by the United Party Government in 1947, before we came into power. It refers to the discussions at UN in 1946, and more particularly to the discussion on the Indian issue, which of course was a colour issue in the same sense that the Bantu or the Coloured issue is to-day.

The White Paper issued by the United Party Government, contained the following—

The same White Paper went on to say—

Mr. Chairman, at that time there were only three Black states, and 14 Asian states. It went on to say—

General Smuts faced the same situation at UN in 1946 as we are facing to-day. He said UN was dominated by Coloured people. In 1948 there were three African states; today there are 29. In 1948 there were 14 Asian states; to-day there are 23—i.e. 16 Afro-Asians as against 52 Western states. In spite of the fact that the Afro-Asian numbers were small at that time, compared with the Western countries, General Smuts complained that UN was dominated by Coloured peoples.

In the same White Paper issued by the United Party Government, it goes on to say, in paragraph 13—

Precisely what we are saying to-day and what I said at UN on different occasions. The statement goes on—

Apartheid! Separate development! Let me read that United Party document again—

Mr. Chairman, that statement might well have been made by the present Prime Minister! It records exactly what we have stated again and again in years gone by. The statement proceeded:

We are now told that South Africa is being attacked because of our colour policy! The statement which I read was that of the United Party Government’s policy of separation, separate identity, separate development within their own areas. The White Paper of 1947, gives a résumé of the discussions that took place. One delegate after the other stood up and made exactly the same type of attack on South Africa, as was made during the last session. Here are a few! The Polish delegate said that—

That was in 1947, but it is the same sort of attack that we get to-day. Then there was the delegate of Iraq, who said that—

The Chinese delegate said more or less the same thing. The Russian delegate said the Union had done nothing to improve the situation which was based on racial prejudice and discrimination. The delegate of Yugoslavia said that considering the long list of discriminatory laws in South Africa, inter alia a law forbidding intercourse between Whites and Blacks, he would hate to be the delegate of such a country. That was in 1947! The delegate of Pakistan made a very long speech, in which he mentioned a large number of so-called restrictions and said that—

The delegate of Egypt referred to what Gandhi had said 33 years ago and said that—

The Mexican delegate said that—

Mr. Chairman, so I can go on quoting from this report, one delegate after another making exactly the same accusations against South Africa in those days, as they are making today, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House any further.

Now I come to our delegate at that time, Mr. Harry Lawrence. In those days Mr. Lawrence was a good and true United Party man and a member of the United Party Government. He was not speaking as a Progressive then. Mr. Lawrence made a fairly long statement. Speaking on behalf of the Smuts Government he said—

Sir, how often has the hon. the Prime Minister not spoken of parallel development. Here was Mr. Harry Lawrence, a Minister of the United Party Government referring to—

I have given this information to show up the hollowness of the United Party argument to-day, when they complain that South Africa is being attacked at UN because of our policy of colour differentiation. Like myself, Mr. Lawrence also did his best.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Constantia has a very short memory, but he should know about these things because he was then a Member of Parliament. Today he is trying to apply what I called at the last session of UN the double standard, one standard for the old United Party Government, and another standard for the present Government!

The hon. member for Constantia made a great point of the attack made on South Africa by Mr. Plimpton, the United States delegate. He also quoted at some length, and, if I may say so, with a certain amount of relish, Mr. Plimpton’s statement, when he spoke on the Prime Minister’s Vote. The hon. member, referring to Mr. Plimpton’s statement, said, “It was a carefully prepared speech made on behalf of the United States Government”. I interrupted yesterday and said, “Are you sure that it was made on behalf of the United States Government?” and the hon. member quite correctly said that as he was the representative of the Government it could be assumed that he had made it with the knowledge and approval of the Government.

I want to give the reason for my interruption. The speech by Mr. Plimpton was made on a Monday morning. On Friday afternoon I was in Washington, where I had a discussion lasting more than an hour with Mr. Rusk, the Secretary of State. Obviously I cannot give details of what we discussed because that would be improper, but I can say—and I am sure he would agree—that not only did we have a very full discussion which covered more or less all these matters, but it was a most friendly and cordial discussion, conducted in a friendly and cordial spirit—not the spirit shown in Mr. Plimpton’s statement. Mr. Rusk then suggested that he found the discussion very interesting, but unfortunately he had another appointment, but he said he would be coming to New York soon and would be very glad to have the opportunity for another discussion to which I readily agreed. That evening he and I were guests at the South African Embassy, and after dinner we had another talk, when he showed the same friendly spirit. That was on Friday evening. On Saturday offices are closed. As the hon. member correctly said, Mr. Plimpton’s statement was a carefully prepared one. On Monday morning the first speaker at the Special Committee meeting was Mr. Plimpton. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that the speech made by Mr. Plimpton was not cleared with Secretary Rusk. I cannot believe that it was cleared with him. I have a very high regard for Secretary Rusk. He is an honourable man and I cannot for a moment believe that Secretary Rusk would have spoken to me on Friday the way he did, if he knew that on Monday morning Mr. Plimpton was going to make what I can only describe as an unbridled attack on South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, at the last session of UN, the leader of the U.S. delegation was Mr. Adlai Stevenson. I am convinced in my own mind that the person behind the Plimpton speech was Mr. Stevenson. There is a favourite word in America, viz. “dedicated”. They are dedicated to this, and they are dedicated to that. I should say Mr. Stevenson is dedicated to a hatred of South Africa. He has never lost an opportunity of attacking South Africa. Then there is the other man in the picture, viz. Mr. Mennen Williams.

Oh, yes, Soapy!

He is the head of the Africa Division, and he was probably consulted in the preparation of that statement. I am convinced in my own mind that it was not cleared with Secretary Rusk. I am glad I can think so, because I would be greatly disappointed if I thought he had seen it before our discussion on Friday. The hon. member for Constantia is right. It was most disappointing and distressing to me that a number of Western delegates at this last session of UN attacked South Africa, and some of them very strongly. One of them was the French delegate. The attack by the French delegate was most surprising to me, in view of the fact that only three weeks previously I had had a long interview with Pres. de Gaulle, which was also a very friendly and cordial interview. He said nothing which could have given the impression that his delegate was going to attack South Africa within three weeks at UN. May I add that the attack of the French delegate was the more surprising, in view of the fact that South Africa has always given full and unqualified support to France on the Algerian question when that was raised at the United Nations. I remember on one occasion I was the only delegate who voted with France in connection with that question. I agree here with the hon. member for Constantia that it is distressing and also alarming, that a number of the Western delegates went out of their way to attack South Africa, and not only to attack South Africa but to make eulogistic references to Luthuli. I also found these attacks alarming, and naturally, one seeks the reason. After all, there has been no real change in South Africa’s colour policy since the days of General Smuts and Mr. Harry Lawrence.

What rubbish.

It is the same policy of segregation, described by Mr. Lawrence at the UN Assembly as one of separation and of parallel development. The only difference is that the position of the Bantu has been improved.

What about the “swart gevaar”?

I know hon. members opposite do not want to know it, but it is a fact. The position of the Bantu has been improved as the result of the Prime Minister’s announcement regarding eventual self-government for the Transkei. The position for the Coloured man has been and is still being improved.

He was taken off the Common Roll.

I say, without fear of contradiction and whatever interjections hon. members opposite may make, that since 1947 there has been a considerable improvement in the position, and in the living conditions of the Black man as well as of the Coloured and of the Indian. Take housing conditions, as an example. Take the housing conditions that existed at the time when General Smuts was making that speech at the United Nations, and compare the housing conditions under which the Natives in our bigger cities are living to-day. The same applies to the Coloureds, even in the small towns.

Mr. Chairman, what is the reason for the change in the attitude of the Western nations towards South Africa? In the first place I ascribe it to the anti-colonialism campaign which was started round about 1954-5, in which the United States of America took the lead, and which led to the establishment of the independent Black States, the desire for freedom and to hostility to the White man. The anti-colonialism campaign led to a great increase in the number of independent Black States in Africa, from three to 29. It also led to an increase in the strength of the Afro-Asian bloc.

In a previous discussion, hon. members opposite referred to the difference in voting figures at the United Nations. They asked: What was the position in the United Nations in 1948, and what is it to-day? I take the Afro-Asian bloc and the communist States which in these matters consistently vote with the Afro-Asian bloc. I take also seven States in the West Indies, the Caribbean, in Central America, that consistently vote with them. states like Cuba, Haiti and the others. The position is that to-day there are 71 such states as compared with the position in 1948 when there were only 16 Asian states plus six communist States and three African states. To-day the Afro-Asians alone command a majority, but together with Caribbean states and the communist bloc they now command a two-thirds majority. In other words, the Afro-Asian bloc together with those States, is in full command of the United Nations. With their two-thirds majority they can push through any measure that requires a two-thirds majority, and they can block any measure proposed by the Western States and which requires a two-thirds majority.

Mr. Chairman, that is the voting position to-day, and I consider that it is one of the main contributing factors towards the unfriendly attitude of some of these Western nations towards South Africa. What we are having to-day is an appeasement of the African States. The speech made by Mr. Adlai Stevenson a few days ago, which was severely and also rightly criticized by Sir Roy Welensky, shows the direction in which the Western States are going. They are following a policy of appeasing the African States.

Again and again, at the recent session of the United Nations, South Africa was described as a colony, not as an independent State. The Foreign Minister of Nigeria, the so-called “friendly” State, according to the hon. member of Kensington, when referring to me, did not observe the usual courtesies and formalities of the United Nations where they refer to “the honourable delegate” and more often to “the distinguished delegate”. He referred to me as: “That man who represents a minority in a so-called Republic.” That was the attitude of this so-called “friendly” State of Nigeria!

Then, Sir, there is another factor which contributes to this unfriendly attitude of some of the Western States, viz. communistic penetration in Africa, which is undoubtedly taking place. Last but not least, there is the desire on the part of some of these Western nations to keep good friends with the new African States because of export market possibilities, and also for the purpose of securing the raw materials of Africa. Hon. members may recall that three or four years ago I dealt in this House with the report of three United States Congressional Commissions which had been sent to Africa, from which it was quite clear that these were the objectives of American foreign policy, viz. to maintain friendship with the African States for political reasons, and above all, as one of those reports said, “to sell the thousand and one gadgets that we manufacture in the United States”. That is what is behind this unfriendly attitude of some of the Western countries towards South Africa. Portugal is having exactly the same experience. She receives little sympathy or support in connection with her troubles in Angola, although nobody can complain of Portugal’s colour policy. Theirs is an out-and-out policy of integration and assimilation. So also as regards the Indian aggression in Goa. Did any of these Western nations do anything about it? It was said here yesterday that England could not attack India because India was a Commonwealth country. There is no question of a military attack. There is however such a thing as defending Portugal at the United Nations against unprovoked aggression by India. If there is one country which during past years has spoken of promoting peace, and settling disputes by peaceful means, then it has been India. I myself have heard Mr. Nehru and Mr. Krishna Menon at the United Nations pleading that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means and that military measures should not be used. And yet there has been this brutal aggression against Goa. Did Britain or America or the other Western nations denounce it? There was a milk-and-watery objection, and there it remained.

Mr. Chairman, Southern Rhodesia is having exactly the same experience. We see what is happening now—something that nobody would ever have imagined before, viz. that Britain would be hauled before the United Nations and would have to resort to the defence to which we have often resorted, namely Article 2, paragraph 7, against intervention in Britain’s domestic affairs. Britain had to agree to a committee of 15 being sent from the United Nations to go into the question as to whether or not Southern Rhodesia is really self-governing.

The hon. member for Constantia made a statement with which I am in full agreement. He said that South Africa was regarded, not as an asset, but as an obstacle in the fight against Communism which is being carried on in Africa. We must realize, he said, that we are only a pawn in a bigger game. I agree with that, and if the hon. member for Constantia really believes that himself, then why does he blame South Africa’s colour policy? If we are only a pawn in the game, if we are an obstacle in the fight against Communism, why then blame our colour policy? He cannot have it both ways!

As I said, Southern Rhodesia finds herself in exactly the same position in spite of her policy of partnership; in spite of the fact that even social barriers are being broken down in their search for a solution of their problem. That is their affair; I am not criticizing their methods. I am simply saying that in spite of that policy, Rhodesia is now coming under fire. Does the United Party favour the breaking down of social barriers? That is the only thing that will satisfy the Black nations of Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister and I can testify to the fact that at the Prime Ministers’ Conference. they said that they would be satisfied with nothing less than full political equality, and the doing away with all discrimination. Is the United Party in favour of that? If they are not, then theymust not attack me when on behalf of South Africa I defend the White man in our country.

Mr. Chairman, in the statement made by the hon. member for Constantia about South Africa being a pawn in the game I find ground for what is often referred to as a common approach. The real reason for the attacks on South Africa was, he said, that we are regarded not as an asset but as an obstacle in the fight against Communism which is being carried on in Africa; we must realize that we are only a pawn in a bigger game. If he believes that, and I believe he does, then I suggest that there we have ground for what he calls a common approach.

The hon. member also made some reference to the sanction proposals at the United Nations. He talked about “measures” which he said America might also take. By way of interruption I asked whether he was referring to sanctions, and the hon. member admitted that he was referring to sanctions. Mr. Chairman, I asked my Department this morning to let me have the record of voting—it is to be found also in the White Paper—to find out exactly what happened when the sanction proposals were before the United Nations. I find there that those countries which have important connections and trade relations with South Africa, voted against most of those proposals. There were 20 countries that abstained from voting. Those who voted for the application of sanctions were mostly the Asians, the Latin American countries and certain Asian countries such as Burma, Ceylon, Malaya, India, Lebanon, Iran, the Philippines and Thailand. For a sanction resolution, a two-thirds majority is required. It is perfectly true, as the hon. member said, that the failure to secure a two-thirds majority was a narrow one. It was a very nervous moment for us when the voting was taking place. On the other hand, in the case of a proposal for a general boycott, 48 voted in favour and 31 against, so they were far from securing the necessary two-thirds majority. In any case, I have to point out that any decision of the General Assembly in such a matter, can only be by way of recommendation to the member States. The General Assembly has no power to apply sanctions. The power to apply sanctions rests with the Security Council.

Am I wrong in thinking that such a resolution, if it were passed by two-thirds, would be referred to the Security Council for action to be taken, if necessary?

Not necessarily. It could be if a sufficient number of States asked for it. In the Security Council, as the hon. member knows, there is the veto.

Can the veto now be overcome by a two-thirds majority?

No, the veto is absolute.

May I mention something else. It is almost inconceivable that a country like the United Kingdom that has a large export trade to South Africa—I should say that we probably rank about third or fourth on her list of customers—is going to take the risk of losing that trade. Do you think for a moment, that the United States of America which has a large favourable balance with South Africa and which has large investments here, is going to take the risk of losing that trade? Can you imagine for a moment that countries operating air services to South Africa, are going to take the chance of losing the income that they get from air services? Naturally not. The one thing that one learns at the United Nations, is that every nation looks after its own interests, first and last, and acts according to what it considers to be in its own interest.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on the Prime Minister’s Vote, when he dealt with a number of matters affecting foreign policy. As stated by the hon. member for Constantia, he covered a very wide field. Sir, I do not propose to deal with that part of his statement—a considerable part—which dealt with South West Africa. I would like to do so, but it would be improper to do so at present. We were told by the hon. member for Constantia that in the course of this debate, the Opposition would not deal with that issue. As the Minister concerned with the matter, and as the Minister responsible for the correspondence that has passed, and for the arrangements for the visit of the delegation, it would be most improper for me to deal with the matter and I do not intend doing so. I wish to make an appeal now, if I may, to the Press as I did when I was at Durban recently. I then appealed to the Press to refrain from speculation and comment where we are dealing with what is undoubtedly a most delicate and difficult matter. The Press has not heeded my appeal and I wish to repeat it to-day. For instance, I am very much disturbed by cartoons that have been appearing both in the Cape Times, in the Argus, and I think also in one of the Natal papers—I have not received any Johannesburg papers yet—cartoons which are intended to ridicule the two UN representatives, cartoons showing the Mexican delegate in a huge Mexican hat with a shawl across his shoulders and that sort of thing. [Laughter.] It is not a matter for laughter. I know those people better than hon. members opposite do. They are very sensitive about a thing like that—not only the Latin Americans but also the Asians. What can our Press possibly achieve by cartoons ridiculing the visit of the delegates? Then too I noticed in the Cape Argus of yesterday there is what is described as the first of three articles written by their special representative at Windhoek. I have read through the first of these articles. I have seldom read anything more mischievous. It is clearly intended “to throw a spanner in the works”, to try to make things difficult, for the very important discussions will very soon be commencing. I notice that the Argus also went to the extent of interviewing the leader of the Herero people and getting him, probably by suggestion, to make statements to the effect that they were not at all satisfied with the fact that the whole committee was not visiting S.W. Africa, and so on and so forth. Mr. Chairman, I do not for a moment believe that the newspaper editors will pay any attention to my appeal. Editors do as they please. But I do suggest that those who sit on the Boards of Directors of those papers should realize that it is most important that during this time, articles and cartoons of that nature should not be appearing in the Press.

While listening to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I wondered whether he realized that in making the statements that he did on the Prime Minister’s Vote—statements which naturally are immediately cabled to New York—what harm he was doing to his country. Some of his statements sounded familiar to me. In fact, as the saying goes, they “rang a bell”. I looked up the summary record of the United Nations discussion in the special Political Committee, and there I find that the delegate of Ethiopia went out of his way to quote from Hansard. They all get the Hansards; they know exactly what is going on. The delegate from Ethiopia said that—

Then he continued—

He referred to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan)—

Sir, extraordinarily enough, those are exactly the same words which were used by the Leader of the Opposition who also spoke about our “defeats”. These statements are reported. One of the hon. members said yesterday that I wanted to deny freedom of speech of Members of Parliament. That is nonsense. But I do suggest that when dealing with these matters in regard to which we know that the Afro-Asian groups are conducting a vindictive campaign against South Africa, we should be more careful both in this House and outside, not to make statements which can be used against South Africa afterwards.

That is why you kept quiet during the war years.

I want to say this to the Leader of the Opposition that the statements which he made in his speech on the Prime Minister’s Vote, will as surely as I am standing here, be used next year as ammunition against South Africa, when we have to defend our position at the United Nations.

The main charge of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was that we are isolated from world opinion, that we are cut off from the rest of Africa because of the colour issue. He made the same statement in the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote. He said that this isolation would continue while the present Government was in power. Sir, I want to know what inference is to be drawn from these remarks of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? Do they mean that if his party were in power, there would be no colour discrimination? Does it mean that there will then be full political equality? As I have said, and as we saw at the Commonwealth Conference, the Blacks of Africa and also the militant section of the Blacks in our country will be satisfied with nothing less than full political equality. They will be satisfied with nothing less than doing away with discriminatory legislation and with discriminatory social barriers. Surely he ought to know that they will be satisfied with nothing less. The hon. Leader of the Opposition also said— these were his words—“South Africa’s position is worse than it was in 1948”.

You admitted that yourself.

Sir, I will take him up on that. He said that South Africa’s position to-day is worse than it was in 1948. Is that not equally true of a number of other Western countries? Is it only South Africa’s position that has become worse since 1948, particularly with the huge accretion in the number of Afro-Asian delegates working together with the Russian bloc which gives them a two-thirds majority?

Let me mention a few instances. Ten years ago it was unthinkable, quite unthinkable, that the United Nations would adopt proposals questioning Rhodesia’s relationship with the United Kingdom, a motion which was recently carried not only by an ordinary majority, but by a two-thirds majority? There is the question of communist China. In 1950 when the matter of admitting communist China as a member of the United Nations was first raised, discussion of the proposal was defeated; America took the lead and discussion was blocked by an overwhelming majority. That was in 1950. Every year since then the position has become more difficult, and at the last session the United States was obliged to concede that it could be discussed. True, the resolution itself was defeated, but they had to concede that the matter could be discussed whereas in the past they had vigorously opposed it, and with success.

Until two years ago, Portugal managed to defeat proposals to discuss the Portugese Provinces. This Portugal has also had to concede. The Netherlands in past years easily defeated unfavourable resolutions in regard to West New Guinea. What is the position to-day?I need not discuss it. The position therefore is, that not only South Africa’s position, but also that of the individual Western nations has deteriorated since 1948. South Africa is in exactly the same position. I repeat that this is due to the factors which I mentioned just now, particularly the great increase in the Afro-Asian numbers. There is another factor. We have always in the past relied on Article2 (7) of the Charter which forbids intervention in domestic affairs. It was relied upon by General Smuts; it was relied upon by Mr. Lawrence and it has since been relied upon by all South African delegations. To-day, whether we like it or not, Article 2 (7) seems to have lost its validity. When the protection of Article 2 (7) was recently claimed by the British delegate in connection with the Southern Rhodesia issue, it was swept aside. The United Kingdom after fighting for several years at the United Nations on the question of Cyprus, was obliged to give in. France, after putting up a fight at the UN for several years with regard to Algeria, was obliged to give in. There was an occasion when I was the only delegate in the United Nations Assembly who stood by France in connection with the Algerian question. And then there is the present United Nations attack in regard to Southern Rhodesia. I have here the report of what happened in those discussions and the attitude taken up by the delegate of the United Kingdom. He said—

Whatever may be said about the present leaders of Southern Rhodesia, they are not advocates of racial supremacy.

I do not want to intrude into the local domestic affairs of Rhodesia. I mention this to show that even those arguments carried no weight. The U.K. delegate was voted down by a two-thirds majority, and a UN commission was sent to the United Kingdom to discuss with the British Government the position of Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Chairman, it must be realized, and I do hope, Sir, that hon. members on the other side will realize the fact that the fight at the United Nations is not so much against the South African colour policy. We are the target. The fight is in fact against the White man in Africa.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition said: “We are isolated from the rest of Africa; we must accept that as long as this Government is in power we will be isolated.” I strongly disagree. If the United Party were to get into power and if they were to continue with what the Leader of the Opposition says is their policy, viz. a policy of continuing racial discrimination, and of preserving the position of the White man (his policy of White leadership, whatever that may be), then he is going to get exactly the same opposition from the African countries that South Africa is getting to-day.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that we have isolated ourselves, and that no attempts have been made by this Government to develop friendly relations with the African countries. Sir, that is not true. We have made advances, again and again, but always we have been rebuffed. There was my approach to Dr. Nkrumah a few years ago. I asked him to have lunch with me in my hotel in London, and we had a long discussion until about 3 o’clock that afternoon—a very friendly discussion. I explained our policy. He was very much interested in certain aspects of our policy.

When the Sudan became independent, the South African Government’s telegram to congratulate the Prime Minister of Sudan was the first to be sent. I happened to mention that at the United Nations when they were attacking us, and the Foreign Minister of Sudan said then that it was perfectly true; the South African telegram of congratulation was the first to be received. He added: “I am proud of the fact that we did not even take the trouble to acknowledge it.” That is the sort of treatment we get from those countries.

There were the Congo independence celebrations. The hon. Minister of Economic Affairs was ready to leave in order to represent South Africa at those celebrations when we were informed that he would not be welcome, and he was obliged to cancel his departure. We sent a delegate to Malaya. He was received. We proposed sending a delegate to either Nigeria or the Ivory Coast, I am not sure which of them; we were advised beforehand that visas would probably not be granted.

Mr. Chairman, we have co-operated with the African states to the greatest possible extent in many ways. I was looking through the figures to-day and I was amazed at what South Africa has done in the way of giving technical and scientific assistance to the countries of Africa during the past few years.

Then when I was at the United Nations in 1959, I was approached by the Foreign Minister of Ghana who came to see me personally, and who handed me a letter from Dr. Nkrumah, inviting me to visit Ghana. I told him that all my arrangements had already been made for returning to South Africa via South America, but that I would be very happy to visit Ghana at a later date. Then there was our parliamentary session, and subsequently I went to the Commonwealth Conference, where I represented our present hon. Prime Minister, after an attempt had been made on his life. There at the Queen’s reception, I got into a conversation with Dr. Nkrumah, and I said: Now about that visit; what do you recommend as the best time from the climatic point of view for me to pay that visit to Ghana? I noticed that he sort of pushed the matter aside, and the next day when we were having one of those private discussions at 10 Downing Street, where I was asked to give information about our policy to small groups of Prime Ministers, there was some reference to our bad relations with the African states. I said “But that is not so. As a matter of fact, Dr. Nkrumah has invited me to come and visit him, and I intend going later this year”. Dr. Nkrumah immediately intervened and said: “That invitation has been cancelled.” This was said in the presence of the other Prime Ministers. Afterwards when we adjourned for drinks, I said to him “What is the reason for the cancellation?” He said: “I cancelled that invitation because of Sharpeville.” Sharpeville had taken place a few months previously. Later there was the Ghana boycott. Hon. members will remember the regulation that any South African passing through Ghana by air had to sign a declaration that he did not support the Government’s policy.

And then the United Arab Republic broke off diplomatic relations without any reason whatsoever. Our relations with them had been very good. Our relations with Mr. Mahmoud, their Minister here, had been friendly. We were simply informed that he had been recalled, and that diplomatic relations were broken off. I had to recall our Minister.

Somalia recently announced a number of steps to be taken against South Africa—a trade boycott, no planes allowed to fly over the country, and so forth.

There is also our inability to attend African conferences because of the fact that the countries concerned declined to give visas. Our deputation was ready to leave to attend the Telecommunications Conference in Senegal. We were informed that visas would not be issued. We were warned beforehand, by the Secretary-General of the C.C.T.A.. that we would not be welcome at the Abidjan conference. We got a similar warning in connection with the E.C.A. Conference at Addis Ababa. There again we actually applied for visas, but they were not forthcoming. There was the Tuberculosis Conference recently. There again visas were refused. We have gone out of our way to co-operate with the African states but we have had no response. We have had nothing but rebuffs.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that our isolation in Africa was due to South Africa’s colour policy. I want again to remind him of the anti-colonial campaign at the UN, and that we are regarded as colonials, as was said again and again at recent conferences. The African states are waging a cold war, a campaign against Whites in this country. The slogan is “Africa for the Africans”. South Africa is regarded as a convenient target. They demand “No discrimination”. The main reason, however, I repeat, is the policy of appeasement of the African states by the Western states for the reasons which I have given.

As regards the censure motion, I want to point out that it was preceded by what was clearly an arranged campaign of a series of attacks on South Africa in the General Debate. In the General Debate matters of a general nature are raised, as the name indicates. It is seldom that attacks are made on individual states, except now and then by Russia. But on this occasion there was a series of attacks on South Africa. My statement in the General Debate is fully set out in the White Paper.

The censure motion and the attack on South Africa was based on the allegation that I had insulted the African states. Mr. Chairman, I did nothing of the sort. The delegate of Liberia stated that I had said that the Natives in South Africa are, in regard to housing, medical services, social services and education, far better off than in any other country in Africa. That is correct. I had the figures to prove it. figures from the Department of Statistics of the United Nations itself. That was the reason for the censure motion. In my reply I took up the attitude that this was an attempt to interfere with the right of free speech in the UN Assembly. I pointed out that if that precedent were to be created, it would mean that quite a number of other speeches, also at the previous session, would have to be expunged from the record, as was demanded in respect of my statement in the General Debate.

The attitude of the American Press was a pleasing feature. The American newspapers almost unanimously supported my attitude, and condemned the action of the United Nations. The Herald Tribute, a leading newspaper of New York, wrote—

The Washington Post, a paper which has never been friendly towards South Africa, had a leader the following day headed “Fishwivesin the UN”, which opened with this paragraph—

Mr. David Lawrence, who is one of the best-known journalists in America, also the editor of U.S. News and World Report, which, I think, is known to many hon. members, but who is also a columnist, wrote in his column—

Then he continued—

Several of the papers referred sarcastically to the American delegation and others “sitting on their hands ”, as they call it, i.e., for abstaining instead of supporting us. The Evening Star of Washington, a leading paper there, said—

I have several other newspaper comments here to show what the attitude was of the Press in America against the mob-like hysteria of the Afro-Asian nations and the failure of the Western nations to support the principle of free speech at the United Nations.

Sir, another reason for this hostility to South Africa is undoubtedly the false, distorted picture of South Africa in Press dispatches. There are for instance the Press dispatches of a certain Leonard Ingalls, the representative in South Africa of the New York Times. It is almost unbelievable, the type of distorted dispatch that he sends to his paper. There are also articles in magazines. One of the worst of the Press correspondents and stringers is Mr. Stanley Uys; I have some of his stuff here, which he sends to papers in America and also to the Straits Times, in a non-White country. Under the headline “Verwoerd’s land of make-believe” he writes—

This was a dispatch to the Straits Times, published in Singapore.

And the same picture is presented to the people of the United States. He sent a dispatch to the Washington Post in which he said—

You can imagine, Sir, the effect of that dispatch on American investors and on American businessmen.

I have an article here, which was also quoted in the Press there, which I can only describe as thoroughly shameful. It is a leading article in the Cape Argus, dealing with my statement in the General Assembly which was defended by the American newspapers including an article by a man like David Lawrence. In this article headed “Electioneering at UN ” the Cape Argus says—

Mr. Chairman, my statement was fairly fully reported in the Press here, and by no manner of means could it be described as a party political harangue. The Argus says further—

And so on. This is the sort of stuff that is published here, and sent over in the form of Press dispatches. This is the ammunition supplied to our enemies at the United Nations to be used against South Africa.

The South African Information Service is doing its best to counter this. I can speak from experience, because for several years the Information Service was under my control. Unfortunately information and propaganda cost a lot of money, and our funds were insufficient. Now a new Department has been created with its own Minister, and I am very happy to say with increased funds. I am sure that they will now be able to do more in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to give the House a few examples of the attacks which are made against South Africa, taken from the records of the United Nations General Assembly—

Then the following insulting statements—

These are only a few examples of the sort of thing we had to put up with there. Is it a wonder, Sir, where African delegates obviously believe those stories (they seem to speak with sincerity), that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that South Africa is isolated!

Then there were threats of military action. I quoted those the other day in the course of a speech. I quoted 16 cases. Sir, whether or not those military threats were mere bluff, as was suggested by certain newspapers, and I think also in this House, they cannot just be dismissed. I suggest that the hon. the Minister of Defence was fully justified to take note of them. He would be neglecting his duty if he did not do so.

You seem to have a quarrel with the Prime Minister who said that they could not be taken so seriously.

The hon. the Prime Minister fully agreed with the Minister of Defence. I remember that he said that some of the expressions were somewhat flowery, something of that sort, but that he fully agreed with the statements made by the Minister of Defence. [Laughter.] I know the Opposition is doing its utmost to try and see a difference between the statements of the hon. the Prime Minister and the statements of the Minister of Defence. They see something which does not exist. Several of the African countries openly advocated military action against South Africa.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “As long as we have this Government in power, we are going to be entirely isolated from the Continent of Africa.” Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition really believe that the African National Congress and the Pan-African Congress would be satisfied with his policy, such as it is? Last week he again described his policy as one of White leadership. Nobody knows what that means, and I don’t think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself knows what it means. But if it does mean, as he has suggested, White control (let us leave aside the word “domination”), then he can be quite sure that he will have exactly the same trouble and the same isolation, the same opposition from the Bantu in South Africa and from the Black states on the rest of the Continent of Africa. He said that the Government’s record is one of one diplomatic defeat after the other. I deny that charge. But I want to say this: If standing up to the attacks, and not lying down to be kicked around, is considered to be a diplomatic defeat, then I for one do not mind being defeated. But I strongly deny the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that there has been the one defeat after the other. The same could also be said of the other Western countries, as I have already shown.

It should be clear to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that there is a change of sentiment taking place in South Africa, there is no doubt about it. I was in Natal the other day and I had talks there with businessmen, with professional men, and they said that there is a change taking place. They see what is happening in the North, and they realize that the United Party does not have a policy to deal with these issues. The hon. Leader of the Opposition may rely on the victory he had over the Progressive Party in Durban, but let me tell him that one of these businessmen told me: We are in trouble; we do not want to vote for the United Party, but on the other hand we cannot possibly vote for the Progressive Party which stands for integration and doing away with racial discrimination; so in those circumstances we are forced to vote for the United Party.

Why don’t you put up candidates there?

We would not succeed in getting our candidates elected, but the hon. gentleman would be surprised to see how many votes our candidate would secure.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark quoted a report from the Natal Daily News, of a dinner where I addressed 400 or more hard-boiled businessmen at Durban, and which stated that when I had finished my address as the Natal Daily News put it, I had a standing ovation. [Laughter.] They may laugh, but that would not have happened five or six years ago. However much the Opposition may try to laugh it off, it shows that there is a change of feeling also in the Province of Natal. People there see what is happening in the North, they have seen what happened at the United Nations.

The statement of the Leader of the Opposition the other day was irresponsible in certain respects. The purpose of his statement was to gain some political advantage for his party and for himself. He was not so much concerned about the future of South Africa as he was concerned about the future of his own party.

Which statement?

The hon. member’s statement on the Prime Minister’s Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have dealt with the statements of the Leader of the Opposition and of the hon. member for Constantia. Several specific points were raised by other hon. members with which I shall deal at a later stage.

I expressed the hope yesterday that I would initiate a responsible debate on the very important question of Foreign Affairs, and I thought that I had done so. Apparently in the eyes of the hon. the Minister I did not. He took exception to what he called “the contemptuous references” made about him in my opening remarks, and the only contemptuous reference he quoted was where I referred to him as a lieutenant of the hon. the Prime Minister. Well, I am very sorry. I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister thinks that it is contemptuous of me to refer to his Minister of Foreign Affairs as his lieutenant. I can assure the hon. the Minister that was not my intention. I have a reasonable knowledge and command of the English language, and if I wished to be contemptuous, I assure him I would not have used the word “lieutenant”.

Then the hon. the Minister took some time to make out a case that there was a concerted campaign from this side of the House to belittle him. Mr. Chairman, I can assure him that is not the case. There is no need to belittle the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He belittles himself every time he makes a speech. As he did indeed this afternoon. As a matter of fact, Sir, the Minister of Lands belittled him most of the afternoon by sleeping soundly while his colleague was speaking. The hon. the Minister criticized the speeches made by this side of the House and the Press and the cartoons on the ground that they were quoted abroad and used against him and against South Africa on occasions like United Nations meetings. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he does not preach that same sermon to his colleagues. The Cabinet are doing things every day and every week which make front-page news abroad and which do infinitely more harm to the cause of South Africa than any speech which is made on this side of the House.

What things?

Things such as the mess they have made about this non-European golf tournament. Quite apart from the merits of the case, the way in which this non-European golf championship has been handled is quite shocking. And there are many other cases. Some of the speeches of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) are more damaging to South Africa than anything which is said on this side of the House. The hon. the Minister might confine himself to try to clean his own Augean Stable before he starts on this side of the House. The hon. the Minister quoted at great length what General Smuts had to say in 1948. He argued that because there were votes against us in 1946, 1947 and 1948 the position would have been exactly the same had we still governed the country. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has had long experience of the late General Smuts. I think he had a fair amount of respect for his intellectual capacity and his ability. Does he really believe that a man of General Smuts’ ability, experience and knowledge of the world, would solemnly have sat in the Prime Minister’s seat for 14 years while the position developed into what it is to-day? I think it is ludicrous and the hon. the Minister knows it is ludicrous.

What would you have done?

There is an old Chinese proverb which says the wise bamboo bends in the wind. The inference is that when the typhoon is over the bamboo is still there well and strongly rooted standing upright. If the wise bamboo does not bend in the wind then it will mean that when the typhoon is over it will be lying flat on the ground. Does the Minister believe that the Government under General Smuts would have spend the last 14 years passing the mass of restrictive and oppressive legislation which this Government has passed and which has done immense harm to us in forming world opinion about us? Of course he knows it is not so.

The hon. the Minister quoted speeches which were made in 1946 and 1947 condemning South Africa. But I noticed that he did not quote one single speech of any Western Power or any member of the Commonwealth. In other words, in those days our friends were still our friends. As I said in introducing this debate, those friends were no longer our friends as a result of the policies of the present Government. Then the Minister, with his usual facility for trailing his coat and making friends, then attacked the United States again this afternoon. He made a very serious charge against Mr. Plimpton, in saying that Mr. Plimpton in making the speech which he did make, did not represent the views of his Government. He went on to say that it was really inspired by Mr. Stevenson whom he was pleased to describe as being dedicated to hatred of South Africa. I hope these remarks will be taken notice of by the United States because if it is true that Mr. Plimpton was not representing the views of his Government, it is quite obvious that his Government should have told the Minister that. If Mr. Stevenson is dedicated to hatred of South Africa, then quite clearly we have a complaint against the United States. I think both those things should be dealt with. Those irresponsible statements by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs make us understand why it is that he personally has failed to make friends anywhere he has been on foreign missions during the last 14 years. He then went on to attack France.

He then referred to something which I had said about our being a pawn. He agreed with me. But, Sir, it did not occur to him to ask why we are a pawn. In the game of chess which is going on for Africa to-day we ought not to be a pawn: we ought to be a knight or a bishop or a major man in the set. Nothing the Minister has said convinces me that we are a pawn for any other reason than because of the race policies of the present Government. The Minister has given us the assurance, very placidly, that in his opinion there is nothing to worry about as far as sanctions by the United Nations are concerned. He has said that countries like the United States, acting according to him from the lowest possible motives, will never agree to imposing any sanctions to us.

Also Great Britain.

He mentioned Britain too.

Why concentrate on the United States?

I am not; the hon. the Minister concentrated on the United States. Most of his vitriol was spent on the United States.

I concentrated on Mr. Plimpton, not on the United States.

The Minister mentioned Mr. Stevenson, did he not?

So did Sir Roy Welensky.

The hon. the Minister gave us a list of boycotts; occasions where we had been barred from taking part in various conferences and celebrations and so on. Why have we been boycotted in that way? I repeat, Sir, that the hon. the Minister, in the hour and a half at least that he has been talking, has said nothing to disprove or to alter our view that all these boycotts, all these barrings are due to the policies of this Government over the past 14 years and to the rigid granite-like attitude which they are still maintaining to the ultimate doom, in my opinion, of White South Africa.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has just stated that the wise man will always yield to superior forces (“buig in die wind”). He used an English saying which sounds like a translation from Chinese, “The proud bamboo bows in the wind”.

The term I used was, “A wise bamboo bends in the wind

I did not hear clearly what he said. In other words, we ought to make concessions in the face of the attacks which are being made upon us. Sir, the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Dr. J. H. Steyn) asked here yesterday what concessions the United Party would be prepared to make. After all, it would then be a case of the “wise bamboo bending in the wind”. Is that not so? I now repeat the question put by the hon. member for Potchefstroom, and until such time as the hon. member for Constantia replies to it, he cannot pose here as one who is entitled to be called wise.

But, Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to reply to the hon. member for Constantia because it is perfectly clear that side is unable to reply to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. There is something else that I should very much like to do. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a report which appeared in the Cape Times of the 9th of this month. This is a report of an interview with Sir Roger Stevens. The heading reads—

Whitehall man criticizes apartheid. “Racial policies mar foreign relations.”

If I understand the position correctly, this Sir Roger is an official of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom. It is customary, and it is also in accordance with the rules of international law, for an ambassador or an accredited political representative of a foreign country who enjoys immunity, to refrain from criticizing the domestic affairs of the country in which he finds himself. Here we have a guest …

He is not accredited.

Then it is even worse. Here we have a guest who takes a liberty which even a person enjoying immunity is not permitted to take. This guest comes here and enjoys a certain amount of hospitality from this Government and from this country and then he has the audacity to voice criticism of this kind. Let me read out a further passage from this report—

He complains about our attitude because it makes his task elsewhere much more difficult. I mention this for two reasons. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has brought this “noble” impertinence on the part of this official to his notice and whether he has drawn the attention of the accredited representative of the United Kingdom to it? In expressing my disapproval of it here to-day, I am expressing the disapproval of the whole of South Africa. One reason why I have stood up is to make this point.

The other is that this hon. gentleman, who comes from overseas and who complains that our conduct is making his task more difficult, is also faced in his own country with these difficulties which make his task difficult. Here, for example, I have a cutting from the Sunday Express of 1 April of this year—

That is in Sir Roger’s own country, but perhaps he overlooks it there. The report says—

Why, when this Sir Roger has sufficient troubles in his own country, troubles which complicate his task in Rhodesia and elsewhere, does he go out of his way here to criticize us, particularly after the hospitality that he enjoyed here? His conduct is that of a person who does not know what is permitted and what is not permitted. Let me say to him, on behalf of the whole of South Africa, that he is doing something “that is not done”. So much with regard to Sir Roger.

I could go on in the same way about the racial discrimination in Canada, another member of the Commonwealth, that complicates Sir Roger’s task. I could go on discussing the hypocrisy of the members of the Commonwealth (just to confine myself to them), but it is really neither here not there. I should like to put another matter to the hon. the Minister. I notice that on Vote 10, Item K provides for R378,600 for the United Nations. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) has said that we must remain a member of the United Nations. I subscribe to that. But this big sum, Mr. Chairman, leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. UN has appeared to be nothing but an international meddlesome body, which has apparently been taken over by the Afro-Asian countries and which to-day dictates to the United States, if not her foreign policy then her Africa policy. I should like to know how many of these member countries which have so much to say there, are paying their subscriptions as regularly as we do. I do not want to suggest that we in South Africa should break our good record of always paying our accounts punctually and on time and that we should also fall into arrears with our payments, but I should like to know whether there is not some way in which we can bring it home to these people that those who do not pay ought not to have the vote. In any case we should find some way of continually reminding them that they are not meeting their international obligations. Even if these adolescent nations do not mind propagating the greatest falsehoods, even if they do not mind being the worst debtors, and even if their audacity knows no limits when they try to dictate to a country like America what her foreign policies should be, surely they should have some sense of shame. As I say, it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth when I find that we pay and they do not.

If there is one thing of which one is becoming thoroughly sick, it is the attempt that is being made by Government speakers to place the blame for the bad name that South Africa has abroad on speeches and statements by the Opposition. That is very far indeed from the truth. Because the simple fact is that what is responsible for the bad reputation that South Africa has to-day is not what the Opposition says but the deeds of the Government. I have also seen a bit of the world, and I have yet to see great publicity being given in foreign newspapers to a speech by a member of the Opposition. It is not speeches made in the House of Assembly by members of the Opposition which give South Africa bad publicity in the foreign Press; it is the laws enacted by this Government and all the administrative pin-pricks which accompany the implementation of the policy of small apartheid; it is the extravagances of Government members themselves with regard to matters of colour. Where I have come across representatives of South Africa abroad, I have repeatedly heard the bitter complaint from them that the good work that they do to-day is broken down to-morrow by a speech by a member of the Government, or by speeches made by Members of Parliament on the Government side—not speeches made by the Opposition. There is a host of things that one could mention that harm South Africa and which are unnecessary and which the Government could eliminate from the public life of South Africa. There are such things as married people being brought before the Court under the Immorality Act; there are all the colour crises in connection with sport. Why, for example, cannot the Government arrange for sporting bodies to regulate their own affairs in their own way? There is the refusal of visas, the banishments, the race classifications, etc. It is these things and the deeds of the Government which cause harm and not the things said by the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, take a practical example. I have here a book entitled, “South African Rule of Law.” If ever there was a document which is harmful to South Africa, it is this. This book does not contain quotations from speeches by members of the Opposition; it is not based on that. It is a purely factual reproduction of the race legislation that we have in South Africa to-day. This is what foreigners consult when they want to get a picture of what is happening in South Africa.

Who wrote it?

The International Commission of Jurists. And if ever there was a deadly charge against South Africa, it is this document, which has nothing to do with complaints from the Opposition but which is based entirely on the actions, the administration, the legislation and the regulations of the Government. As a matter of fact, we can take the majority of charges which have appeared in book form against South Africa and we find that they are not based on things said by the Opposition. It is true that here and there a quotation from a speech by an Opposition member is used outside. With all the documents and cuttings that the Minister has, he could only mention one or two such cases.But for every member of the Opposition who is quoted in this way, there are 20 examples of members on the Government side whose speeches are used against South Africa. Take the report of the South West Committee. In that report Opposition members are quoted, but for every Opposition member who is quoted, there are 20 speeches by Government members which are quoted against South Africa.

There are certain Press representatives who only cable over those speeches.

Even so, if anything that I say as an Opposition member is based on a fact, I do not mind at all if it is quoted, as long as what is said is the truth. The Minister is entitled to complain if something is said which is not based on facts. But when a statement made on this side is based on a fact, then I do not care who quotes it abroad. Because it is a good thing for South Africa that the outside world should know that not all the Whites in this country support the policy of the Government. It is a good thing for the world to know that nearly 50 per cent of the Whites of South Africa do not support the administration and the policy of this Government. And, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good thing for the outside world to know that half the White voters in this country want to bring about a change of Government. I hope too that when the hon. the Minister of Information informs the world about the facts of South Africa he will tell the world that half the White voters of South Africa want to bring about a change of Government and want to get away from the policy of this Government.

The time has come in any case when the Government should stop regarding itself as South Africa. Every time an attack is made on the Government, we are told that it is an attack on South Africa. If the Government party is South Africa, then equally the Opposition party is South Africa. South Africa does not consist of one party. The Opposition has just as much right to state its stand as the Government has. The Government is not South Africa. As a matter of fact, it represents only a little more than 50 per cent of the White voters, and if we take the population as a whole, then the Government has the sympathy of fewer than 10 per cent of the people in this country. The Government must get away from this attitude of continually regarding itself as South Africa.

I wish to say something to the hon. the Minister arising from the speech of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and that is the words of the late Gen. Hertzog: My superior will not insult me and my inferior cannot insult me. What I do not understand, in this House, Sir, is the attitude which the Opposition adopts in a debate which affects our fatherland more specifically than any other debate. When the hon. the Minister gave us a summary to-day of what happened in regard to South Africa at UNO, the Opposition adopted a provocative attitude and made provocative remarks. That is something which we cannot understand. We find it impossible to follow the trend of thought of our friends opposite. Because in the long run—as the hon. member who has sat down has said—like us they also form a part of South Africa. An attack upon us is an attack on this country, on our fatherland. It affects them just as it affects us. What sort of love have they for their fatherland that they want to shelter behind the excuse of saying that it does not affect them? It is because of that attitude that they have suffered severe defeats in election after election. Are they so blind that they cannot see that they are becoming totally estranged from their own fatherland and their own people and that they deserve nothing but the contempt and the scorn of their fellow South Africans? They made contemptuous remarks about the hero’s welcome accorded to the hon. the Minister when he returned from overseas. Do you understand that, Sir? We are proud of the fact that there was a South African who was not ashamed to put South Africa’s case and who did so in season and out of season as convincingly as the hon. the Minister did. We were proud of that and we gave him the credit which he deserved. But what attitude does the Opposition adopt? I want to repeat the question which the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Dr. J. H. Steyn) asked yesterday afternoon: What case can the Opposition state at UNO other than the one stated by us? They go to my constituency and to all the other constituencies and say that they stand by the traditional policy of this country; they stand by apartheid; they merely give it another name. They stand by it. They say that on the platteland throughout South Africa. I challenge the next speaker or any speaker on that side of the House to get up and to deny that. What other case can they state in New York? There is no other policy. That is the traditional policy of this country.

May I ask a question?

No, I am sorry. I only have ten minutes at my disposal. The hon. member can speak again. To be quite candid, Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House regard that hon. member as a professional politician and I have not the time to hear what he has to say.

There are many things which you would like to discuss under this Vote, so many things which affect our fatherland. I wish to draw the attention of the House for a moment to a report which appeared in the Argus yesterday—

I wish to draw the attention of the Committee, and also the attention of the Americans if possible, to the following fact: In saying this I am speaking as an agriculturist in South Africa; I also have other interests, but I am talking on behalf of agriculture. A great deal of the equipment on my farm is American. I drive an American motor-car. I use an American delivery van. I use American lorries and tractors. I think that also applies to the farmer members opposite, certainly to the hon. member for Florida (Mr. H. G. Swart). That applies to most people in South Africa. Involuntarily you ask yourself the question, Sir, whether we are doing the right thing in paying over so many millions of pounds annually to people who despise us the way they do. You ask yourself the question whether it would not be more advantageous for us to strengthen our trade relations with other countries who are better disposed towards us, such as Britain for example. Those relations have existed all the years. The Afrikaner no longer has an axe to grind with the Britisher of England. We have buried the hatchet. When this country became a Republic we buried the grudge and the dagger which had been in our heart and soul for half a century and longer. We on this side of the House would like to establish the strongest and friendliest relations with England. We want to know whether we can be expected to spend so much money in America when she makes one attack after the other upon us. I refer to the visit of Mr. Stevenson to this country when he did not have the ordinary courtesy of paying a visit to the Head of our Government and when he made an uncalled for attack on South Africa and her racial policy. Indeed, even the members of the Opposition will agree that the American policy, their racial policy, definitely also leaves much to be desired, and that it offers many openings where we can attack them if we wanted to do so.

Are you proposing that we boycott America?

No; I asked a question and that is a question which every person should ask himself and which the Government should ask itself. I did not suggest anything. Whenever we wanted to follow a policy, we have always had the courage to say what that policy was and that is exactly what you have against us, namely that we call our policy by name.

But that is not all, Sir. I want to go further. We had the ghastly spectacle that one of our friends, Portugal, who still had a possession, namely Goa, in the East was most scandalously attacked by India. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) and other hon. members opposite are blaming all South Africa’s troubles on our enemies at UNO, and they have no time at the moment to think that when the votes are taken at UNO it is not only the 50 per cent of Afro-Asian nations that vote against us, but also 50 per cent of the White nations. It is no good dodging the issue concerning policies by pretending that South Africa can only placate the world by offering one man, one vote. That is not the case. We have to face the facts, and the facts are these, that, as the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has said, the Government are trying to sell its policy but it is a policy that no one will buy and it is for the Government to prove to the outside world that we have a good policy and to sell it to them if they can. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) asked earlier on what answer we here have ourselves, on this side, and I would say that if the United Party’s sane and practical policy were implemented, we would have half of the world on our side instead of nobody at all.

Which policy?

You cannot even sell your policy to this country.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a point on which I would like some information. It is the question of our loss of information since we left the Commonwealth last year. When we were a member of the Commonwealth we had access to invaluable information which we got from the various committees of the Commonwealth on which we sat, like the sterling area conferences, the C.I.G.S. conferences, the liaison committees, the economic consultation committees and the shipping committees and the technical and advisory committees. Now all these sources of invaluable information are lost to us, and I see from the Vote that South Africa is only represented in 23 countries of the world, and the Minister told us that 104 countries are represented at UNO. Before, the Commonwealth had experts on information which we did not have ourselves and we relied on obtaining vital information from them in countries where we were not represented, to know what was happening there. I would like to ask the Minister to tell the House what other arrangements we have now by which South Africa can replace her sources of information so that we can hear whether the new communications we have now are satisfactory and whether they are as reliable as the ones we had before. With what is the Minister replacing these past connections which were available to us when we were still a member of the Commonwealth? Dangers threaten South Africa from within the African continent itself. How can we be kept best informed about this if we have no diplomatic representation in any country in Africa, with the exception of the Portuguese Territories and the Federation? I feel that it is a matter of urgency that South Africa should seek to re-establish as many connections as possible and extend its diplomatic representation in outside countries where we can learn what is happening in the world in the great nations like Germany and Italy and the highly developed smaller nations like Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg. There we see that they are sacrificing their nationalistic policies in economy and they are banding together in the European Common Market; the United Kingdom itself is prepared to join this community and has already applied to be part of this regrouping of the powerful nations of Europe, and they are not the only one because the mighty U.S.A. is also considering this question.

Did you read this morning’s newspaper?

As the hon. the Minister knows, there has recently been a cut of 20 per cent in the import duties between the U.S.A. and the European Common Market. Let us compare this integration of the Western world with the present policy of the isolation of South Africa, as opposed to the close integration of the Western European community. I would like to ask the Minister these questions: Who are our friends and allies in the world to-day? Does any powerful Western nation wish to be allied to the Republic of South Africa? Have there been any advances from nations outside to the Minister’s Department to join in a common treaty for the protection of South Africa, and have we received an invitation to join the European Common Market? Is the answer to these questions yes, or is it no? These are the questions I would like to ask the Minister, because to-day we need the protection of the Western world. I ask the Minister to tell us how South Africa is going to return to its rightful place amongst the nations of the Western world, instead of withdrawing from it. We should take steps to encourage unity and peace and prosperity in South Africa, and to cultivate the outside nations.

I will not attempt to reply to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss). Firstly, because my time is limited and secondly because she devoted the first part of her speech to the domestic affairs of South Africa which, to my mind, do not fit into this debate, and thirdly, because she addressed her questions to the Minister. In the short time at my disposal I wish to discuss the finances of UNO and I wish to ask the Minister for certain information, but for the edification of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) I wish to tell him that they will be my own questions.

I wish to deal with the expenditure of the organization in the first instance. UNO has two types of expenditure, ordinary expenditure and extraordinary expenditure. All the countries who are members of that organization have to pay the normal expenditure; they have no option. That expenditure includes the costs attaching to the meetings of the various bodies and committees of that organization, costs connected with special missions, salaries, travelling costs, stationery, printing and similar expenditure, the cost connected with library facilities and all the costs connected with the technical programme of the organization. A budget is framed annually in respect of the normal expenditure and that meets the needs of the administration and the normal workings of the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Social and Economic Council, the Trusteeship Committee, the Secretariat, the International Court of Justice, and all the committees and sub-committees of that organization. Section 17 (1) provides that—

The General Assembly and only the General Assembly controls the budget as one of its functions. That is one of the few respects in which the General Assembly can bind the member states of UNO by way of resolution without co-operating with the Security Council. When the General Assembly frames the budget it makes use of various committees. You have the advisory committee which consists of nine experts, who deal with the budget after the Secretary-General has framed it. Then you have the fifth committee which consists of all the members of the organization. They submit the final recommendations to the General Assembly and after that the budget is submitted to the General Assembly for final approval and on that occasion all resolutions in connection with the budget and the obligations of member states have to be passed by a two-thirds majority in order to be valid.

I wish to mention a few points in connection with the budget just for interest sake. Firstly, the financial year of UNO runs from 1 January to 31 December. Secondly, the budget is divided into chapters and sub-divisions, and a resolution is passed annually empowering the Secretary-General to transfer money under the same chapter or the same sub-division to other votes in the budget, provided that money is used within the limits and for the purposes of that vote. Every year a board of auditors is appointed which consists of the auditors-general of three member states. In 1959 they were the officials of Norway, the Netherlands and Colombo. During the past few years the total normal expenditure provided for in the budget was as follows: 50,815,700 dollars in 1957; 63,149,700 dollars in 1959 and 72,969,300 dollars in 1960. I just want to show briefly how the normal expenditure is divided between the various countries. Section 72 (2) provides—

The General Assembly appoints a committee consisting of ten members called the Committee on Contributions, to advise it in this regard. That committee has instructions to try to adopt the following basis more or less in apportioning this expenditure, namely that it should be apportioned “broadly according to the capacity to pay”. In determining this, they take two particular things into account. The first is an estimate of the national revenue of the member countries, and the second is an estimate of the per capita income of a country. The committee makes its calculations on the income submitted by the various member states, but you find that various member states are unable to submit this information, and, in those cases, the Bureau of Statistics of UNO compiles it itself on the strength of any information it may have. There are members, therefore, who are unable to submit this basic economic information, and we can take it that they are those states which usually have the most to say about others. You find the following in the minutes of UNO—

I may mention that in addition those countries whose per capita income is below a certain figure get a special discount on what they should have paid, a discount which can be a maximum of 50 per cent. I may add that the contributions which countries have to pay are calculated on a percentage basis, and in 1960 South Africa had to contribute .56 per cent. The greatest contributions by what we call the Black African states came from Ethiopia and Ghana, who contributed .06 per cent. All the others contributed the minimum amount of .04 per cent; in other words, 14 of those African states who attack South Africa so violently at UNO jointly contributed as much as South Africa to the income of UNO.

That brings me to the question of arrear contributions by member states. Section 19 of the Charter provides that a member of UNO who is two years in arrear with his payments cannot vote, but then it goes on and says this—

I should like to know from the Minister whether the General Assembly passes resolutions from time to time in which this second portion of Section 19 is applied allowing countries to vote in spite of the fact that they are two years in arrear with their payments.

I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to the reply which he gave in this House on 26 January. I think you can safely conclude, Sir, that those 51 countries who were in arrear in 1961 and the 22 who were in arrear in 1962, that those 22 were already two years in arrear. I should like to know from the Minister whether those countries actually voted on the resolutions passed by the General Assembly, and, if so, whether they were duly granted extension in terms of Section 19. I also wish to ask the Minister whether the General Assembly has ever taken resolutions which were not valid because countries voted who did not have the right to do so. I also want to know from the Minister what the position is of the Security Council, where China is one of the countries which is more than two years in arrear with her payments. I cannot understand how a country can lose its right to vote in the General Assembly and yet exercise it on the Security Council. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Queenstown has given us interesting information about the finances of UNO. I do not want to say anything about that, because he addressed his questions to the Minister. It became clear to me in this debate, however, that hon. members opposite have only one counter-reply to the criticism from this side of the House, and it is this They want to know whether the United Party would have been prepared to accede to the demands of the Afro-Asian countries had we been in power; whether we would have been prepared to bow to UNO.

Tell us.

Not only do they say that, but they also say, as the hon. member for Soutpansberg has said, that we, on this side, do absolutely nothing to refute the irresponsible things that are said about South Africa at UNO. In other words, according to the hon. member, we speak the same language as the enemies of South Africa.

That is true.

I am pleased hon. members opposite confirm that. That is the argument. Let me tell those hon. members that everything that is said against South Africa affects us on this side of the House as much as it affects hon. members opposite.

What do you do to refute it?

Are we in a position to attend at UNO and to refute it? That is the task of the Minister. Last year some delegate or other at UNO said that if an Indian were to enter a restaurant in South Africa and ask for water no White person would give it to him though he may be dying of thirst. Of course the person who made that grossly untrue statement does not know anything whatsoever about the South African. We know it and we have said it. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly stated that what was said against us at UNO was not only due to a lack of knowledge but also grossly irresponsible. Neither he nor the hon. member for Constantia has ever agreed with it. But is it necessary for us to put up this fight? Would it not be better if we ignored these irresponsible remarks about South Africa and devoted ourselves to obtaining the goodwill of those people who were our friends in the past? That is the point. The point is not to react to those irresponsible statements but to make friends.

How do you obtain that?

The hon. member tor Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) gave the answer a quarter of an hour ago. He told us that we in South Africa should follow a policy …

Is he your leader?

Let me tell the hon. member for Parow that if he and the hon. the Minister as well listened to the good advice of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, we would again reach the stage where every South African can hold his head high and proudly admit that he is a South African. All the hon. member asked for, and all we ask for, is that our legislation and our actions towards the various non-Whites should be such that the world outside will realize that we wish to retain the goodwill of those people. The point, however, is that with the record which this Government has built up over the past 14 years, the world outside does not realize that to-day. You immediately hit your head against a wall when you tell those people that there are no longer Natives’ Representatives in this Parliament, that this is what we have done to the Coloured people and when you have to explain certain difficult aspects of the Group Areas Act and certain of its provisions which are hardly possible to apply in practice. That is the difficulty with which we are faced. That is the reason why we have not enough friends. Until such time as South Africa changes her internal policy in such a way that we can prove to the world that we intend gaining and retaining the goodwill of the non-Whites, we will not make friends overseas.

What do you suggest?

The hon. member is again asking me what I suggest. I have just told him. I quite believe that hon. members opposite are deeply concerned about the hostility against South Africa.

Are you not?

Of course I am, more so because I am not to blame for the position. This Government has already been in power for 14 years but they think I should also accept responsibility for it. It is within the power of this Government to reinstate South Africa’s name in the eyes of the world. They can alter the whole world’s opinion about us. That is the easiest thing in the world but in that case they should start at home and change the policy in such a way that they will show to the world that they are willing to co-operate to obtain the goodwill of the non-Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite say, however, that we are prepared to subscribe to the hostility of the world. One thing worries me and it is this that we have had a Government for 14 years who knows what the trouble is but who does nothing about it and why not? There must be a reason. Is the reason not perhaps a political one? Is the reason not perhaps that hon. members opposite know that when irresponsible things are said about South Africa and when animosity is shown towards this country, it grieves most of the voters and do they not wish to retain the position so that they can make political capital out of it? [Interjections.] That is the question I wish to ask the Minister. In the past the Government has already changed its policy in respect of immigration and in respect of South West. There has been a change of heart. Why do hon. members opposite refuse to change their policy in respect of this hostility and to do something to remedy it? Do they wish to retain it for the sake of election benefits? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) wants us to sacrifice our policy because he says our policy causes tension and dissatisfaction in the world outside whereas his policy will bring about peace. But it is the very United Party who is engaged in a deadly political civil war with their erstwhile leftist friends who we know to-day by the charming name of the Progressive Party. Nothing has had a more devastating effect on the morale and the spirit of the United Party than that very dispute and discord within their ranks in respect of their own colour policy, a dispute and discord which must bring about peace between us and the world outside. Their own policy has created dissatisfaction in their own minds and within their own ranks, dissatisfaction which has developed into general war.

Which Vote is that?

Let me tell that hon. member that their fraternal quarrel has been going on longer than the civil war in Algiers. They will never have peace. What appeared to be a sham political quarrel in order to establish peace amongst the races in South Africa has created great dissatisfaction within the ranks of that party, and it no longer seems as though their policy will bring about peace; it seems more like a destructive war.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with the Vote inasmuch as the hon. member wishes us to change our policy but the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) is living in a political fool’s paradise. Does he not know that the people of South Africa have made their irrevocable choice as far as the colour policy in South Africa is concerned? They want the people to decide. The people have made that choice repeatedly and they have chosen conclusively, so conclusively that the Opposition is for all time doomed to the Opposition benches; they will never come into power again. Let us be clear on this The people have also made the choice. This policy of ours—if it is stated correctly and if that side of the House does not present it in the wrong light as they do in order to create a false impression at UNO—is the only policy which will not only establish peace between South Africa and the rest of the world but which will also establish racial peace in our fatherland between the various racial groups. The time to change our policy is past. That is where hon. members opposite make the mistake. They want us to change our policy. The people are no longer interested in that. The people have already made thir choice, irrevocably. They no longer even ask whether the policy can be carried out or not. Because they have made the choice, they have made the right choice and for that reason it has to be carried out. The people no longer even ask what it will cost. They say that no matter what it will cost, they have made the right choice, irrevocably, and that is why it has to be carried out; that is why UNO will not move us and the Opposition less so, because the Opposition holds out a vain hope, nothing can be expected of them. They cannot convince us; we will not listen to them. We have already made the irrevocable choice.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. junior Whip must not interrupt me. He is the biggest pessimist in South Africa. He has no confidence in his own party. He has already said that there is no chance for them to come into power again in a constitutional way; they have to wait for a shock from outside to come into power again. This traditional colour policy of the Afrikaner has given them such a paralysing shock during the last election that the hon. the junior Whip will never regain his senses. Mr. Chairman, that is the logic of South Africa’s politics; not only will that party pine, it will ultimately disappear from the political scene. Nor should they adopt such a protective attitude towards the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has been the most successful political speculator that we have ever had in South Africa. He gets something for nothing and much for a little. No, we should not look to that hon. member for a colour policy. This is the only colour policy which will eventually lead to peaceful and calm race relations in our fatherland, and if this policy is correctly represented, in view of the fact that it is based on an ethical foundation, it is the only policy which will bring about good relationships in South Africa as well as in the world outside.

I think what the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) has said has very little to do with foreign policy.

That is a reflection on the Chair.

I am just reminding the hon. the Chief Whip on the other side that the Chairman called him to order and drew his attention to the fact that he was not speaking to the Vote. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to his Vote on page 51, and I think my remarks will be more pertinent than those of the Chief Whip of the Government Party. The Minister will see on page 51 of the Estimates that there are some 279 locally recruited members of staff in the various embassies. I would like to know what the Minister’s policy is with regard to the employment of local personnel. I have noticed recently that now that South Africa has left the Commonwealth, in the United Kingdom office certain South Africans who were appointed under contract have not been re-employed. Because the status of South Africa is different, the United Kingdom insisted on United Kingdom citizens only. Is it the Minister’s policy to employ foreigners in London? When we refer to the statement we see that in the United Kingdom there are seven administrative and four foreign assistants; there is no indication of locally employed people, and yet there are a certain number of locally employed people in South Africa House. I am not advocating that they be dismissed, but I would like some indication of the Minister’s policy. When we refer to the various other offices we find that there is a large proportion of local people employed, and as there has already been an indication that Great Britain has altered her policy in that whereas prior to South Africa going out of the Commonwealth it was the practice for the United Kingdom to employ South Africans in the offices here—and I believe a similar policy is followed by Australia and Canada—I would like the Minister to give us some indication as to whether there is now to be a change of policy and, if so, where there is to be such a change. I should also like to know what his policy is going to be with regard to other foreign countries. Is there going to be discrimination against the United Kingdom? As far as I am aware there are no South Africans employed in the United States foreign office. What is the Minister’s policy in regard to our offices in the various parts of the world?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) has just made one anxious to speak, Sir. The hon. member maintains that with our internal policy we will never succeed in making a favourable impression on the world outside. Mr. Chairman, when anybody criticizes us surely he must suggest an alternative and I take it that they state their policy as the alternative. Surely a governing party must first of all ensure that its policy has been accepted by the people of its own country before he takes that policy outside, and if the people of its own country are not willing to accept its policy, what does it expect of the world outside? If the people of his own country, the people who know what the circumstances are and who know what they have to decide on, have rejected his policy time and again with increasing majorities, if his own party has rejected his policy so that it has been torn from top to bottom, he is the last person to tell this side of the House to change its policy in order to get the sympathy of the world outside.

During the last few days we have heard about small apartheid and that small apartheid was the reason why the world outside abhorred South Africa and her Government. If small apartheid is the trouble, I want to ask him what about big apartheid? Does he disapprove of small apartheid while he approves of big apartheid? I take it that big apartheid is the basic principle of the policy of the National Party. Does he approve of that? Does he think that if we abandoned small apartheid, those petty things, if we eliminated those difficulties which are not caused by the Government or by its policy, but perhaps by the application of his policy, that will gain us the sympathy of the world outside?

The Opposition concedes to-day that we can no longer satisfy the Afro-Asian states but that we should satisfy the great powers, namely Britain, America, France, etc. How can we satisfy those countries? This is the reply which we have had from one hon. member opposite—

Let us test that. Let us see whether the racial policy of the United Party, even as it is to-day, irrespective of the extent to which it has been watered down, will ever be accepted and defended by those countries whose favour we are seeking.

Who says we are seeking the favour of the Afro-Asian countries?

I am talking about the big powers. Mr. Chairman, what is America’s policy? It has often been said here and Mr. Kennedy has again repeated that their policy is one of “equal rights for all”. Let us go further; their policy is “Africa for the African”. How will the policy of the hon. member enable Mr. Kennedy or his representatives to defend our policy if their policy is totally different from ours and when they say that their objective is to have their policy of “equal rights for all” applied throughout the world? How will he satisfy them?

Let us come nearer: let us come to England. What is England’s policy? How will the policy of the United Party satisfy them, a policy which is nearer to our policy than the policy of either the Progressives or the liberalists? Will the policy of the United Party satisfy England where Mr. Macmillan said in his “winds of change” speech that they wanted to give the vote to people on merit alone. Is that the policy of the Opposition? Will that enable us to defend that policy before the world where, as they themselves say, England is leaving her own people in the lurch in Africa? Does he expect England to defend us? He is not even prepared to defend Welensky and his own people in Rhodesia; how will he defend us? Let us see what is happening in the case of France. France has never had a colour bar, and I know hon. members opposite recognize the colour bar; that is their policy; surely they recognize it. France has never recognized it and she has left Africa; she is wiping out her final footprints in Africa. Those are the people whose favour we must seek and who we should ask to defend our policy at UNO. No, we can forget about it. Let us come back to the Africa states. Let us analyse the position which obtains in Africa to-day. We all know that the White man has played a very important role in the African states from the very beginning.

Can we also discuss South West Africa?

We are not dealing with South West Africa at the moment. We are discussing the influence which South Africa’s policy has on other nations, particularly on the big nations. When we think of what has happened to the influence of the White man in other parts of Africa—and that has nothing to do with South West Africa—we must admit that the influence of the White man has disappeared completely from all the states, from the Sahara northwards. He has not the slightest influence there, not in the political field and practically none in other fields and that influence is disappearing further down south. The White man no longer has any influence in those areas. It is disappearing in Kenya; his influence is disappearing in Nyasaland; it is disappearing in Rhodesia, and they do not follow the policy of this side of the House in Rhodesia. The more the Black man succeeds in his attempt there the more are they encouraged to come further south and to wipe the White man off the face of Africa, and unless we stand together, in respect of a policy to which we all subscribe fundamentally, we can expect that will also be our fate.

I shall now reply to the more specific points raised in this debate. In the first place I wish to express my appreciation to hon. members who referred appreciatively to my representation of the interests of South Africa at UNO. I take no notice of the petty remarks made by hon. members opposite, but I particularly value the word of appreciation which came from my own side of the House and from large numbers of South Africans over the length and breadth of our country.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Dr. J. H. Steyn) asked what South Africa’s plans were in regard to diplomatic representation in Japan. We are already dealing with that matter. Preliminary discussions have already taken place between the Japanese consular representatives here in South Africa and ourselves. There are certain practical difficulties such as staff questions and other matters which made it difficult to implement this plan immediately. It has already been decided in principle that there will be an exchange of ambassadors between us and Japan. Now it is just a question of making final arrangements.

The hon. member also asked what support we received from Japan at UNO. I am glad to be able to say that, e.g. in regard to the question of sanctions—there were quite a number of sanction proposals—Japan voted in favour of South Africa on all the proposals except on one of these proposals on which they did not vote: on the other proposals Japan was the only Asian nation which stood by South Africa. Therefore we received particularly good support from the Japanese delegation in regard to that particular matter, which was an important one.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom then asked what the attitude of the United States is to-day towards UNO. The United States has always regarded UNO as an instrument of American foreign policy. It is, however, clear, not only from the American Press and from statements made by prominent Americans but also from reports which I receive, that a change is now beginning to take place in America in respect of their former attitude towards UNO. That tendency towards a change of attitude started after the Belgrade Conference of the so-called neutral states. America has always depended to a fairly large extent on the so-called neutral states, and the resolutions adopted at Belgrade were a shock to them. During the last session of UNO it also appeared that there is now less enthusiasm for UNO in America although I gained the impression that President Kennedy is still a strong supporter of UNO. The fact that the Afro-Asian nations, together with the Russians, now practically have a two-thirds majority is also a contributory factor. I notice from recent statements that important persons in America are now beginning to express doubts, inter alia, ex-Vice-President Nixon. With reference to the insolvent state of the United Nations he recently, when President Kennedy asked that a special large loan should be made to UNO. expressed serious doubts and asked. “Is the United Nations worth saving?” There are other important persons in America, like Senator Fullbright and General McCloy, who are beginning to think more in the direction of what they call an Atlantic-Western organization. It, therefore, seems to me that there is a decrease in confidence in the United Nations. Recently a certain Senator Jackson, who is becoming quite prominent in America, also expressed serious doubts about UNO; he also seems to favour the idea of an Atlantic-Western treaty or organization. We also know that the real object of the European Common Market, as Dr. Halstein personally told me when I saw him two years ago, is eventually to make the Common Market a European political organization. There is therefore the possibility, in view of these doubts which are being expressed in America, that perhaps something may develop in that direction. Whereas America has always been a particularly strong protagonist of UNO and President Kennedy still is to-day, it is interesting that prominent Senators and other persons in America are now beginning to express serious doubts and indicating other directions.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom asked what America’s attitude was towards Africa. As I have already stated, America took the lead in the anti-colonialism campaign. America has already poured millions of dollars into Africa, also with the object of gaining the favour of the African states in that way. There is the question of trade prospects and export possibilities, which undoubtedly play a large role. But also in regard to Africa it appears —and I also noticed it in the newspapers there —that doubts are beginning to be expressed in America. There is, e.g., great disappointment in regard to developments in Ghana, because of the fact that Ghana is now inclining towards Russia. Nkrumah paid a visit to Moscow and also to China. There is also the denial of democratic principles in Ghana. America at the time gave strong support to Ghana, and again recently gave substantial financial support for the building of the Volta Dam. It is, however, clear that doubts are now beginning to arise in America in regard to possible developments in Africa. There is also the fact that Guinea is leaning over towards the communists, and also Mali. These are all things which cause serious doubts there, although at the moment it is still the policy of America strongly to support the African states. Unfortunately that determines the unsympathetic American attitude towards South Africa.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) referred to what happened when the assistant editor of the Rand Daily Mail, Sowden, whilst I was addressing the General Assembly, got up in the public gallery and tried to shout me down.

Shame!

He shouted that I was not speaking the truth, etc.

May I just put a question to the hon. the Minister? When he referred to Sowden, is it not Mr. Cohen?

Just let me finish. Sowden then interrupted me, something which has never before happened in the General Assembly. He was then immediately removed by the UNO guards. His Press card was withdrawn and he could no longer attend UNO meetings. He addressed a meeting in New Jersey, and later another meeting in the west, where he made a venomous attack on South Africa. Mr. Sowden was in America on an American grant and, therefore, the American Government are responsible for him as he was a guest in their country. Our Ambassador did not lodge a formal complaint, but he brought the incident to the notice of the State Department and pointed out to them that, although the man was a South African citizen, he was there as the guest of the American Government and that he had acted in this improper manner. I do not know what happened further. Our Ambassador just brought the matter to the notice of the State Department. In the meantime Sowden returned to South Africa. The Rand Daily Mail at the time apologized for his improper conduct, but I notice that since his return he has been reappointed to the staff of that paper.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark also referred to the Indian attack on Goa. I referred to it in my speech this afternoon, and I want to repeat that except for somewhat weak protests on the part of Britain, inter alia, and the United States and others, no strong action was taken even in UN. In this connection I just want to point out that the Indian delegates at UN have always posed as the great protagonists of the principle that difficulties between states should be solved in a peaceful manner; they spoke against military action, etc. The aggression committed by India against Goa is in my opinion one of the greatest examples of international hypocrisy which have ever taken place. A matter to which I objected at UN is the application of double standards. I noticed afterwards that those same objections were raised later on, even by Lord Hume. Thereafter there was reference to the increase in the practice of measuring with two yardsticks, one yardstick for the weaker countries and another for the larger countries, one yardstick for a country which stands alone and another for those countries who form a strong group. That also happened in the case India. India, as the English say, got away with it. They made an aggressive attack on Goa, and thereafter nobody did anything further about it. But supposing, for example,—I mention this only as an example, of course (Goa is what is called an enclave in India)—supposing that South Africa were to have done what India did in respect of Basutoland; supposing that one day we invaded Basutoland. Can you imagine the terrible cry that would go up right throughout the world? But India does it in respect of Goa and nobody says a word. That is an example of the double yardstick—one yardstick for the country, and a different yardstick for another.

The hon. members for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) and Queenstown (Mr. Loots) referred to the finances of UN. The position is that in fact UN is insolvent. It is insolvent in the fullest sense of the word. The matter became so serious that an appeal was then made to various countries to buy debentures in order to put UN on its feet again financially. The reason why it is insolvent is because the member states simply do not pay their membership fees. President Kennedy had to make a special appeal to Congress because they were not inclined at all to buy these debentures. Who wants to invest money in an insolvent business, apart from the disfavour in which UN is landing increasingly! I gave all the figures earlier this Session, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), regarding how many countries had not paid their fees and how many were in arrears. It is a peculiar fact that United Party newspapers did not publish either that question or the reply to it. Since then, some of those countries have in fact paid. The position on 28 February this year was that there were 26 countries which from 1961 to 1962 had made no payment—that is, towards the general budget. Then there were 17 countries which had paid a portion of their membership fees. There are therefore 43 countries which have either contributed only a portion, or nothing at all, towards the general budget. I am proud of the fact that South Africa, ever since she became a member of UN until now, has always paid her membership fees. In regard to the question put by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots), whether such member countries can vote, he stated the position correctly—he evidently made a study of the matter—that if a member has not paid for two years he cannot vote. What such countries do now is this: If a member is perhaps 50,000 dollars in arrear, then just before the expiry of the two-year period it pays, say, 5,000 dollars, and then it can vote again!

Hon. members know that a military force is kept in the Middle East to preserve the peace there, and in regard to the cost of which all members have to contribute. The position is that here also South Africa has paid her contributions up to date. But in the year 1961 and up to now there are 59 countries which did not pay a penny towards the maintenance of the UN forces in the Middle East, and three countries paid only a portion of their contribution.

In regard to the Congo I adopted the standpoint on behalf of South Africa when the Congo question was raised for the first time at UN that we would reserve our position in regard to expenditure. Last year I announced that South Africa did not intend contributing. But even there we find that many of these countries which shouted loudest in favour of UN interference in the Congo have not paid anything yet. Of the 104 member states, only 24 have paid; 78 countries have not paid anything for the maintenance of the forces in the Congo, and that is a very expensive business. Now you can understand why UN is practically insolvent.

Now it has been decided to refer this matter of the non-payment of membership fees to the International Court for an opinion, because it is not quite clear in terms of the statutes of UN what precisely can be done. Member countries have been asked for their opinions in regard to the matter. That can be done verbally or by means of a written document. South Africa stated its opinion very clearly in regard to the whole matter. I do not wish to go into the details but I am informed by our ambassador in The Hague that our document is one of the best and the most detailed submitted hitherto.

The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) asked what South Africa had contributed to the various organizations in Africa. I have here a thick file, and that is only portion of the total number of documents in this connection. One thing is very clear, viz. that South Africa in the past was one of the states (South Africa is a foundation member of the C.C.T.A.) which did its duty fully in regard to those organizations. When meetings and conferences were held in regard to all kinds of matters resorting under the C.C.T.A. and the C.S.A., from January 1961 up to the present we have attended no fewer than 39 of those meetings. In regard to technical help and advice given by South Africa, the position is that we made R60,000 available in 1961 and also an additional amount of R14,000 for Fama, of which we are a member. In spite of our attitude in regard to the Congo, and in spite of the insult we received, we also contributed there. We also contributed appreciable amounts in regard to certain services in African countries, in regard to all kinds of matters like geology, housing, nutrition, psycho-technical tests, etc. I have here a long list of matters in regard to which we rendered assistance. It cost a fairly large sum of money but South Africa did her share. We made our technical officials available to African countries, and in 1960 60 technical officials, specialists, were made available by our Government. We made vaccines available to a large number of African countries for all kinds of diseases like gall sickness, hydrophobia, anthrax, chicken-pox, etc. In 1961 we provided 2,500.000 doses of vaccine to 13 African countries. Therefore when it is alleged that we have withdrawn ourselves and do not want to co-operate with the African states, hon. members will see that South Africa has done more than its duty. We also rendered assistance where there was some catastrophe or other, like, for example, by giving R13,000 to Madagascar, R12,000 to South Kasai and R18,000 to Katanga—that was in the form of medicine, food and other assistance in cases of emergency.

Some time ago we received notice and were advised by the Secretary-General of the C.C.T.A. rather not to send a delegation to the conference, and we then decided not to do so. We had already had the experience in connection with the telecommunication conference in Senegal, where at the last moment, a day before the delegates had to leave, we learnt that they could not obtain visas to go there. There was the trouble in Tanganyika, there was the trouble with the E.C.A., and in the case of the C.C.T.A. it was quite clear what their attitude was. We informed the Secretary-General of the C.C.T.A. that until such time as the position there was more certain, South Africa would not attend the meetings. A resolution in these terms was thereafter adopted by the conference—

Portugal in fact attended, and it was then decided that Portugal could no longer remain a member of the C.C.T.A., although it was one of the foundation members. It was also further resolved that England, Rhodesia and France could only be associate members. Furthermore, the C.C.T.A. was turned into a new organization.

I have given full information in view of the complaint now made against us that we are withdrawing ourselves from Africa. Even in view of all these difficulties, and even during the years when we were attacked so much, we have always shown our readiness to render assistance to the African states, and in that regard we have therefore done our duty, and more than our duty.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) asked what the position was going to be in regard to our representation in foreign countries where in the past South Africa’s interests were handled by the British consular offices.

The position is that there is no reason why either Britain or any other country cannot continue to assist us. Not every South American Republic has representatives in every country in the world, neither have all the smaller European countries. So there is no reason why that should not be done in the case of South Africa. As a matter of fact, this is one of the matters which is still being discussed in connection with the arrangements between South Africa and the United Kingdom. But meanwhile we are making our own arrangements, because it has been intimated to us, and we understand it, that in the Commonwealth countries we should have our own representation. It has been decided to open a consulate in New Zealand. An appointment has already been made, and will shortly be filled. As regards other consular offices, it will be appreciated that there must be prior consultation with other departments, such as the Department of Commerce and Industries—they are very much interested in the proposed consulates in view of the trade between those countries and South Africa. We may establish two consulates in Britain, although we understand that the London office is able to do a considerable proportion of the work, for instance in respect of Southampton. I am not so sure about Liverpool. We are also considering consulates at certain other strategic points. As the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) pointed out, we have 24 Embassies and Legislations in different countries in the world. So I do not foresee any particular difficulties. Hon. members can rest assured that the Government is fully aware of the necessity of consular representation, but these things cannot be done in a hurry. They need careful study and inquiry, and naturally the necessary funds have to be voted. The matter is well in hand and by next year we will be able to give fuller information.

Two hon. members wanted to know about the increase in locally recruited staff. With the increase of our representation abroad and particularly as a result of the appointment of attachés of other departments, for instance the trade department and agriculture, extra staff is required. Whatever special representatives are appointed, be it by the Departments of Agriculture or Commerce, or Military, my Department must provide the accommodation and extra clinical staff. In fact the whole burden has to be borne by the Department of Foreign Affairs, that is perfectly correct because one Ambassador in any country is responsible for the actions of attached officers.

The question was put whether we appoint persons who are not South African nationals, and the suggestion was made that we are not appointing British subjects. That is not correct. In all our Embassies we have locally recruited staff, and we have never yet insisted upon local recruited staff necessarily being South African citizens. It will be appreciated that it would add enormously to our expenditure if we had to send the whole staff from South Africa. So in all our Embassies, and other offices abroad, we have locally recruited staff. We make very careful inquiries before they are appointed, and confidential matters are not handled by the locally recruited staff. But they do very valuable work.

The hon. member for Benoni also asked from where we are getting information, now that we are out of the Commonwealth, and entirely shorn of all information. That is not so. Let me assure hon. members that we have our own sources of information and that we are well informed. I must admit that we are not as well informed as to what is happening in Africa, but other countries are also not fully informed—and I can say that hon. members would be surprised to know what information we do get from various sources.

*The hon. member for Standerton drew attention to an interview granted to the Press by Sir Roger Stevens, an official of the British Foreign Office, a fairly highly placed official who visited this country. I can only say that interview has shocked me greatly. I cannot imagine Mr. Jooste or any other highly placed official of my Department going to England and giving interviews there in connection with their local matters as, for example, the limitation on immigration from Jamaica, or things of that nature. He would never think of doing anything like that, and if an official were to do so, I would immediately take him to task. “It is not done”, as the hon. member said. I must admit that I was deeply shocked. The matter is receiving my attention and I trust the hon. member will leave it at that for the time being.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) is not here at the moment and I shall therefore not reply to his questions.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) who more or less repeated statements made by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) made an extraordinary remark. “It is not the work of a diplomat to strike a posture.” I do not know to what he referred, or to whom he was referring. I hope he was not referring to any member of our Embassies. If he was referred to me, he is at liberty to do so, but it would not be a fair remark to make as regards any of the staff of our Embassies or Legations. They do a good job of work, and represent South Africa very well indeed.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) made a statement to which I already referred, viz. that Britain did not come to the aid of Portugal because she would not attack a member of the Commonwealth. As I pointed out in my earlier statement, it is not a question of military aid, but I do think that Britain and the United States should have made a more effective and more determined protest against the aggression by India in Goa.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 11.—“Treasury”, R1,980,000,

I merely rise to make an announcement and also to move an amendment to this Vote. I wish to move the following amendment—

The reason why I am doing that is that I have just received the latest progress report from the Decimalization Board. Hon. members will remember that we originally estimated that the expenditure connected to decimalization would be R18,000,000. Up to the end of the previous financial year we had already voted R14,000,000 and we thought that we could safely provide for another R1,000,000 in the Estimates, although we were made to believe that it would be less than R18,000,000. The latest progress report, dated 31 March, which I received after I had framed my Budget, says that it is estimated that the costs of conversion would not exceed R14,000,000, a little under R14,000,000. Consequently it is not necessary to vote this amount. Although it is very difficult to say that nothing further will be required in future, because that may have been a mistake, I do think the best thing is to delete this amount. If our expectations do not materialize and we are confronted with additional expenditure over and above the amount which we have already voted, the additional amount will have to be found by means of a special warrant by the State President.

I am sure the House welcomes the news that provision for R1,000,000 less is to be made and we accept the hon. Minister’s explanation that this is due to the fact that the Report of the Decimalization Board came in after the Budget announcements.

There are other matters on which we would like to have further information from the hon. the Minister. During the course of the Minister’s Budget speech he referred to the question of blocked rands and he indicated that the Reserve Bank would be charged with buying shares on the London Market, and he indicated in very general terms that the Reserve Bank would be buying shares with the object of bridging the gap between the South African price and the London price. The question was raised at that time and the recommendation was made by this side of the House that should be done through the normal channels, through the Stock Exchange, and I hope that now that sufficient time has elapsed to allow the hon. the Minister to go into the matter, the hon. the Minister will now be in a position to give us further information as to how the Reserve Bank will operate. The hon. the Minister will readily appreciate that the parties interested are concerned with the method by which this is done and they would prefer this to be done through the normal Stock Exchange channels and that the Minister should use the Stock Exchange and should use the powers that the Minister has to ensure that these transactions are conducted through the normally accepted channels. I hope that the hon. the Minister during the course of the discussions on his Vote will give us some further information as to the arrangements that have been made between the Reserve Bank and the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.

The hon. the Minister also referred to export incentives and indicated that there were going to be export incentives by way of allowances in respect of income tax for efforts being made to develop the export market. The indications are so far, Mr. Chairman, that as these are tax allowances, unless they are carefully watched, they may virtually be top-hat allowances for overseas trips, in other words, top executives going overseas would have special allowances. As one knows the attitude of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue in regard to overseas travelling expenditure and his requirement that the amounts so claimed by way of reductions are amounts which can reasonably be said to be expenses for the purpose of obtaining new business, I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some further information in regard to this policy in connection with this new development to extend our export markets. The Minister has also referred to the necessity of keeping an eye on our financial institutions and of ensuring that our financial institutions were properly conducted. I do not think we have had as many shocks in regard to our financial institutions than those we have had during the past year. I know I cannot refer to the Farmers’ Bank because that matter is sub judice. I want to draw the Minister's attention to an article which appeared in the Financial Mail of 16 February—

There is a long article dealing with the financial ramifications of the Auto Protection Association. When one refers to the numerous cases which have been dealt with by this undertaking, one can only be forced to conclude that the policy of this company was: We do not pay unless we have to. I have a list here of some 239 cases over a few months, from February 1961 to the end of October 1961. Those claims are mostly by small people against this company. The public is compelled by law to have third party insurance and the public is equally entitled to look to the Minister of Finance to see to it that the small man is protected. From what we have seen in the financial Press and the publicity which has been given to certain financial institutions recently, you cannot do otherwise but think that either the Minister’s staff: are overloaded and have not got the time to attend to queries that are raised or alternatively some of the Minister’s staff are not doing their job. I do not want to lay any specific charge at the moment or to suggest that a charge lies, but I do suggest that when we have statements in the Press, particularly in the financial columns of responsible papers, suggesting that an inquiry is needed, and when we have copies of correspondence which have been sent to the Minister’s office supporting some of the claims that have been made—and we do have copies of that correspondence—I suggest, Sir, that the time has arrived for the hon. the Minister to give some reassurance to the public that a proper inquiry will be made. I submit that the public are entitled to expect that a high state of efficiency exist in the financial world in South Africa. We are quite sure that the Minister is as jealous of the reputation of the financial institutions in this country as we are. When we have departments charged with the inspection and control of financial institutions, I submit that particular care should be taken to ensure that the law is properly carried out. At a later stage there will be an opportunity of dealing with other matters which fall under the control of the Minister of Economic Affairs. But in so far as the matters concern the Minister of Finance I should like him to indicate whether there are inquiries in regard to the departments of the Registrar of Banks and the Registrar of Insurance Companies and to assure us that there is close collaboration between his Department and the Minister of Economic Affairs in so far as their various duties coincide. You see, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance is concerned with the Department of Inland Revenue. The Department of Inland Revenue insist that companies must file their balance sheets within a certain period. On the other hand the Minister of Economic Affairs is concerned with giving extension of time for companies to file balance sheets in his office. One can accept that the same balance sheet which goes to the Receiver of Inland Revenue goes to the Registrar of Companies. We find that on the flimsiest of excuses companies apply to the Registrar of Companies for extension. They then go to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue and say to him: We have received permission from the Registrar of Companies to file our accounts late and these were our reasons why we asked for that extension. In terms of the Statute the Registrar of Companies has the power to grant extension up to six months. Having got that extension from the Registrar of Companies the same applicant goes to the Receiver of Revenue and says in effect: “The Registrar of Companies has given me an extension until such and such a date, will you give me the same extension?” In any case the company’s financial position is not to good, and the Receiver of Revenue knowing that the revenue of the country will not be seriously affected, grants an extension for a corresponding period. We find that there are many companies who are not taxable or who pay very little tax, taking the public’s money and sheltering behind the extensions granted to delay the submission of accounts. The small investor is not protected because he cannot go to court; there has not been any technical infringement. Eventually after a number of years, through applying a policy of deliberate procrastination, money is held by certain companies and one or two directors, privileged persons, get all the benefits and the investing public get little or nothing at all. [Time limit.]

I hope the hon. the Minister will accede to the request made by the former speaker and will give details as to what the arrangements are to be in regard to the two schemes which he announced during his Budget speech concerning the relaxation of exchange control as far as blocked rands are concerned. The delay in making these announcements is obviously causing a set-back in financial dealings and leaving a certain amount of uncertainty in financial circles, both here and overseas. I hope the hon. the Minister will accede to that request.

In spite of statements by the hon. the Minister that the economy of the country is sound and that there is nothing wrong, it is quite obvious, of course, that there is a chilly wind blowing through some of our financial institutions. It is especially true of the smaller and newer ones. As my hon. friend who has just sat down has indicated, certain of these institutions have come under the critical eye of the financial Press and other financial critics. Deposit receiving institutions in particular have come under this critical eye of the financial Press. On the whole I think that criticism has been responsible. It has been responsible criticism and it was made in an attempt to preserve and to protect the interests of the investing and depositing public in this country. The type of institution through which this chilly wind is blowing to-day largely affects the smaller type of investor, the man who is entitled to protection because he himself possibly lacks the means and relies on the control which the Government exercises over financial institutions. The criticism, on the whole, has been responsible. It has certainly endeavoured to cast light on to what would otherwise be obscure matters of detail in accounts and financial statements, matters about which the public should have more information.

It is quite obvious that the feeling among financial critics is that the provisions of the Banking Act itself are no longer quite adequate to meet the needs in such cases of getting clarity on the financial standing of some of these institutions. There is also a feeling. a justifiable feeling I think, that because legislation now provides for registration of financial institutions and empowers officials to carry out investigations and inspections, there is a certain amount of Government guarantee or backing as to the soundness of the business itself and as to its probity. I think that, rightly or wrongly, the public do regard this method of registration and supervision through the Minister’s Department as a sort of safeguard on the part of the State. The Minister should therefore be quite clear what the position is in that regard. My hon. friend has mentioned one institution in connection with which I recently asked a question. I asked that question in March 1962 and the Minister’s reply indicated that information was available to the Registrar of Financial Institutions some time in September 1961. That information must obviously have been adverse because of what happened subsequently. From that date in 1961 until quite recently the investing public was still making deposits with that institution and presumably many of them are going to suffer losses. I think that is a clear case of where depositor trust has been imposed in the fact that the system of control which is being exercised over these institutions will prevent any failure of businesses, such as we have seen in two instances recently. There is also an impression in business circles that the supervision and control over insurance business should be tightened up. There has clearly been a sort of cut-rate scramble for business amongst third-party insurance companies. I think there is an obligation on the Minister to explain to the country what sort of supervision is exercised and to ensure the policyholder that he will not be the loser.

That brings me to a rather delicate matter on which my hon. friend has touched. There is a feeling—it may be a completely unjustifiable feeling—in business circles that some persons or bodies have better access to the office concerned than others. I think that rather disquieting feeling must be rooted out if there is no justification for it. Nobody wants to bring persons or officials into a debate of this nature where they obviously cannot defend themselves. But I know the rumour does exist and there is also the danger of rumours like that growing bigger. I submit, therefore, there is a double responsibility on the hon. the Minister in this case. He owes a responsibility to the public itself, to the investing public, and he also owes a responsibility to the officials to remove entirely any doubts or fears that may exist in regard to the type of rumour that is making the rounds. There is a duty on the hon. the Minister and I want to ask him to give the investing public an assurance in that regard if the rumours are unfounded. Because the financial standing of our institutions have always been high and I think it would be a great pity and disastrous if suspicions should now arise in regard to them. I would, therefore, ask the hon. the Minister to give particular regard to that.

There is also a feeling that the provisions of the Banking Act itself are inadequate as far as the preparation of accounts is concerned. In a very recent issue of the Financial Mail attention was drawn to this, particularly in respect of one trust company, where it had been criticized the previous year and the following year even less information could be gleaned from the accounts of that concern. It seems to me that this is an appropriate time for the Minister to consider whether the legislation in this regard is adequate. If it is not and if it does not assure that accounts and statements …

The hon. member may not plead for new legislation.

I am not pleading for new legislation. Sir. I am asking the Minister to consider whether the present legislation is adequate.

That amounts to the same thing.

[Time limit.]

I was dealing with the question of the extension of time. I will not deal with the question of the adequacy of the legislation. But what I am concerned about is the application of the existing legislation. I want to illustrate that by quoting the case of a company whose financial year ends on 30 April. The company made a loss and the directors were able to persuade the Registrar of Companies to give them extension of time to file their balance sheets. Eventually a meeting of shareholders was held just before Christmas—nearly eight months after the end of the financial year. The company persuaded the Registrar of Companies to grant an extension of time to file its balance sheet more than six months after the end of the financial year. The company persuaded the Receiver of Revenue that because the company had made a loss there would be no prejudice to the State. The company had its meeting shortly before the end of the year and they told the sad tale to the shareholders—it was a private company with over 50 shareholders; many were old people who had invested their life savings in this company—that no dividends would be paid. Specious promises were made, or overoptimistic promises were made by the members of the Board who enjoyed their salaries and all their perquisites, and they carried on for another year. The same thing happened the following year. At the end of last year the company had sustained a bigger loss than during the previous year. They told the same story to the shareholders. They obtained an extension of time from the Registrar of Companies and from the Receiver of Revenue. They paid no dividends and the shareholders sustained further losses. I am pleased to say that the shareholders had sufficient sense to remove some of the members from the board. But this shows that unless there is a more careful application of the law our companies may start getting dilatory. I have indicated that was the first sign in the case of the Farmers’ Bank. We find a similar pattern in this insurance company. Balance sheets were not submitted for two and a half years. On 7 May 1960, Form C in respect of the meeting held on 30 September 1959 was lodged but no balance sheet. On 14 June 1960, the company wrote a letter to the Registrar requesting an extension of time to 31 August to lodge its balance sheet. This was apparently delivered because on the same day the Registrar replied granting the request for an extension to 31 August. On 13 September 1960 the company wrote requesting a further extension. On 17 September the Registrar complied, granting extension to 31 October. A further extension was requested and granted as there is a note on the Registrar’s record that extension had been granted to 7 November 1960. Despite these extensions the 1959 balance sheets, according to the statement, had still not been lodged. On 28 July 1961 the Registrar wrote to the company requesting Form C for the year 1960 to which no reply had been received. When writing that letter the company’s office apparently overlooked the fact that the 1959 balance sheet was still outstanding as no further requests have been made. This is another exampler of what happens when extensions are granted so freely. If the Minister were to look into the offices of the various registrars and go into the question of how many extensions have been granted, I think he will find invariably that an efficient company’s records are up to date. You usually find a tendency to delay when there is trouble. I submit, Sir, that when there is a tendency to delay, the Registrar should particularly be on his guard to ensure that the interests of the investing public are protected. When there is a delay you will invariably find—not always—that there is something wrong. I think one of the first things that the Registrar should do is to inquire from the auditors. He should ask the auditors what the reasons for the delay are and that they should give him a report. I am quite sure that you will find in cases where they have applied for an extension, the auditors have been told, when they asked for certain information, that the information would be given next time.

I suggest that in view of the publicity given in the financial pages of our newspapers, particularly over the last year, to these companies which have fallen on evil days, there is room for inquiry and very serious inquiry. You do not find trouble when things are booming. When there is a period of expansion and people get their dividends they do not complain. When claims are paid by insurance companies you do not get any complaints. But once a company runs into difficulties even the most meticulous director or official hopes that he will be able to put things right. I am not suggesting that there is dishonesty in every case, but there is often dilatoriness and people are over-optimistic in their judgment. Rather than face the music they hope to gain time by delays. If the Minister’s officials are going to assist by granting extensions and condoning that delay without proper inquiry and without going into the matter and without ensuring that there are very good reasons for the delay, then while not in law, the Minister can be an accessory, in effect, to the deterioration of the company’s affairs. I suggest, Sir, that the Minister has a very big responsibility, particularly in the case of companies who are not faring too well; particularly in the case of insurance companies or banking institutions where the Statute shows quite clearly that its whole object is to protect the little man and the small investor who looks to the Government and the officials of the Minister’s Department to see that the law is carried out. I feel sure that one of the main contributing factors is this question of procrastination and delay. If the Minister is short of staff he should say so. If on the other hand the Minister’s staff are not dealing with this matter effectively in terms of the legislation I hope the Minister will assure us that he will have the matter thoroughly investigated. I submit, Sir, that there is a case for an investigation. A memorandum has been sent to the Minister’s Department. Sufficient publicity has been given to it over the past year to warrant the Minister being more than ever concerned about what has been going on. I hope we will get the assurance from the Minister that some of the remedies suggested by us will receive serious consideration.

Mr. Chairman, when my time expired I was indicating that there was criticism in the financial Press to the effect that the accounts of some of these bodies, particularly deposit receiving institutions, were inadequately prepared for the protection of the depositor and the shareholder and did not enable them to assess the standing and status of the institution correctly. As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, I cannot ask for further legislation but I do ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to that criticism which has been made and to give the assurance, if he can do so, that he will carry out some form of investigation as my hon. friend from Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has indicated. I think a case has been made out for an inquiry into both the running and the supervision and also the legislation in regard to some of these financial bodies. I hope the hon. the Minister will accede to that request.

I come back to this question of the staff. I would like the hon. the Minister to give us some assurance, in view of what has happened and in view of the criticism which has been made, that the staff of the Registrar of Financial Institutions is really adequate in so far as its adequacy, not in numbers, but in so far as its efficiency and competency are concerned. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether there is on the staff of this section of the Treasury any registered accountant and auditor or an experienced and qualified person in economics and in law and possibly also a qualified actuary. It is quite obvious that this side of the Treasury’s functions has become an extremely important one. It has become an extremely important one both in regard to the amount of work involved and in regard to the variety of the work. Financial institutions of various kinds have been established in the country in recent years. That has placed an additional burden on this section of the Treasury.

Before we adjourned I had raised with the hon. the Minister the matter of the staffing of the section of the Treasury responsible for the control of financial institutions. I indicated that the importance of this branch or section of the Treasury had become far greater in recent years than in the past. I asked the Minister to tell us precisely what the staff was and what its competency was, particularly whether there are registered accountants and auditors on the staff or anybody with adequate training in law, economic and actuarial science. As I indicated earlier, there is a feeling amongst the public that the registration of and supervision over institutions places a responsibility on the Government and I hope the Minister will therefore view it in that light and will give us the information I asked for.

I want to come to one other financial institution, and I deal with this on an entirely different basis. That is to ask the Minister in how far and in what way the Treasury is exercising supervision and control over the finances of the Land Bank. I raise that question because prior to 1959 the Treasury was always able to set a ceiling to the bank's lending capacity and in that way was able to control its lending policy and its financial administration. Sir, the law was changed in 1959 and the bank was empowered to raise funds on the open money market and from the Reserve Bank in the form of debentures or bills. Sir, one of the financial Press criticisms is this—

In I960 it was admittedly lower. It was about R30,000,000, and in 1961 it had admittedly come down again to a level of something like R13,000,000. I raise this matter particularly because prior to 1959 there was this adequate control by the Treasury. The money had to be provided for on the Estimates and approved by Parliament. This lending spree that arose in 1959 is obviously going to have an aftermath, and that is why I raise the matter now, to find out precisely what supervision and control the Treasury still has. I quote from the recent Land Bank report, which says this on page 8—

I have indicated that it ended in a lending spree because in the next paragraph the Board says this—

And that policy was continued in 1961. It also says this, on page 9—

I think the public is entitled to some reassurance from the Minister that some form of adequate supervision will still be maintained, which is now lacking because of the change in the system by which this institution raises money. I mention that because there is quite an alarming situation in regard to outstandings. These have risen considerably. The outstandings on loan repayments is growing and the arrears have risen from 0.77 per cent in 1955 to 3.39 per cent in 1961. I think that is quite an alarming growth in the outstanding liabilities, and whenever spending sprees are there one knows that there will be an aftermath. That is why I raise the matter at this stage in order that the Minister may give us some reassurance in that regard.

I just want to tell the hon. member that, as far as the Land Bank is concerned, I do not think he need worry about this “lending spree” to which he has referred. The hon. member ought to know —I think he was already a member of this House—that the Government announced a new policy in respect of the Land Bank and that entailed that the Land Bank was given the right to lend money on the open market itself, but that it could only do so with the approval of the Minister of Finance. It cannot lend money just as it pleases. The hon. member must also remember that the Land Bank changed its entire loan policy at the same time and to-day they can advance money up to 80 per cent and also make advances on movable property. That was why the Land Bank has had the expenditure which it has had in the one year. I wish to point out, however, that at the same time the expenditure of State Advances was much less than the previous year because in that way the Land Bank had taken over some of its duties. I do not wish to enlarge upon that, but I do want to mention a few things to the Minister.

I wish to ask the Minister something in connection with these loans he has issued. I notice that, whereas the loan was supposed to have been closed at the end of the month it was closed last week already. I do not know whether he did so because of the good response. I also wish to ask the Minister this: I notice that since December there has been a substantial drop in the interest on Treasury notes up to the time the Minister made his Budget speech. I should like to know whether there has been a further drop since then, and, if so, of how much. Other members have already asked questions in connection with the acquisition of shares overseas, and I do not want to go into that. I just want to get some information from the Minister in connection with foreign exchange reserves. I notice that during the period, which is traditionally a declining period, our foreign reserve position has continued to improve. I wonder if the Minister could tell us what the prospects are for the near future in this connection, what he thinks those prospects are, and whether, in view of that, he intends giving the Minister of Economic Affairs further rope so that he can spend money on foreign purchases.

Finally, I just want to correct something. You will remember, Sir, that in the course of the Budget debate I spoke about banks, building societies and othe deposit-receiving institutions. When you read the newspaper reports of what I had said, you cannot really blame the deposit-receiving institutions and the building societies if they think that the trend of my speech was that the two of them should be killed off and that only the bank should remain. As you know, Sir, that is totally wrong: I never suggested anything of the kind. All I suggested was that the banks and the building societies and the other deposit-receiving institutions should all fall under the same legislative provisions as far as the increasing or decreasing of interest rates were concerned and as far as it concerned making money more or less readily available according to the circumstances obtaining in the country. The law should not only apply to a few of the institutions and not to others. I wanted to make that clear and I hope those people who are under the wrong impression will note this. I receive letters from time to time from people whom you would expect to read Hansard but who read a newspaper report which gives a totally wrong impression of the position. I only hope those people will read what they ought to read and not gain the wrong impression and then address lengthy letters to me.

I want to support what was said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), who is asking to be assured as to the extent to which the Land Bank is being controlled and supervised. I think it is only right to ask for answers to these questions and that it should not be interpreted as criticism of the Land Bank as such. We are not criticizing the Land Bank alone. We see their balance sheet and report and we know that there is an officer in charge of financial institutions, and we have had the record for the past year when doubt was cast on the efficiency of financial institutions, and then we should be more than ordinarily alert. I want to follow up what I said earlier about the Farmers’ Bank, which is now under judicial management, and I hope that the Minister will use his influence, such as he has, to get this matter expedited. In a matter of this kind, if anything can be done to speed matters up it will help many people who have put their life savings into this institution. A case was brought to my notice since I spoke earlier, where a man put £1,000, the whole of his life savings, into this bank. A cheque was made out to him, but it could not be paid because the institution was put under judicial management and he can do nothing about the matter, because all the funds of that bank are frozen. While the Minister’s influence in the matter will be limited, I hope he will use such influence as he has to expedite the matter.

Another matter on which I should like the Minister to give us some information is in regard to his policy in regard to funds held by South African citizens overseas. Recently all persons holding funds overseas were required by the Treasury to report those funds through their bankers and in many cases they were required to repatriate those funds back to South Africa. There are many cases where the people concerned have been distressed at having to recall personal funds. In many cases there were family assets which they had to realize, and they realized them and returned the funds to South Africa. In some cases they appealed and I know of cases which have come to my notice personally where there was an appeal to the Treasury and the Treasury dealt with these cases sympathetically. But it is not everyone who takes the matter to appeal. As soon as they receive the notice that they must repatriate their funds, they act as if it were an injunction requiring immediate compliance, and particularly amongst the elderly people who may have R5,000 in this country and the same amount overseas, to require them to realize it overseas at the end of their lives and to bring those assets back to South Africa may involve hardships and a loss of capital. I would like to know whether the Minister can give any indication of the policy of the Department, whether a more sympathetic policy will be applied in regard to people who have funds overseas, or whether we will have a more rigid imposition in future. I suggest that, in view of the recent statement made by the Minister which indicated that our reserves are at a much higher level and that the position is now easier, there is some case for relaxation, within certain limits. I hope the Minister will give us some indication of his policy in that regard.

Another matter is the pattern of interest rates. Recently the Reserve Bank used its influence, or the banks used their influence, to get the building societies to reduce their rates. I should like to know from the Minister whether he is prepared—as I think he should be—to leave these institutions to make their own arrangements in consultation, or whether it will be the policy of the Treasury to force these institutions to comply with a certain pattern of interest rates. I would like to know what the Minister’s policy is in that regard.

The comments of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) oblige me to come back. I am perfectly well aware that the Land Bank borrows with the approval of the Treasury, but I did not think it was necessary to mention it because I am not concerned with the powers of the Treasury but with how the powers are exercised. I specifically asked in how far and in what way the Treasury exercises supervision and control over this financial administration. I was in no way trying to criticize the Bank’s lending policy; I was concerned with its lending capacity, which had changed so remarkably. I think it is necessary that this should be clarified and that the Minister should have an opportunity to explain the position because the criticism to which I referred to previously was in the Financial Mail, which says this—

Then it goes on to quote the other reference which I quoted previously. This type of criticism I think is justifiable and I think we are entitled to some answer from the Minister, and that is why I raised the matter.

Speaking for the agricultural industry, I would be happy if the Minister could inform the House how far the Government is implicated regarding the responsibility of the Land Bank to grant loans to farmers. The Land Bank is not now regarded by the farmers as a farmers’ bank, as in the past, and its effect on agriculture is not the same as it used to be. Previously, e.g., the Land Bank took over bonds which had been called up by financial institutions. Such bonds to-day are only considered if legal action is taken by the financial institutions concerned against the farmer, and a statement from the Minister especially in regard to the Land Bank’s responsibility to stabilize agriculture, would be much appreciated. In justification of what I have said, I would like to tell the Minister that more farms are being sold to-day for the recovery of bonds by the Land Bank than ever before, and I can quote a letter I received from Leeudoringstad, from a certain individual there, who says—

Other bondholders.

The hon. member for Cradock himself knows what the position is in which the farmers are and what difficulties they have, and how it has become the responsibility of the Government to take over certain farms. It is all very well to interject when one is pleading the cause of the farmers, but I ask the Minister to give a statement so that the farmers will know how they stand and whether the Land Bank can still be called a farmers’ bank to stabilise agriculture.

In regard to the point raised about the Land Bank, the position is that the Land Bank is a statutory body and over its domestic policy the Treasury has no control, except in so far as it can exercise persuasion. It can exercise persuasion as far as the borrowing powers are concerned, and it does so. In regard to public loans and the rate of interest, those are all matters which are discussed between the Land Bank and the Reserve Bank and the Treasury and there is a very good understanding; but control, in the sense that we have our auditors controlling their books or that we have the right to interfere in their domestic affairs, that we have not got. There was not a spending spree in 1959. In 1959 a special effort was made which synchronized with the changing of the financial basis of the Land Bank, a definite effort to rehabilitate the farming community, and that year very large loans were granted to consolidate their position. That is a process which could not go on year after year. You cannot go on spending over R60,000,000 on that, and now it has more or less come to an even level. To a certain extent the Bank was handicapped by a lack of funds. That position has been improved considerably. Last year it was able to conclude a new 20-year loan and a five-year loan. That will probably enable it to act more liberally and more widely than when its powers were circumscribed by a lack of funds. But naturally hon. members must remember that the Land Bank is a business institution; it is not there for charity. Its security must be business security. There are other institutions which are able to help farmers when they get into trouble, if they are not able to find the necessary security for the loans they want to make. But, as I say, the Land Bank generally discusses its borrowing programme with us and also its policy, whether it should be a little more strict or a little more lenient. To a large extent that depends on the funds at its disposal.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has asked me about the policy in regard to funds held overseas by South Africans, and also in regard to the pattern of interest rates. In so far as funds held by South Africans overseas are concerned, we have had a census taken of it so that in the first place we can know what funds there were; and the liquid funds overseas must be repatriated unless a good case can be made out for keeping them there. But the long-term investments need not be realized and brought back to South Africa. In regard to the pattern of interest rates, we have no legal power to enforce a pattern of rates, but it stands to reason that where you have a strong Reserve Bank it can influence rates very largely. So far we have felt that in the main we must allow the law of supply and demand to take its course and to adjust the pattern to the needs of the day, and not to interfere excessively with the ordinary run of affairs in regard to interest rates. If there is a genuine supply and demand, then usually, as is now happening, the interest rates are inclined to find their true level, their correct economic level, and that is what is happening now.

*The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) also questioned me in regard to the currency reserves and what the prospects are. It is of course very difficult to make predictions in regard to such a matter. The reserves are still rising and we expect them to continue rising, but the rate of increase, as far as I can judge, will perhaps not be maintained at the level at which we have had it in recent times. But I have already explained in my Budget speech that we would like to maintain a higher level of reserves in future. We have recently seen that our reserves are particularly vulnerable and therefore, in order to combat any sudden withdrawal of capital in the form of portfolio investments, we must maintain our reserves at a higher level than would otherwise have been the case. Therefore we welcome it, and we hope to maintain a higher level than what we had in the past. It is very difficult to say at what stage this level is sufficiently high. There are many circumstances affecting it and there are various tests for it, but I think that we in South Africa, apart from the ordinary tests, must always bear in mind that we are particularly vulnerable because such a large amount, about R800,000,000 of these nondirect investments are in the form of portfolio investments. That is so for historical and traditional reasons, but to some extent it endangers our reserves, and therefore we would like to see a further increase in the reserves.

The hon. member also asked me about the last inland loan we quoted. I want to take this opportunity to tell the Committee how it fared. Hon. members will remember that there was a R29.4 million loan which fell due, and we then floated two new loans, one for five years and one for 20 years, the five-year loan at 5¼ per cent, and the 20-year loan at 5⅞ per cent. Of that, R17.8 million was converted into the new loans. Cash subscriptions for the new loans received from the public amount to R33.9 million; in other words, the total subscriptions for the new loans, excluding what the Public Debt Commissioners took, amount to R51.7 million. In my Budget speech I referred to the financing of our loan funds and said I hoped to obtain R40,000,000 from internal loans. When in the beginning of last week we saw what reaction there was to these loans, I immediately decided to close the list. Normally it would have remained upon until the end of the month, but by the end of the week, when the list was closed, after proper notice had been given, we had received an amount of R51.7 million, whereas in my Budget speech I said I expected only R40,000,000. As I say, we immediately closed the lists, but the full amount of the applications received up to the closing day will be accepted. It will therefore be possible to borrow less money overseas or in the form of Treasury Bills than I anticipated in my Budget speech. The contributions—it is perhaps interesting just to mention it—were made up as follows: The Public Debt Commissioners, a little more than R50,000,000 of which R20,000,000 is the conversion of the special pension fund stocks into the ordinary local stocks; the National Finance Corporation R10,000,000, the commercial banks R19.5 million, building societies R4.13 million, insurance companies R6.766 million, pension funds R762,000, investment companies R7,482,000, individuals and others who cannot be classified under any other head, just over R3,000,000, making a total of R101,738,000. Of that, as I said, the Public Debt Commissioners took about R50,000,000 and the general public the rest. I should like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks for their support to all these bodies which so splendidly supported this loan, something which put our Loan Account in a very favourable position. The cash contributions amounted to R83.9 million. The rest was converted to give the total of R101,000,000.

Then a few questions were put by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell), to which I would like to reply briefly. He and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) asked whether there was any further information in regard to the purchase of shares by the Reserve Bank in England on behalf of financial institutions here, and also what the position is in regard to the blocked rand loan which I announced in my Budget speech. In regard to the blocked rand loan, I just want to say that the prospectus will be available towards the end of June. The loan will be open on approximately 12 June. The lists will be open for only about nine days in every month and the loan can be closed at any time if the target of R20,000,000 which I have set is reached. For administrative reasons subscriptions must be in multiples of R500, and the minimum subscription R2,500. Only inhabitants of foreign countries, excluding immigrants, and foreign companies may subscribe and payment must be made out of blocked rand funds. A certificate from a commercial bank or other authorized dealer in foreign currency must accompany each subscription. Interest at 5 per cent per annum will be paid half-yearly. Every year on the date of his subscription the holder of the stocks will receive back one-fifth of his investment which, like the interest, will be freely transferable and can be converted into foreign currency. As I say, the prospectus itself will be made available and the particulars I have mentioned here, as well as perhaps other particulars, will be published in it. The idea of the loan is to afford another outlet to people who have blocked rands here. They can invest in this loan on the basis which I mentioned in my Budget speech.

In regard to the purchase of shares overseas, insurance companies, pension funds and other approved financial institutions may participate in the scheme. It is not intended for ordinary individuals. The institution concerned can place an order with its usual South African broker, who will in the first instance try to execute the order on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Only if he cannot succeed in doing so will the broker apply through an authorized bank for the consent of the Reserve Bank for the purchase of those shares abroad.I think it was the hon. member for Kensington who thought that the President of the Reserve Bank will personally operate on the exchange here or in London to buy the shares. It is not like that. If consent is given, the Reserve Bank will fix a maximum price at which the shares may be purchased abroad. The price to be paid by the South African institutions will also be agreed upon at that stage. Transactions will be limited to a minimum amount of R5,000. The broker himself will arrange for the purchase of the shares overseas, and no publicity will be given to the fact that shares will be bought under this scheme. It will be a normal transaction on the London Stock Exchange. Various brokers will probably participate in it, just as the position is to-day. The big difference is, of course, that the Reserve Bank will have control to ensure that it will not harm our reserves. We have set aside this R20,000,000 for that purpose, and when that amount has been exhausted we will again consider whether we will continue with this scheme, or a different one, in future. The broker will have to pay to the Reserve Bank the difference between the purchase price overseas and the price the local purchaser—which has been agreed upon—has to pay. These amounts will eventually be paid into the Special Defence Account, as I said in my Budget speech. These arrangements are tentative and can be changed if circumstances demand it. But this is the general trend of those arrangements. I just want to say that we devoted quite a lot of time to it because we wanted to consult all possible interests. This is a new thing we are undertaking and we did not want to enter into it over-hastily. We had discussions with all interested parties, with members of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and with the Reserve Bank, etc. Generally we investigated the matter widely and this is the conclusion at which we arrived. The banks and the brokers on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange will be supplied with full particulars of the scheme. It will then be left in their hands.

The hon. member for Pinetown has also asked me about the incentive for export trade which I announced in my Budget speech. That will, of course, be part of the Income Tax Act and the provisions have already been drawn up and will be published in a Gazette which it is hoped will appear on the 27th of this month. It is expected that on publication representations will be made to the Commissioner, and from what the hon. member has said, his suggestions will no doubt be carried over to the Minister.

The hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) also questioned me about certain financial institutions. I do not want to deal in detail with these institutions. I do not think I can say very much; that would be unwise with the information at my disposal. But I think I can say this that the function of the Registrar and the Minister under the Act is to protect the small investor. It is something very difficult to decide what is in the true interests of the small investor. There are cases where you feel that you should try to nurse the institution which is showing signs of ailment back to financial health rather than step in and kill it off immediately. I think that is a natural feeling but it is a feeling which has to be tempered by the other consideration. You want to protect those people who already have money there in the form of policies or in the form of deposits. In the past we have on many occasions succeeded in nursing an ailing institution back to financial health. On the other hand there is the question whether those people who are responsible—sometimes the reason is sheer malpractice—should not be called to book. I can only say that it is very difficult for the Registrar of Financial Institutions to know when he has to cease trying to protect the interests of depositors and justly punish the persons who are responsible for the malpractices and when to try to save the money which is already invested in the institution. The difficulty is that legislation itself is not sufficient. I think hon. members have mentioned that. I notice that the idea is even mooted whether legislation in any case can be effective; whether legislation does not give a false sense of security and whether it should not be a case of caveat investor; that the investor should be careful in entrusting his money in the shape of deposits or in the shape of premiums, to institutions which are not very well known as sound institutions. But at any rate, there you have the position, Sir. We know that the Registrar under existing legislation has no power to interfere in all actions of insurance companies. We also know that inflated claims under third party insurance are notorious and the number of contested claims is not necessarily proof that the public is being exploited. At present inspection of financial institutions can only be undertaken when there is a definite reason for suspicion. I have already mentioned on another occasion that I want to introduce inspectors who can also make routine inspections. We want rather to prevent an institution from falling into that position than to try to restore it when it has already fallen into that unfortunate position. I also hope to introduce before the end of this Session legislation in regard to this inspectorate. I hope that will enable us to take timeous steps and not to wait until the damage has been done before we step in. That is the reason for our proposal to have routine inspections.

The hon. member for Pinetown has also referred to the delay in the submission of balance sheets. I want to point out to him that the Registrar of Companies falls under the Minister of Economic Affairs. Under the Banking Act a bank is not obliged to render its balance sheet to the Registrar until it has submitted the balance sheet to the shareholders. There are other returns, of course, which have to be rendered regularly and an extension of time for such returns is not granted lightly, particularly when such extension is periodically applied for. That has nothing to do, however, with the Registrar of Companies. That does not fall under me. These difficulties into which financial institutions fall may be caused by one of two things. The first possibility is that they may flow from a bad policy of investing. They get the money from the small investor and they in turn have to make investments. And if they are injudicious in the choice of those investments they sustain a loss. The other, of course, is where there are definite malpractices. Legislation cannot control the quality of the investments that are made. That is a matter for the institution itself. And, as I have said, malpractices are usually discovered too late to save the institution. I think, therefore, that is a further argument in favour of routine inspections. They may reveal malpractices before it is too late. That is what we hope we will achieve.

The hon. member has also referred to the case where a report which was presumably unfavourable, was already rendered last year in September, I think. I think the case referred to is the same one which I have in mind. The Registrar received a report on 18 September 1961, containing apparently unfavourable features. In terms of the Banking Act the Registrar had to transmit a copy to the institution, which he did. The institution replied in November stating that the matter had been rectified. Meanwhile proposals for a merger with other institutions had been put forward which seemed to offer a solution. That is the way in which ailing institutions are often assisted; namely to merge with other institutions. And after the merger they are in a better financial position to meet their troubles. This proposal was approved by the Registrar, the proposal for a merger, and steps were taken to implement it. But it fell through in February of this year due to differences between the proposer of the merger and the deputy-chairman of the institution concerned. Later it became necessary to place this institution under judicial management. This institution is to-day under judicial management. As I say, at the time the merger was proposed it seemed that it would be in the best interests of the small investors to accept the proposal. It must be emphasized that many institutions who have found themselves in difficulties have been saved through financial manoeuvres of this kind, a merger, or something like that, without any publicity. Precipitate action might very well have the opposite effect from what you want. It may deprive the small investors of the small amounts they have deposited there. That is the position in general as far as these financial institutions are concerned. It is quite true as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has said, that we have staff difficulties. The whole function of this division of the Department has increased very much of late. Last year some further institutions were put under the care of the Registrar of Financial Institutions and the staff position is serious. We have now agreed to the appointment of two inspectors over and above the staff he has and under the legislation we are proposing further assistance will be forthcoming. The staff of the Registrar of Financial Institutions does not include a chartered accountant or an actuary, as the hon. member has suggested, but it does include persons who are qualified in law and in economics and with some training in accountancy. There is a post for an actuary but it has not been possible to fill it. We hope that with these additions, the staff will be in a better position to cope with the work which is increasing in volume, and which is becoming a very important part of our whole financial system.

I think that disposes of the questions raised by hon. members.

I have already mentioned that the Banking Act is admittedly outdated and we are busy drafting a new Act. I hope it will be ready for introduction next year. We are also busy with the investigation by the Reserve Bank and the Treasury into the position generally of these various financial institutions. We hope that will solve the problem to which hon. members have referred of the banks having one rate of interest and the building societies another rate. We ought to be able to find some way of reconciling the interests of these various institutions and to confine each to his own territory, his own backyard.

I think there is one other point I would like to make at this stage and that is that the financial result for the year—although the figure is not final as yet—seems to indicate that we will close the financial year on 31 March with a surplus higher than the R5,000,000 surplus which I anticipated. I think at this stage we can say—although this is still subject to confirmation—that it seems that there will be a surplus of about R16,000,000. The reason for that is the fact that expenditure was actually R3,000,000 lower than we budgeted for. The receipts from Customs and Excise were R3,500,000 higher and from Inland Revenue they were R4,500,000 higher. This surplus of R16,000,000 really means that we underestimated the income and over-estimated expenditure as a result of which we were out by about R11,000,000. I budgeted for a surplus of R5,000,000.

Are you going to reduce taxes?

I will tell hon. members what I propose doing. Hon. members will remember that ordinarily any surplus goes to the Loan Account. This year I said that the surplus would go to the Revenue Account. But in view of this figure, what I propose doing is that, apart from any further amounts which have to be voted under the Supplementary Estimates, anything above that and the R5,000,000 which I budgeted for, will now be placed to the credit of the Defence Procurement Fund so as to help in regard to the question of any further taxation next year. There seems to be only one really effective reply to this difficulty of estimating accurately and that is that we shall have to introduce the Budget after the end of the financial year. We make our estimates about a fortnight before the end of the year and we find that towards the end, on 30 March, we have certain figures; and on 31 March there was an accession of R58,000,000 to the funds of the Public Debt Commissioners. And early in April large amounts were again withdrawn. That is the position in respect of the Loan Account. It makes it very difficult. Various Departments are responsible for it. Defence was responsible for the repayment of about R2,000,000; the Transvaal Provincial Administration for R4,500,000; Railways,—not as much as last year,—but they paid back R2,000,000 this year. Like many commercial firms, it seems to me that the departments try to make their accounts appear as healthy as they possibly can at the end of the financial year. Having paid what they have borrowed, they again draw heavily early in the new financial year. I am really concerned about this aspect. We shall have to see whether there is any possibility of arriving at a solution. Even if one makes allowance for an under-estimate, and then you are still faced with this position.

*As I have said, this additional amount of R11,000,000 which we under-estimated will, after the deduction of any additional expenditure for which provision must be made in the Additional Estimates, will be paid into the Special Defence Account, where it will be available for Defence expenditure next year. On the Loan Account there will also be a larger surplus than the one I mentioned, as the result of the reasons I have given, viz. the payment to the Public Debt Commissioners on the last day of the financial year. Up to 30 March the total investment with the Public Debt Commissioners was only R62,000,000 and the balance of almost R58,000,000 was received on 31 March. On 30 March it was R62,000,000, and on 31 March an additional R58,000,000 was received. Within the first week of April appreciable amounts were again withdrawn. So there is this difficulty, and I can only say that I am devoting attention to it. I am sorry this happened. We are glad the surplus is higher than we thought it would be. I really made an attempt to give an absolutely objective picture of the position and it is disappointing to find a fortnight later that one was wrong. I just want to remind hon. members that where one is dealing with a budget of over R700,000,000, an under-estimate of R11,000,000 is not very important; it is not a large percentage. It is not even 1½per cent. But, as I say, it is something one would like to avoid. I can only give the House the assurance that I will devote attention to it.

We have had a very interesting reply from the hon. the Minister. With regard to financial institutions, I appreciate his suggestions in regard to the introduction of an inspectorate. I hope the Minister will take this matter very seriously and realize that the state of affairs which has obtained over the last year, will not be tolerated by the investing public. The small investor has come to rely upon the State to guarantee that any institution, such as a banking or insurance institution, was a sound institution. Confidence has been very severely shocked. So much so that many of the sound companies themselves are concerned, where their names are similar or almost similar to an institution which has run into difficulty and I am quite sure that they have made representations to the Minister.

You will have an opportunity to raise that when I introduce the Bill. I will consider everything you are saying now when I frame the Bill.

I believe the Minister has appointed an inter-departmental committee to investigate legislation affecting various financial institutions. I would like to know whether that committee has met as yet; when it was appointed and when the Minister expects their report.

It is a Departmental Committee consisting of the Reserve Bank and the Treasury.

I would like to know whether they have met yet. It was appointed some time ago and I am interested to know whether they have started their work.

The Minister’s final remark was very interesting indeed. We find that there is a R16,009,000 surplus instead of the R5,000,000 surplus. The Minister told us during his Budget speech that he expected to balance his budget—no surplus and no deficit for next year. When we started this discussion this afternoon, Sir, the Minister indicated that there was a reduction in the estimates to a tune of R1,000,000, on account of decimalization. So that on his own showing, if we take his Budget speech into account, there will be a surplus of R12,000,000—R11,000,000 which is to be carried forward plus the R1,000,000 deduction in the expenditure. The Minister has, however, said that he would not allow that to be carried forward. He indicated that the excess over the R5,000,000 would go to the Defence Vote. But it is quite clear to us, Mr. Chairman, that as a result of this improved position, the Minister could have given more concessions in his Budget rather than impose heavier taxation. We will have an opportunity of discussing that later under Ways and Means. What I am concerned about is the Minister telling us about the difficulty of having R58,000,000 coming in at the end of the year and then going out again on 1 April. As the hon. the Minister will know, in the celebrated case of Lord Kylsant, he had to take the rap for window-dressing. What has happened is quite clear. The Departments are window-dressing their accounts to suit their own convenience and that they are misleading the Minister. The Minister, in turn, has put a statement before us …

This is the opposite to window dressing.

Window-undressing.

I take strong exception to the Minister trying to do a strip-tease here. If the Minister should try to do a strip-tease, we will take a serious view of the matter.

I should say so!

The Minister objects to the term “window-dressing”. But it is quite clear that they are trying to create the impression that things are worse than they are. And because things are regarded worse than what they are, the public have higher taxes imposed upon them. That is the point. Departments give the impression that things are worse than what they are, the Minister tries to put the best case forward, and then later on when the true facts are available, after the Budget speech is all over, we find a totally different picture. I think it is high time that the hon. the Minister not alone exerted discipline in his own department in this regard, but also exercised strict financial discipline in all the various departments which come to the Minister for Funds. I think it is high time that the hon. Minister should have a roll-call of those Ministers who are not towing the line. We would like to know which Ministers are trying to present too good a picture or too bad a picture, as it suits their needs. The hon. Minister suggested that we should have the Budget later in the year, but I think that would only encourage departments to delay their task like some of these financial institutions. I think what is really needed is financial discipline within the Minister’s department. I think this discussion will certainly have the effect of bringing to the notice of officials the necessity for better control in respect of the legislation which is passed by this House so far as the control of financial institutions is concerned, but I also hope that the Minister will bring to the notice of the various Ministers the necessity for presenting true accounts.

In regard to the announcement by the hon. the Minister about a surplus of R16,000,000, I think it is a case not of, as he said in his Budget speech, “looking to our defences”, but rather that it is time that he started looking to Treasury control, because it is quite obvious of course that what is happening is that there has been inflation in expenditure estimates. I do not think he need go very far to find out where there was inflation in expenditure estimates on Loan Account for two years or three years in succession.

I appreciate the hon. Minister’s difficulty when he refers to the staff problem which confronts him and the Registrar of Financial Institutions. I accept his statement that the position will be remedied, but that will be so far as many of the depositors and the small investors are concerned, a case of locking the stable door after the steed had been stolen. It must have been obvious to the hon. the Minister long ago that this branch of the department was expanding as rapidly as it was and that the need for staff was there, but as I say, it is welcome to know that steps are going to be taken to improve the position. So far as the small investor is concerned who may lose his money, it is small comfort and as I have said, very much a case of locking the door after the steed has been stolen.

I want to come to one other matter and that is the amount of R1,000,000 that is being provided in respect of the cost of raising loans during the current year, 1962-3. I think an explanation is due to this House as to the reasons for this ample provision which is being made. Sir, I am quite well aware that the cost of raising loans is distributed between Loan Account and Revenue Account, depending on whether the currency of the loan is for less than five years or for five years or more, and I am also quite well aware that the Charges are met from the standing appropriation, but payment has nevertheless to be provided for each year. Now having regard to the amounts which have been charged to the loan accounts for the past five years, it is quite obvious that the provision of R1,000,000 would appear to be over-generous, unless of course there are factors unknown to this House so far in regard to the current loan-raising programme. And that is the reason why I ask the hon. the Minister to give us some explanation. You see, for 1960-1 the cost of raising loans, so far as the Loan Account is concerned, was only R110,000, and for the past year, 1961-2, up till the end of February, it was only R180,000, so that it will most likely be under R200,000 for that year. But the hon. the Minister has provided this substantial amount of R1,000,000, and it rather indicates therefore that he expects that new loans will be very much more in the category of less than five years and that therefore he has to provide this substantial amount for the cost of raising loans. I also ask the hon. the Minister to explain sub-head F “Exchange on Remittances”. That amount has gone up by 100 per cent. Last year it was R50,000 and the amount this year is R100,000. Why this substantial increase this year?

I would like the hon. the Minister to help us in regard to one small matter. I know that the hon. the Minister cannot dictate the policy of the Land Bank, but I think he can use his influence with the Land Bank to deal with questions in a particular manner, and I would like to appeal for some relaxation at the present time in regard to the Land Bank regulations which call upon a borrower to personally occupy a property, a farm, in respect of which he has made a borrowing from the Land Bank at the time of purchase. As the regulations are, a man borrows from the Land Bank to buy a farm, and then he is called upon to personally occupy and work it. That is fair enough. There is no complaint in general in regard to a provision of that kind. But at the present time when we have fallen rather on evil days, we find that such a man may have his father or a brother or some member of his family to carry on with the work on the farm while he takes up some outside employment. The interest and payments in regard to the bond will be forthcoming, but the person himself is not there, and the bank takes the line that in respect of those cases, the man must himself occupy and work that farm. I suggest that it is not quite fair in the circumstances, and I ask whether the Minister perhaps could use his influence to bring about an alleviation in that regard.

I have allowed the hon. member to discuss this matter, but strictly speaking the policy of the Land Bank is not under discussion now, and it is not relevant.

The hon. the Minister dealt with staff matters, but I am sorry that he did not deal with this one aspect which I raised about the unhappy rumours that are about.

As far as the question of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is concerned, I will take up the matter with the Land Bank. The practical difficulty has always been to know where to draw a line, but I will put this point to them again.

I want to assure the hon. member that the difficulty he has raised does not really affect taxation at all. What I mentioned was what was paid in to the Public Debt Commissioners on the last day. Actually as far as the Loan Account is concerned, the Public Debt Commissioner at first thought that it would be R100,000,000, and now it is R120,000,000, due to their payments at the end. That is a matter which I am looking into, but that amount that I mentioned does not affect the Revenue Account at all.

The surplus was due to an under-estimate of revenue rather than an over-estimate of expenditure. The over-estimate was not really an over-estimate but was money not spent, for various reasons, and the amount was only R3,000,000. That is not a very large amount compared with the excess of revenue over the estimated revenue, which was R8,000,000. Experience shows that it is extremely difficult to estimate revenue. Departments naturally tend to be conservative, and although I am inclined to make allowance for their conservatism, I find that in the end—no doubt influenced by some of the Jeremiahs on the other side of the House—I also tend to be over-conservative in my estimates.

You should be a little more progressive.

With a big “p” or a small “p”?

As far as the cost of raising of loans is concerned, this increases from year to year. R1,000,000 is a nominal amount and the actual cost has exceeded this figure in the past. We put that as more or less a mean, but it has been exceeded in the past, and I cannot very well under-estimate expenditure to that extent as to make available a lesser amount than R1,000,000. The public loans overseas, particularly, are sometimes very expensive.

Then about the rumours. Well if I were to pay too much regard to rumours, that would also be a dangerous thing. I can only tell hon. members that the first thing I do when these rumours reach me, is to try and assess the source of that rumour, and frequently that gives one an idea of what weight to attach to them. Sometimes it is a question of revenge, sometimes malice, and there are many other reasons, but as far as these rumours which the hon. member referred to are concerned, I can assure him that the matter is receiving attention. Naturally I cannot give rumours the publicity of stating them here in the House, but those rumours which had been referred to in the publication he mentioned, I am going into.

I may say that the increase in the exchange on remittances is mainly due to the increase in defence expenditure abroad.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Vote No. 11.—“Treasury,” as reduced, amounting to R980,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 12.—“Public Debt,” R45,900,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 13.—“Provincial Administrations,” R145,638,000,

I won’t keep the hon. the Minister long on this Vote. There is a commission which is investigating the whole question of financial relations with the provinces, and I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us, if he can, when he expects this commission will have its report available, and whether he has had an interim report, and if so, to what extent he intends implementing the recommendations?

As far as the Schumann Commission on the financial relations between the Central Government and the Provinces is concerned, they are busy. I received information from them a few days ago and there the Chairman makes the following remarks—

Hon. members will realize that it is a very big job they are doing and I was very glad to get this information that they expect that they will be able to hand in the report in about a year’s time.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 14.—“South Africa House, London (Administrative Services),” R664,000,

Will the hon. the Minister please give us some information in regard to sub-head F. There are two items here, one is “Rent” and the other “Ground rent”. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether they relate to the same premises or to different premises, and if so, what are these premises. If they both relate to South Africa House, will he tell us how long the lease still has to run in respect of South Africa House?

The “Ground rent” is in respect of South Africa House. The other “rent” is the Golden Cross House, quite near to it. The unexpired period of the lease is 66 years.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 15.—“South African Mint,” R1,360,000,

There is one small query to raise. Can the hon. the Minister tell us for how long the Mint is going to continue minting cents and half-cents in the present colour? Anybody who has to use the South African cent or half-cent coins in fluorescent lighting to-day can easily confuse the half-cent with a ten-cent piece and the cent with a 20 cent piece. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that while that may have been necessary when the change-over took place, and whilst it was necessary to have a different coloured coin, I suggest that the time has now arrived when they could use a darker coin of the same colour more or less as the old penny, now that pennies have been withdrawn from circulation. Could the hon. Minister not take an idea from Central Africa and drill a hole in the centre of both coins?

Yes, Sir, the time is ripe for the consideration of quite a number of matters in regard to our system of coinage. I already indicated when the Bill was passed that at a later stage we would have to introduce a revised Coinage Bill. But we did not want to confuse it with the process of decimalization itself. But it is on my five-year plan for the Mint that we will first have the necessary legislation. Then there are a number of other problems, firstly as regards the content of the various coins. Hon. members will have observed that this 500/500 system as far as our silver coins are concerned, has not been from an aesthetic point of view a success, and I am going into that matter, looking into the various amalgams that they have adopted in other countries and which they are adopting in other countries now. I do not want to delve too far into that now. That is one of the matters that I want to go into. Another matter is the number of coins and the size of the coins. I think that the 2½ cent coin apparently is not very popular. There is a big surplus of it and we have to decide on a 2 cent or a 3 cent coin. It is also rather foreign to the whole idea of the decimal currency to have a 2½ cent piece. Now that newspapers sell at 3 cents, one of the main reasons for the use of the old tickey, the 2½cent, has disappeared. It is only in telephone boxes and probably for parking metres that it is still being used. You have to consider that. The withdrawal of the 25 cent has already been tentatively proposed by the Decimalization Board, and we will have to carry that out.

The colour of the coins is another problem. As the hon. member has rightly observed the 1 cent and the half-cent were given this distinctive colour to distinguish them from the penny which has a different value and the half-penny. But now that the penny and the half-penny have more or less disappeared from the scene, I think the time is opportune to find something which will not be too big a strain on one’s eyesight to distinguish it from the other coins.

There is also the question of the size of the coins. Our 50 cent coin is too big for ordinary use. I am just mentioning these things to show hon. members that I am thinking along those lines and that the Director of the Mint has been thinking along those lines. I have made a collection of some of the coins you meet when you go overseas, particularly those which wear well and which I think could be substituted for some of our coins which do not wear well—the copper gets through the silver and that kind of thing and they are not pleasant to look at. Many of these European coins are much easier on the eye. Then, as I say, apart from the colour of these bronze coins, we can also consider what the hon. member there has suggested, putting a hole in the middle. These are all things which I am investigating. I cannot go further than that at the moment, but it is definitely on my plan for the changes at the Mint and changes in our coinage system, and when all these things have been settled, I shall introduce the necessary Coinage Bill to replace the existing one which is already to a large extent out of date. I do not want to weary the House with details, but those are the main points. There is another matter, and that is the appearance. I think if hon. members look at many of the coins in other countries, they will see that the denomination is very prominently put on the back of the coins, and I think if we were to try and adopt that—if you had a big “10” on the back of the 10 cent—it would be of tremendous assistance in making people more centconscious and think of the coin in terms of 10 cents and not of one shilling. The same with the 5 cents and the other denominations.I think these are matters which hon. members can leave in my hands and the Director of the Mint is already working on many of these things. If hon. members have any suggestions either as to the appearance or the colour or the size or the content, they can send such suggestions to me and I will hand them over to the Director and he will consider them.

I think the hon. the Minister should carefully consider the matter before he does away with the 25 cent piece. It is the most useful coin for tipping, and after all a lot of people gets tips in this country. I went into the post office here one day and asked change to get eight 25 cent pieces for a R2 note, and they had not got one. Yet the newspaper that very day had said that nobody wanted them. Yet, I could not get them in a Government institution. At least three different people asked for 25 cent pieces while I was in there. So I hope the hon. the Minister will take note of that.

I cannot promise that, but I think if the 50 cent piece becomes a smaller coin, more or less the size of the half-a-crown, or a little bit bigger, sufficient to distinguish it from the 20 cent coin, then I think the need for the 25 cent coin will disappear. I believe it was one of the recommendations of the Decimilization Board that it should disappear. They have gone into the matter very fully. In their latest report they tell me that they expect that the date which they have assigned, September of this year, will see practically the conversion completed of all the various machines, and as I announced earlier, instead of decimilization costing the country R18,000,000, it will probably be about R14,000,000 a saving of R4,000,000 there. So they have been very successful, I think, and they recommended that coin should not be in our series. But still the matter will be considered again.

I am going to be very brief, but in regard to what the hon. the Minister has said, I want to say that there are a lot of aged people in the country, a very large group, and they are people having difficulty, and I do ask the hon. the Minister to consider the suggestion made by my hon. colleague about a hole through the centre of the two bronze coins. At the same time you want a heavily milled edge on the silver coins and a smooth edge on the bronze coins, because there are people who can still be caught with the bronze coins even if it has got a hole. They can feel the difference in the edge and that is a big advantage for people who experience difficulties. The milled edge and the hole through the centre will be of immense help to those old people of whom there are a tremendous number with poor eyesight and that sort of thing.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 16.—“Inland Revenue”, R4,200,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 17.—“Customs and Excise”, R5,887,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 18.—“Audit”, R920,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 19.—“Transport”, R7,743,000,

This time last year on the occasion of this vote I stressed the urgent need to accelerate our schemes for improving our national and special road systems. Now that our Railways have virtually completed their extensive plans, I think it is doubtful whether, in the future, many more long railway lines or lines other than “guaranteed” lines will be built inside our country. The future belongs to the air and to the roads, and I think the Railways will mainly dedicate their policies to improving, quickening and building efficiency and safety into their already existing system. In last year’s debate I did ask for a road-building programme and made certain suggestions to the Minister on that occasion. Later on in that debate he indicated that some of these suggestions were acceptable. I submitted, among other things, that the time had come to complete the_ national road from Clanwilliam to Vioolsdrif; I suggested that it was time that the road between Beaufort West and Oudtshoorn should be brought to National Road standards and also that the road from Kakamas through Prieska by way of Upington should be completed to national standards right down to Britstown and join up with route No. 9 and routes No. 1 and 7, opening up that part of the country to the coast, at Cape Town, Mossel Bay and Port Elizabeth. I also proposed, Sir, an alternative route from Aliwal North and up to Bethlehem avoiding Bloemfontein. In Natal plans should be made to complete the road from Eshowe through Vryheid and to Piet Retief, and from Gollel to Piet Retief. I note with pleasure that the hon. Minister did tell us that he was closing other gaps such as from Ventersburg to Senekal; that he was completing the improvement of the road from Heidelberg to Villiers, to Warden and down to Kestell, giving an alternate route to Durban and the South Coast. I would like the Minister, if he can, to give us some sort of progress report in this debate. We wish to know what progress he has made with the new road-planning scheme which he outlined to us last year. We would like to feel that a dynamic change had come about in the Government’s attitude to road transport. Our road system should be improved and our plans enlarged as a matter of great urgency. We would also like to have a report from the hon. the Minister as to whether he has or has not approached the Minister of Finance with the intention of devising a more generous and favourable formula for financing the Road Fund. I am not alone in this. Commerce and Industry share my view that a more substantial and realistic portion of the excise duty on petrol and diesel fuel should go towards the maintenance and building of our roads than is at present the case. I also believe that far too small a proportion of the taxes on, what I might call, the automotive industry goes into road building. All the vehicles using the roads and all the products which they consume, are a source of substantial revenue for the Treasury. A higher proportion of these taxes should go into the maintenance and improvement of our roads. And let me say this: When I stress the necessity to improve our roads, I do not wish it to be implied that we have not now got a very excellent network of roads in our country.

Having in mind our comparatively small population and the difficulty of the terrain over which roads have to be built, it can be confidently said that our roads are second to none in the world. That is, however, no reason why constant improvement should not go on. I am conscious of the fact that the Viljoen Commission has reported that in many respects the urgent improvement of our road system, is of greater importance than spending money on the development of our railway system. Legislation which has recently been introduce, should, I think, assist the hon. the Minister to initiate the building of roads to a greater degree than before. By this I mean that greater assistance can now be rendered, than was possible in the past, to local authorities. Through-roads, ring-roads, byways, express-ways add safety and speed and if adequate attention is paid to them, can help to improve our road system in, about and through our main towns and distributing centres. In the past, the National Transport Commission did give a certain amount of assistance in this connection, especially where national or special roads linked up with the street system of certain urban centres. However, much too small a proportion of the moneys was spent in assisting the continuation of national roads through urban areas. I believe that I am correct in saying that only ¾ of 1 per cent of the actual expenditure of the Commission was devoted to assisting urbanlocal authorities. Small towns, of course, were treated as if they were rural centres. The idea that the National Transportation Commission is only concerned with transportation systems in the rural areas, has been too much emphasized in the past. I am glad, however, that a change of attitude has come about and I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me what progress has been made in this direction and also whether he will make full use of the latest legislative powers which were conferred upon him to assist local authorities. I am glad that the Commission has now, as it had always wanted, been empowered to take a larger view of road building projects. In addition to reporting on the progress made during the year, I should like the hon. the Minister to inform us whether any other new road projects are under consideration.

There is another item to which I wish to refer while I still have time, namely the loss on the operation of railway Bantu passenger services to and from Bantu townships. We have, for a long time now, been asking to be informed what the exact formula is on which these amounts were arrived at.

But I gave you that.

The hon. the Minister did not give us the formula. He did not have all the details at Budget time. He told us that it was a difficult matter, but that he had nearly arrived at a satisfactory formula. He also told us that the guesses which were previously made, were very close to the mark and had, in fact, only been R500.000 out, i.e. on an estimate of something like R6,000,000. I think he informed us in his Budget speech that he had underestimated the requirements by some R500,000. Now I see that there is an increase of R1,500,000 for 1962-63 over the previous year. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is still dealing in round sums as distinct from exact amounts. If he has a formula, I think that the formula must be a magic one, for it seems to work out all adjustments in convenient round figures. I believe he is still only arriving at rough estimates …

Settlement takes place every five years. That is why there is a round figure.

But the five-year period is up. Am I right in saying that the hon. the Minister stated in his Budget speech that the amount would not be increased by R1,500,000, but be reduced by R500,000? I might have misunderstood him, although I got that impression. I accept his assurance, however, that he now has a formula worked out and I hope he will soon tell us what it is, to-day. [Time limit.]

I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of saying a few words about an industry in this country which I regard as a very important one, and one which deserves special attention at the moment. I refer to the tourist industry. Not only does this industry attract many millions of foreign exchange to this country but it is also a wonderful means of advertising South Africa overseas. The Orange River scheme has been announced, we have the Kruger National Park and other parks. These are the most attractive schemes which a tourist can find anywhere in the world. The Kruger National Park which is the only one of its kind in the world has a tremendous attraction. In addition we are getting the Orange River scheme and that is why I want to plead for it that special facilities should be provided for tourists under the Orange River scheme. For example, an aerodrome for the lighter type of plane should be built to enable tourists to go on flights and to view the entire scheme; roads all along the scheme should be constructed; accommodation in the shape of rest camps in the vicinity should be provided. The Provincial Administration of the Free State—also perhaps other provincial administrations— have special experience of providing facilities under these schemes, in that administration established a rest camp in the Willem Pretorius Game Reserves, between Winburg and Ventersburg at Alamanskraaldam, which need not be ashamed to accommodate any tourist. In view of the fact that they already have experience of these things, I want to ask that the Free State Provincial Administration be placed in a position of making the Orange River scheme attractive to tourists. It can be done. Apart from that it will mean something to that administration in view of the fact that it will derive no direct benefits from the scheme as announced. If such facilities could be provided, our country will benefit greatly. Financial assistance should therefore be given.

I know there is a Commission sitting at present to investigate third party insurance. Newspaper reports have it that this Commission will shortly report to the hon. the Minister. I hope that the Minister will give members of this House an opportunity of discussing that report before a change is decided upon in the third party insurance rates.

How are you going to discuss that report?

Why cannot the hon. the Minister give members an opportunity of discussing it under a vote next year and before he alters the rate?

I want to introduce legislation this year if possible.

That is all the more reason why members of this House should have an opportunity of discussing something applying to all motorists in the country …

You will see the report before the legislation is introduced. I hope to get the report within the next few weeks.

All matters concerning it can be discussed when the time comes, but at this point I should like to refer to one aspect of the matter to which we have already referred before, namely with the rates for third party insurance increasing as they have done over the last few years, due consideration should be given to allowing to motorists a no-claim bonus. I know that the hon. the Minister did say in the past that it could not be done …

Wait for the report; the Commission might make such a recommendation. I do not know.

I mention this only so as to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity of thinking the matter over until legislation is ready.

There is another matter about which I am very much concerned, namely the question of air pollution especially on the national roads, by the heavy diesel vehicles. There are many of these to-day whose maintenance is very poor with the result that foul black fumes are being discharged in the faces of the passengers coming behind.

You should talk to the Minister of Health about that.

It is the responsibility of the Cabinet. What is more, the hon. the Minister is responsible for road safety and many accidents occur when people get fed up with following behind vehicles which emit these fumes and try to get past in any manner. This is so especially during peak periods and at holiday time. Another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister is navigational aids, and I want to ask him whether on all our air routes we have to-day the most modern air navigational aids available. If we have not, what steps are being taken to see that such modern navigational aids are being installed and how long will it take to equip all our air routes in the Republic so as to make them safe for passengers?

I also wish to refer to the loss of R3,500,000 on the passenger services to Bantu areas, but I want to discuss it from a different angle from the one in which the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) discussed it. I notice that the loss sustained last year was R2,000,000. On page 36 of the Report of the Department of Transport, you find the various amounts which have been levied in this respect on 16 areas. These amounts vary from 2s. 6d. to a maximum of 10s. per person per week. On the next page you see that the credit balance was R3,072,000 in 1961. If you look at Section 7 of the Act in terms of which these amounts are levied, Sir, you will find that provision is made for the payment of subsidies on the conveyance of Natives in those cases where the Native cannot afford to pay the economic tariff. The transportation service must in that case convey the Natives at a reasonable tariff to the points where they work. The Act also provides for the subsidization of Native passengers irrespective of the kind of transport they use. As the relevant provisions read at the moment, it means that any form of transport, even transport by train, can be subsidized.

No, not trains.

The relevant section does not specifically refer to trains but to any means of transport …

The Prime Minister gave an assurance at the time that it would not be used in the case of trains.

I should like to know why the policy has always been to pay subsidies only in respect of the motor and bus transport services. Let me tell you what has happened during the past few years, Sir, namely the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62, when we had already suffered a loss of R10,000,000, in this connection. In other words, if we add the loss sustained this year, the total loss amounts to R13,500,000. In reality only the transport services of Johannesburg, Pretoria, Benoni, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban are subsidized. Fast transport services are provided in those areas. Whereas a levy is imposed in those areas which makes it possible for the Bantu workers to get to their places of employment at a reasonable tariff, I think it is unreasonable that people in the other areas—the farmer, etc., who also has to convey Natives—should be taxed in order that those areas which I have mentioned can be subsidized. We introduced this system of subsidies because we did not want the Bantu within our urban areas; that is why we are moving them as far as possible from the cities and even returning them to their Bantu homelands. The farmers find it necessary to fetch shearing-teams every year and to transport them to wherever they are required, while they receive no subsidy for doing so. They have to pay the full transport tariff. The same applies in the case of other migrant labour, such as the labour to reap crops, which the farmer requires. The whole matter boils down to this, therefore, that the general taxpayer has to pay for the subsidy which is granted in a few areas only.

The employers pay for it not the taxpayer in general.

Let me put it this way. As far as this amount of R3,500,000 is concerned, I wish to ask …

That is in respect of transport by train.

But we are expected to carry the losses which are sustained in respect of the conveyance of the industrial workers in the cities. I maintain that it cannot be justified that a distinction should be made between the industries in the areas which I have mentioned, and the industries and employers in areas outside those areas. They too have to convey labourers to the places where they are required. In other words, certain areas and industries receive preferential treatment to the tune of R3,500,000 and the ordinary taxpayer has to pay for it. Let us consider, for a moment, the salary scales of workers in the manufacturing industries. I have already said on a previous occasion that the manager of a certain petrol company receives a salary of R12,000 per annum; the managing director R9,000 the economic adviser R6,000, etc. That scale is higher than any scale in the Public Service and is also far in excess of the income of the farmer and others if the risk factor is taken into account. But whereas that is already the case, we are in addition financing those people by subsidizing the transport of their employees. I wonder whether the time has not arrived for us to reconsider this matter. The hon. the Minister suggested that it was happening in terms of a promise made by the hon. the Prime Minister, but I presume that promise was made prior to the planning of this network of railways, namely in 1958 when the relevant Act was passed. The position at that time was that the Bantu who were removed from the cities could not pay the rates. In addition we also had strikes during that year as a result of transport difficulties. In the circumstances which obtained at the time, we decided to help but to-day we have a fast and effective train service which really renders other means of transport redundant. I said a moment ago that the credit balance was R3,072,000 in 1961. I do not know what it was the previous year. I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister whether any capital has been built up. And what is to be done with this credit balance.

Mr. Chairman, I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could enlighten us as to the plans of his Department in respect of the network of roads south of Pretoria. At the moment there are three main roads leading to the south from Pretoria, one through Kwaggaspoort, the old main road to Johannesburg which takes one to Potgieter Street and which is the national road, and the road which takes you over the Fountains.

When we look at the sketch which appears on page 35 of the Report of the Department of Transport, we find that it is proposed to build a detour which will take one to a point somewhere near Brakfontein, past Irene and which will meet the national road in the vicinity of Hammanskraal. In addition a road is being planned which will run from Potgieter Street through Pretoria West to join the new road. As a matter of fact what is contemplated is an excellent thing and we welcome it.

It does seem, however, that during the past few months surveys have been made in the area between the new detour and the old main road to Johannesburg. That makes you believe that it is the intention to build a road which will traverse the smallholdings at Middleton, through Kloofsig up to the circle at the Fountains. The possibility that this may happen disturbs many people because such a road will traverse many small farms, as well as smallholdings, etc. The information at my disposal indicates that the Department is surveying a road along this route with the object of determining whether such a road will not cost less than to widen the old road. If it will cost less, I understand the Department will build it.

As you know, Sir, the Lyttleton-Voortrek-kerhoogte-Clubview complex was built around the old Johannesburg road. This road will in any case, therefore, have to be kept open, and that is why you wonder, Sir, whether such a new road will be justified even though it may cost less than to widen the old road. Such a road will take up large areas of the existing farms which it will traverse. It is bad enough when it is a big farm, but when the farms are small or when they are smallholdings, the damage is so much greater. In view of this I want to ask the hon. the Minister to make sure whether the best thing would not perhaps be to leave that complex as it exists to-day.

I find it strange that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) should plead for the construction of new roads but that he does not plead for a road from Cape Town to the North West. Bearing in mind the Orange River complex which is contemplated, I do not think the existing routes will meet all the demands. I wish to talk about another matter, however. During the Railway Debate I asked the hon. the Minister whether the existing network of railway lines will be able to cope effectively with the production we can expect inland in the future. The hon. the Minister assured me that account will be taken of that. I find it necessary, however, after the announcement that new development will take place in the hinterland, to go further into this matter. The production potential of the Transvaal and of the Free State is tremendously high. In addition to that great development is envisaged for the north eastern Transvaal. In view of this I wonder whether the Department should not give its attention to the provision of additional routes to the east, to Kosi Bay for example. During recent years the production potential of the North has increased tremendously. Coupled with that is the possibility that our trade with Eastern countries will expand further. And that raises the problem as to whether or not the network of transport to our harbours will be able to meet the transport demands. I will appreciate it greatly if the hon. the Minister would enlighten us further on this point.

I also wish to refer to the matter raised by the hon. member for North East Rand. I think the hon. the Minister is fully aware of the fact that the complex immediately south of Pretoria, that is in the vicinity of the Fountains, leaves much to be desired in the way of constituting an exit from the city. The road is hopelessly too narrow and the exit is too small therefore. The contemplated detour which appears on the map in the Report of the Department, is more a road for tourists, that is to say, somebody who does not wish to enter the city, but who wants to go round it. The complex to which I have already referred, however, namely past the Fountains, through Lyttleton, is an undesirable one. Nor is it clear to me what is contemplated, and many rumours are current in regard to this matter. It falls within my constituency and I should welcome it if the hon. the Minister could give me further information. The idea of constructing a road over the smallholdings at Lyttleton will only partly solve the problem, because it does not solve the problem of the disadvantages attached to the complex round the Fountains. I think the hon. the Minister knows that the main road there is very narrow and full of curves. If this complex can be improved, it will be greatly welcomed.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that there has been an increase in the personnel of the Weather Bureau and I should like to compliment the hon. the Minister in this regard, because chief meteorologists have been increased from 7 to 11; senior meteorologists from 10 to 13; and the principal assistant meteorologists from 6 to 12. We are interested in the development of our air research. I notice that there is a rather large item in respect of radio sonde. I was hoping that air research had developed to such an extent that radio sonde was out of date. I was also hoping that the hon. Minister would be able to hold out some prospect of extending the period of weather forecasting which would be in the interests of flying as well as of farming. Can the hon. the Minister inform the House in what way his Department is countering the disability of not having Tristan Da Cunha as a research station? Or is it the intention of re-establishing this station? Perhaps the hon. the Minister can also inform us to what extent he is receiving assistance from ships at sea as regards weather forecasting and what other developments have taken place in this regard? Research into the atmosphere has become quite a common thing to-day and I should like to know what share South Africa has in this research.

At 10.25 p.m. the Deputy Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.