Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that by 8 o’clock this morning the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam already contained 40,000 morgen feet of water. This was made possible by the good rains in the catchment area of the Orange River. It is expected that the peak of a flow of 20,000 cusecs which is on its way to the dame site will increase the amount of stored water to 61,650 morgen feet within the next 18 hours. This means that sufficient water is already available to give consumers below the dam the prospect of an assured water supply, which together with the normal replenishment will bring stability to the economic activities along the river.

I am giving these details to the House to indicate this day as the day on which the Orange River Development project achieved its object for the first time, although the first benefits will only be felt to a limited extent by the country at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is the result of recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions. As hon. members know, these recommendations have already been agreed to by this House and by the Senate. I should like to indicate at this stage that I shall in the Committee Stage move an amendment to Item 17 of the schedule.

We support the Second Reading of this Bill. As the Minister indicated, this Bill gives legislative effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an assurance that the payment, in terms of the schedule, of benefits to beneficiaries enumerated there will be expeditiously dealt with once this Bill has been assented to by the State President. In the schedule there are beneficiaries whose petitions were tabled already in 1969—for instance, items Nos. 5 and 6 of the schedule are in respect of petitions actually presented in February, 1969. In the circumstances it is important that the benefits accruing to these petitioners be paid expeditiously after this Bill has been assented to.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Since the adoption of the recommendations of the Select Committee my attention has been drawn to the fact that in the case of Item No. 17, the leave gratuity paid to Mr. Juyn in respect of his first contract of service was based on a salary of R6,500 per year. He was appointed at a salary of R4,500 and the leave gratuity which will become payable to him in respect of this new contract of service will therefore have to be based on this salary. This will mean that he will now be entitled to a leave gratuity which will be R1,058.63 less than that which was paid to him previously.

Apart from that, he will also lose the compound interest he will have to pay on the amount of R3,370.12, if this item is not amended. The purpose of this petition is to give Mr. Juyn the opportunity to combine his previous pensionable service with his present service so that he can qualify for a pension when retiring. The leave gratuity paid to him was due to him in respect of a contract of service which had expired and he therefore became entitled to the payment of the gratuity in terms of the agreement. We find a similar provision in the Public Service. The new contract of service only makes provision for the payment of a leave gratuity in respect of his latest term of service. Consequently he will suffer considerable financial loss if the matter is not rectified now. This fact was unfortunately overlooked when the report of the Select Committee was agreed to here. However, I am convinced that hon. members do not want to prejudice this person in this way and will therefore be prepared to rectify the matter even at this late stage.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I just want to say to the hon. member for Umbilo that the point which he raised will receive my immediate attention.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here for the welfare of society and the just government of men, and I wonder how it is possible for the hon. member for Stilfontein who spoke here last night and for various other hon. members opposite, like the hon. member for Namaqualand, to reconcile their consciences with the statement that we are here for the welfare of society and the just government of men. What we heard here last night was nothing else but a going back to something which I thought had been lost and gone forever in the politics of South Africa. I want to say that Dr. Albert Hertzog would have been proud of that hon. member and the speech he made yesterday. I am referring to the hon. member for Stilfontein. The low type of buffoonery we had to put up with here last night makes me wonder whether the Nationalist Party are serious in taking part in this debate and whether we will have to put up with this sort of attitude on the part of the Nationalist Party in the coming provincial elections. I want to say that as a fairly young English-speaking South African I had hoped that this sort of thing was dead and gone, and I say that as far as my people are concerned we cannot live with that kind of attitude in South Africa any longer. [Interjections.] I am very pleased the hon. members are laughing. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to call his people to heel. He can do it with a word or a whistle or a flick of his fingers, but let us get back to the issues which are at stake in South Africa and do not let us have this smokescreen being put up which is the last resort of the destitute. [Interjections.] Sir, that is the type of buffoonery I was referring to. This is exactly the point I am trying to make, that we want to debate the issues facing South Africa, and I am appealing to the hon. the Prime Minister to see to it that these issues are raised and debated.

The first issue I want to deal with is the question of White leadership in South Africa. Sir, why is it that when we talk about White leadership the whole of the Nationalist Party goes pale? Is that not the destiny of the white man? [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Meneer, is the hon. member for Carletonville permitted continually to call an hon. member on this side of the House a coward?

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech. Did the hon. member for Carletonville use the word “coward”?

I said that he was a coward at Klip River, not here. [Interjections.]

Order!

When we talk about white leadership in South Africa there seems to be an idea in the minds of the Nationalist Party that there is an alternative and I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he sees this alternative to white leadership as being Black leadership.

But you are talking nonsense, man.

What this Nationalist Party is doing is to turn its back on Black South Africa. The whole policy of apartheid as expressed by the Nationalist Party with its policy of separate development and of forcing the black people of South Africa into separate states is nothing less than a denial of what I regard to be the mission of the white man here in South Africa. That is to maintain here the Western Christian civilization of which we are the last remaining bulwark in Africa. That is what we are here for; that is our task and our mission, but what we have here is a Nationalist Party which is going out of its way to force apart and to force away from the leadership of the white man, the black communities of South Africa. Sir, the alternative to white leadership in South Africa is not black leadership but Red leadership and the sooner the Nationalist Party recognizes that that is the alternative to the control of the white man over the whole of South Africa, the better it is going to be for Black South Africa and White South Africa. Because you are forcing them apart. You are turning your backs on Black South Africa with the negativism that apartheid typifies, because it says: Go in your own direction; go as far as you like; go away and leave the white man in his own little enclave; leave the white man alone and find your own values in the world.

What we are engaged in is a fight for the control of the minds of Black Africa and of Black South Africa. What we are seeking is to so grasp the imagination of Black South Africa that they will fall in with tis in the struggle to contain and to control communism in Africa. Surely that is our purpose; surely that is what we have to do when the lights are going out in Africa one after the other, when we see the claws of communism stretched out to strike deep into Africa. Surely what we have to do is to ensure that the bulwark which Western Christian civilization represents—not white civilization, Sir, but the civilization of the West which we have planted here, which we have grafted on to the alien stock of Africa—persists in South Africa, and surely that can only persist here in South Africa if the white man maintains his control over the whole of South Africa. Sir, the hand of White South Africa is the shield of Black South Africa, and what the Nationalist Party is intending to do is nothing else but to withdraw the hand of the white man and to turn loose, into the limbo of Black Africa, the black population of our country. Because, Sir, in no single case has any single member on the other side been able to persuade or convince us that any practical steps are being taken which are leading the black people to some kind of reasonable, realistic hope for a permanent future in their own areas.

What we are doing is to invest money and to create facilities; we are doing all kinds of things, but what is the purpose of the investment of the Nationalist Party? Are they investing in progress in those Bantu areas or are they investing in poverty? Have we had anything from any single member of the Nationalist Party during the whole of this Session which leads any thinking person in South Africa to believe that you can create and that you have created in 22 years of power, in the black portions of South Africa, a kind of livelihood that can sustain the present population and grow with the growing population explosion of those areas? Surely, Sir, this is the problem. The hon. the Prime Minister himself, in an earlier debate made mention of the countries in Africa and said that all they had to offer was their labour. He then made a remark which I hope was a joke—and not a very cynical remark—when he said that it might be better to give the Bantustans independence because then their citizens would work a lot harder in South Africa in case they were sent home.

You are quite stupid.

Sir, I am quoting what I understood the Prime Minister to say. If I am “quite stupid” then I must look to the source from which the words came. But if this is the attitude of the Nationalist Party, that they are going to turn loose the Bantu states without creating something there which is going to give them something more than merely their labour to sell …

You are talking utter nonsense.

Let the hon. member for Brakpan tell me where …

Where do we want to turn them loose?

The whole purpose of the Nationalist Party is to implement separation. The ideal, according to the Minister of Information, is total apartheid. This is the ideal of the Nationalist Party; this is what they are trying to put into practice in South Africa. If that is not turning loose the Bantu people, what is it?

You do not know the South African’s way of life.

Sir, I know “die Suid-Afrikaner se leefwyse” as well as that hon. member. I know perfectly well what has been happening in our country. What has happened is that the white man has reached out his hand in South Africa to uplift the black population. We have reached out our hand; we have built up in the urban areas a society among them, which is the only place in Africa where they can hope for some kind of stability and permanence and civilized living in the future.

You are living in a banana jungle.

Sir, that is a very interesting remark; it is an insult to the people of Natal. I am quite sure that they will be happy to know that the hon. member says that they live in a banana jungle. That is a very pleasant remark.

From what jungle does he come?

The point that I wish to make to the hon. the Prime Minister and to other hon. members over there is this: What is happening in our country, right now before our very eyes, as a result of the presence of the white man in South Africa, is that we have broken down the tribal ties of nearly 8 million Bantu people. We have settled them permanently in urban areas; we have given them a vision of life which they will find nowhere else in Africa. We have created a revolution in Africa, the only real revolution that has any chance of persisting. We have broken down the African way of life. We have given them something else. Everything the Nationalist Party is trying to do is to reverse that process, to turn it back. I say the survival of the white man and the black man in South Africa on any kind of civilized, reasonable, democratic basis depends on the co-operation that we are enjoying to-day between white South Africa arid black South Africa acting through the economy of South Africa. This is a source of strength, the only source of strength that the white man has. When we see a Nationalist Party which goes out of its way to attempt to break down what we have built up, which attempts now to create separate institutions, separate countries, separate growth rates and separate economies for every single group among the Bantu population, to force them away to something else, then I believe that this Nationalist Party has embarked on a road on which there is no return for either white South Africa or black South Africa.

I make the point again that this country of ours is the prime target for the Communist Party. This Government is laying us open and bare to an attack from the Communist nations because they are withdrawing the shield of the black man, the shield of black South Africa, namely the hand of the white man. That is what is happening in our country. What we are having instead of a debate on issues, is a going back by the hon. member for Stilfontein and others. The tribal drum is being beaten again. We are hearing all the old pre-1914-’48 stories. We had a “Koeks” Tour of the history of South Africa. The only thing the hon. member for Stilfontein forgot yesterday was Slagtersnek. But I am sure he will remember that before the provincial election comes along, that is if he is given a chance.

Why do you not pack up and go?

Where am I to go to? It is amazing, but when a person disagrees with the Nationalist Party they believe you have no place and no right to live in South Africa. This is the typical attitude that you have from hon. members like those vociferous members on the other side sitting there gibbering like simians. This is the kind of attitude we get from them. As soon as you disagree with them, all you get is that kind of abuse, and vilification and a questioning of one’s own motives and one’s interest in South Africa. I do not believe for one single instant that what this Nationalist Party is doing is the right thing for South Africa. There is a growing number of people in this country who believe the same.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister if black South Africa has to turn its back on white South Africa, where is it going to look? In what direction can it look? Where is the inspiration to-day in the world outside? What is the force that is building up to-day against the Western world? What is the alternative offered in any one of the countries of Africa mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister where they have nothing to offer but their labour. What is the alternative offered to those people? Can democracy survive? And, if so, how does it survive? Is there enough money in the world to develop even one of those countries to some reasonable standard of democracy and stability? The alternative for those countries is the Communist system which seizes control of the lives of every single member of those countries and organizes their daily lives down to every single thought that they think.

What about Botswana and Lesotho?

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing Botswana and Lesotho in a very, very early stage and they have the tremendous advantage of living next-door to white South Africa. The point was made that there was very nearly a take-over by a Communistic-orientated Party in Lesotho. It was a matter of a couple of votes that prevented it. It was a very close shave. What are you trying to create in South Africa if you are trying to perpetuate here what is happening in Africa to the north? Unless this Government goes out of its way to develop Bantu areas what are we doing? To-day, 22 years after the Nationalist Party came to power, I defy anybody to say here that they are developed to a point where they have even reached blast-off stage. They have not even reached square one. This is the legacy of the Nationalist Party and this is the issue which should be debated in the coming provincial election. The issue will be what the Nationalist Party has been doing during these 22 years and how they have been talking and talking and building this elaborate structure, the paper tiger of apartheid which means nothing when one comes down to basic brass tacks. What have they achieved in the way of development? What is their ideal of leadership for the Bantu people in this country? Surely, what we have to do, as I have said, is to retain the imagination and the control of the black people. We have to know that they will associate themselves with us. because our mutual interests are such that we can offer them something more than Communism can offer them and black Africa can offer them. We can offer them secuirty and stability and a sound and safe future, which we have been doing right up till now, in spite of all the talk the Nationalist Party has put up about implementing apartheid and creating homelands, separate development and a new way of life, etc. All that junk which has been spoken about this policy about the Nationalist Party is simply not real.

May I ask the hon. member a question? What about Malawi? Malawi is not Communistic. How can the hon. member explain that?

If the hon. member will remember, there was a revolution in Malawi which President Banda had to suppress. Terrorists were operating in Malawi and he had to chase one of them over the border. Malawi is a country which has strong ties with South Africa and I believe that we will see to it, because it is in our interests. [Interjections.] This is part of the outward policy of the Prime Minister. Part of that policy was the improvement of the relations between English-speaking people and Afrikaans-speaking people, which I think was affected so badly here yesterday afternoon. I wish to make the appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister not to be put off by the talk of his members and that he should continue on the course he followed when he set out to improve the relationship between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people in this country. Now the hon. member asks what about Malawi? Here we have a country which is at the very basic level of development. There are other countries in Africa which are far worse off and where the population explosion is swallowing every single thing which would give any hope for the future.

Is that the Government’s fault as well?

It is difficult to have an intelligent debate with some of these hon. members in this House. I am putting a point to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party in regard to what and how they are going to guarantee the security and the future of white South Africa and black South Africa if they persist in the policy which they are following, this policy which insists on dividing, sundering and separating the common interests which white and black South Africa have in maintaining stability, order, progress and development in this country.

The hon. member for Mooi River said at the beginning of his speech, and I hope I have not misunderstood him, that he did not see his way clear to remain forever under a National Party Government in South Africa. Who is begging him to stay here? Why does he not go? No one will beg him to stay here, and after that speech his party will welcome his departure. Then he speaks of “the just government of men”! I have been a member of this Parliament for 17 years, and for a further 10 years I was a member of the Provincial Councils of the Cape and the Transvaal, as well as a member of the Executive Committee. Then he speaks of a “just government of men”! I have never before attended a session or fought an election in which so many dirty gossip stories were spread as in this one. They brand every member of this Cabinet a liar and a person who is making money in a deceitful way. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is absent, accused this side of the House of abusing our position in order to make money. He did not have the courage to come forward here and make a single accusation against any one person. He is the greatest political coward South Africa has ever seen.

Order! No, the hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “coward”.

I withdraw it, Sir. I have never in my life seen smaller political courage than that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He is the person who posed here as a gentleman and a decent politician and then he comes forward with those mean accusations without furnishing a shred of evidence.

Come to the De Wet case.

What did the hon. member for Transkei say?

Come to the De Wet case.

What did the hon. member say? [Interjections.] He says such stupid things that he does not want to repeat them three times. He repeats them twice, yes, but not three times. I do not blame him.

The hon. member for Mooi River asked whether we saw in the United Party’s policy of white leadership the only alternative to black leadership. My reply to him is, under their policy, without any doubt! I say without any doubt that their policy of so-called white leadership must lead to black leadership in South Africa. They have been speaking about one matter during the past few days, i.e. what the non-white population of South Africa will be in the year 2000. They posed the question. “What will the numbers of the Coloured, the Indian and the Bantu populations be?” We have set the pattern of what we are trying to do. But the number of non-Whites in the year 2000 will, after all, be the same under their policy as under our policy, with the one exception that we regard them as separate peoples and want to settle them in separate lands. We want to give them self-government. But what do these people offer them? All of the 20 million black people who will be here in the year 2000 will, in terms of their policy, be in a position of complete inferiority.

Cheap labour.

Yes, cheap labour is the only thing they are looking for. They will keep them here in an economically, politically and socially inferior position. What a fertile breeding ground for communism does this not constitute! The hon. member said our policy would lead to a revolution. What better atmosphere can be created for communism than that which can be created under their policy? Then the hon. member referred to the independent states, for example, the Transkei and other Bantu territories after they had gained independence, and said they would constitute a great danger to South Africa. Now I am asking the hon. member for Mooi River why Lesotho’s independence does not constitute a danger to us?

Who say so?

I shall tell him who says so. The United Party says so. When the late Dr. Malan asked us to comply with the appendix to the South Africa Constitution, i.e. to annex the Protectorates, who opposed it? Strauss and that party opposed it!

Then that hon. member says that our Bantu territories have not even reached the “blastoff point”. Has Lesotho or Botswana reached the blast-off point? I am now asking the Leader of the Opposition or any member on that side, whether any one of them objected in the least to those territories gaining complete independence? Did they make any representations to the British Government for those territories not to become independent? No, Sir, they lauded and praised them for having done so. When the late Dr. Verwoerd asked that England should place those territories under us so that we could lead them to independence, the Opposition opposed that. It is all very well if those territories do become independent, but the only thing is that the National Party Government should not grant them their independence. Then they still think the people accept those stories. For that reason I say I have never attended a session in which there has been so much defamation of character as in this session. To accuse a worthy person such as Ben Schoeman of being a liar and then to refuse to suffer the consequences of having done so! That hon. member accused me of being a liar. But he is afraid to introduce a motion for the appointment of a Select Committee in this regard. I challenge him to proceed with his silly libel actions. In this way they also tried to run down the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. The hon. the Minister of Mines, too, was attacked in this way. Then we heard of the hon. the Minister of Mines and Die Beeld and Mr. Oppenheimer. Subsequently we had the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s false accusation of money being made on this side of the House by illegitimate means. Now they are talking about something which took place ten years ago and they are raking this up. Because they realize that their policy has failed completely they continue with this defamation of character, the most shocking I have ever come across in my entire political career. It is no use the hon. member for Pinelands sitting there grinning. He, as one of the decent people in this House, ought to be most ashamed of having participated in this.

I want to return to the hon. member for Green Point. He criticized my Department. I want to tell him that it is the easiest thing in the word to say that there is a housing crisis, without furnishing proof that it does in fact exist. Why does he not analyse the housing position in South Africa before saying there is a housing crisis in South Africa? The Leader of the Opposition said: “Young married couples cannot get homes”. Where are they living then? In the mountain or in the woods? Bring me a young married couple who does not have a house or a place to live. Sir, I am very sorry that the hon. member for Maitland is not present. Does the hon. member for Green Point agree with his Leader that there are young couples who cannot get dwellings?

Yes.

Are there any of them in his constituency?

They cannot get their own houses.

Are there any of them in his constituency?

Yes.

Why has he never brought this to my attention or to that of my Department or regional office? [Interjections.] Have the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (District) or Hillbrow brought one case to our attention? The only hon. member who in fact did so was the hon. member for Durban (Point), and everyone of the cases he brought to our attention has now been accommodated.

No.

I challenge the hon. member to get up now and to tell me who has not been accommodated. The hon. member for Maitland told us of the hundreds of homeless people in his constituency. I then challenged him to bring them to me. The hon. member for Maitland is one of their most able men. He is one of their best organizers. He levelled the charge at my Department that there was a large-scale shortage of houses and dwelling units in his constituency. Two months ago I challenged him to bring those cases to my attention. Sir, do you know how many I have had to date? Only six. Not one of those six were on the waiting list of any of the municipalities in the Peninsula. They were not on the waiting list of the divisional council. Neither were they on the waiting list of the Department of Community Development. It is so easy to say that there is a housing crisis. It is just as easy to say that taxes are too high.

May I ask a question? Why did the Minister appoint the Niemand Commission if there was no housing shortage?

Sir, the Niemand Commission did not inquire into a housing shortage. It had nothing to do with that. It inquired into the prices of erven in South Africa. Those were its terms of reference. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point: If he is a good member of Parliament, and if he tells me that there are people in his constituency who are not properly accommodated, why has he not addressed one single request to my office?

Ask your own Secretary whether I have done so.

Sir, my Secretary has given me more than enough information in this regard. Not a single complaint has come from that hon. member. He does not have any complaints in his constituency either. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition and when he gave a summary here yesterday, he said the United Party should be put into power. He said that if that were to be done pensions would be improved, medical services would be cheaper, houses would be more plentiful and that their rent would be lower. His next sentence was: “And the sales duty would be abolished”. The electorate of South Africa simply does not listen to the nonsense of the Opposition any more. Of course we are faced with a housing problem. We are faced with a housing problem just as any other country in the world is faced with a housing problem. However, there is no crisis in South Africa. The most serious thing there is in South Africa is a very lively demand for houses. I say with the greatest conviction that in no country in the Western world are greater and more successful plans being made or tackled than in the Republic of South Africa. The hon. member for Green Point must listen now.

The hon. the Minister himself spoke of a crisis in the building industry.

I spoke of a crisis in the building industry, but not of a housing crisis. For that reason I have applied building control and I have done that in such a way that more houses and flats are being built to-day than have been built in many years. The hon. member does not know of the difference between a crisis in the building industry and a housing crisis.

There is a shortage.

Yes, there is a shortage because we inherited your mess. That is why there is a shortage. Then the hon. member for Green Point says the private sector is building less and less. I have the figures here. He must not quote out of date figures here, ones he obtained from statistics of a year or more ago. Here are the latest figures: 13,593 houses were completed in 1968 by the private sector. In the year 1969 15,142 were completed and during the first five months of this year 10,200 were completed, a figure which indicates that they intend building more than 20,000 this year.

Where do you get those figures?

These figures were supplied to me by the Department.

The figures of the Department of Statistics are different.

Surely the hon. member knows that he is talking nonsense. What are the figures of flat units? In 1968 R56 million was spent on private flats. In 1969 it was R38 million. For the first five months of this year this figure already amounts to R34 million which goes to prove that this building control is achieving success in South Africa. The hon. member for Green Point says there is a scarcity of labour in the building industry and that I have laid the blame for that at the door of the Ministers of Bantu Administration and of Labour. He is talking the biggest nonsense in the world.

The hon. the Minister said so himself.

What I said was that there was a scarcity of labour in the building industry, but that I personally could do nothing about it. It is the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration who is applying influx control. It is the hon. the Minister of Labour who is controlling job reservation in conjunction with the trade unions. I did not say that I was criticizing their policy. I accept full responsibility for that policy. I want to challenge the hon. member for Green Point. Is it the policy of his party that the black people will be allowed to do any skilled work in the building industry?

What is happening in Johannesburg at the present time?

I am asking whether it is the policy of his party that the black people will be allowed to do any skilled labour? No, they will not reply.

What is your policy in Johannesburg?

Please don’t talk nonsense! Do not give vent to stupidity in this House! I am asking a very clear and simple question. My question is whether it is the policy of the United Party that black people will be allowed to do any skilled work in the building industry. What does the hon. member for Durban (Point) say to that? After all, he is the only honest man over there. Is the hon. member in favour of black people being allowed to do any skilled labour in the building industry?

After negotiations with the trade unions.

That is precisely what is happening to-day. I shall tell them what their policy is. Their policy is an unchecked influx of black labour into every economic sector in South Africa. [Interjections.] Very well, yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pleaded … [Interjections.] Do they want to deny now that yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pleaded “for complete mobility of labour in South Africa”.

Yes.

He says “yes”. But how can he reconcile that with influx control? If there is “complete mobility” surely one cannot impose restrictions on the people at the same time.

I did not use it in tha* sense. Apparently you did not listen. What you say now is complete nonsense.

I listened attentively enough. Very well. In that case I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this: Are you in favour, as your party said in the past, of Bantu being allowed to sell their labour on the best market? Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not very communicative. Why does he not reply now?

If it means the abolition of influx control, I do not agree with that at all. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville is the man who said the black labourer should be able to sell his labour on the best market in South Africa. In this regard I just want to say the following, and I am going to say this from platform to platform in the provincial elections: Those hon. members, the hon. member for Hillbrow in particular, are in favour of uncontrolled influx of black labour into white South Africa. [Interjections.] It is absolutely true. They go even further— the Bantu should be able to come in on a family basis and should be able to acquire rights of ownership in white South Africa. This is what I am going to say.

I challenge you to prove that.

Very well. Is the hon. member for Hillbrow in favour of free movement of Bantu labour in South Africa?

Not exceeding the bounds.

Then why did your Leader say that yesterday?

Mr. Speaker …

No—sit down; sit down you, I am speaking now.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, is an hon. member not obliged to …

Mr. Speaker, I shall not allow myself to be interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am not prepared to reply to any of his questions.

Order! Will the hon. the Minister please resume his seat!

On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister not obliged to accept what an hon. member says he has said in this House?

What? Mr. Speaker, this is the most stupid point of order I have heard during my 17 years in this House.

Order! The hon. the Minister must accept the word of honour of an hon. member. If an hon. member states that he has made a certain statement in this House, the hon. the Minister must accept it.

I shall accept it, Mr. Speaker. But I want to add that if he has not said that in this House then he has done so at his congresses. [Interjections.] Yes, he said so at his congresses. And now they must come forward with these stunts in an attempt to sidetrack one. They said they were in favour of the Bantu selling their labour on the best market. [Interjections.] Now I am asking the hon. member for Hillbrow: Is he in favour of the Bantu selling their labour on the best market?

I have already replied to that.

He says he has already replied to that! The National Party has a completely different answer to the labour shortage in South Africa when it comes to the building industry. Its answer is more and more mechanization. In co-operation with the private sector we have already succeeded in effecting a great measure of mechanization. For example, Brick or produced 16 million bricks per year with 600 black labourers and after they had erected an automated factory they were able to reduce that labour force to 35. I want to refer again to the house recently built at Nigel, of which the hon. member for Green Point said with contempt that it was a “prefabricated house”. I have seen that house, and the hon. member for Green Point might consider himself lucky if he could live in a house like that. This, therefore, is our approach to this problem of solving the shortage of labour in the building industry.

Let us now consider the real housing position in South Africa. I think hon. members will agree with me that the forecasts of the Building Research Institute ought to be better than theirs. What is the forecast of that Institute? Their forecast is that for the period from 1965-’70 we shall need an average of 21,000 dwelling units per year for Whites in order to cope with new births, immigration and the replacement of buildings which will have to be demolished. What have we been able to accomplish over the past five years? Local authorities, the Department of Community Development and the private sector have succeeded to build an average of 26,500 houses per year over this period—in other words, 5,000 per year more than the forecast of the Building Research Institute. Let us now take a look at the position in the three areas with the largest concentration of people in South Africa. Let us, in the first place, take a look at the Witwatersrand/Pretoria/Vaal Triangle area. The forecast here is that just under 11,000 houses per year would be needed over the years 1970-’73. But tenders have already been accepted and contracts have already been awarded in respect of 16,500 houses per year. Then there is the Cape Peninsula where the forecast is 3,600 houses per year as against contracts which have already been awarded for the building of 3,300. I am not satisfied with this and I am giving this my further attention. It is estimated that 4,000 units per year will be needed for Durban; over against that tenders have already been accepted for the building of 10,892. So much as regards the housing position in the three largest complexes in South Africa. It is estimated that the need for the next three years will come to 18,500 houses, whereas 30,600 will be provided—undeniable proof that we are catching up on the backlog which exists, a backlog we inherited from hon. members opposite.

What percentage of these houses constitutes houses which the man in the street can afford?

If the hon. member wants to know what we are doing for the man in the street, I can just point out to him that we lend money for houses for the aged at a rate of interest of one-twentieth; for our sub-economic group i.e. people with an income of R100 and less, we provide money to local authorities at a rate of interest of ¾ per cent. It is not a question of the demand exceeding the supply. Fortunately, applications for sub-economic funds are decreasing in number all the time. This points to a rising in our standards. Then there is the group with two children and an income of R225 per month. Houses are being offered for sale to them at the payment of a monthly instalment of R35 to R40—not even 20 per cent of their income. And yet the hon. member for Green Point maintains that they have to spend from 25 per cent to 30 per cent of their income on housing. Well, if a person spends 30 per cent of his income on housing, he does so on his own responsibility and that does not concern the State. People in the group we cater for, i.e. people with an income of less than R5,000 per year, can all get houses at a cost not exceeding 20 per cent of their income.

And yet you stopped building in Pietermaritzburg.

The hon. member need not say, anything about Pietermaritzburg. Why does he come here to complain? The City Council of Pietermaritzburg wrote to me the other day to say they were grateful because we were giving them more assistance than they were able to use for building houses.

Did you stop the building programme?

There is no such thing as a building programme which has been stopped—the hon. member is talking nonsense, absolute nonsense. There is no single building scheme which has been stopped.

Let us now take a look at Coloured housing in South Africa. In Cape Town, Paarl and Stellenbosch 40,843 houses have been programmed over a period of six years, i.e. for the three years which have just passed and for the three years to come. Therefore, only in respect of these three areas housing is being provided for more than a ¼ million Coloureds here in the Western Cape, in the Greater Peninsula area. Take the question of resettlement, to which hon. members objected such a great deal, and the question of group areas, to which they objected so very strongly, and yet they maintain that they are in favour of separate residential areas. They are in favour of separate residential areas as long as one does not create a separate residential area. As soon as one creates a separate residential area they are up in arms against it. Then they and their newspapers are up in arms against the Government, as is now evident in the case of District Six. Is the hon. member for Pinelands, who is sitting there looking at me, prepared to help me to accommodate the Coloureds of District Six elsewhere? You see, Sir, one gets no reply from them when it comes to practical problems, problems one has to deal with from day to day. He is not even prepared to tell me that he is willing to assist in getting our Coloureds of District Six, from that mess, from that slum, which is District Six, to assist in getting them from that mess and placing them in proper houses as we have next to the road not far from here at Windermere and all those places.

What about Elsies River?

Now he is asking me about Elsies River. We are clearing up Elsies River. All that I want to ask of the hon. member for Pinelands is to assist me in settling the Coloureds of District Six and Elsies River elsewhere. I hope he will speak after me; then he can tell me what the position is. At this stage, during the past number of years, we have succeeded in resettling more than one-half of the Coloured families of the Peninsula. We have already resettled 15,000 and 10,000 still have to be resettled. In Port Elizabeth we have already resettled 3,300 and another 3,000 still have to be resettled. Of the Indians in Durban we have already resettled 13,733 families and we still have to resettle another 7,288. In Johannesburg we have resettled 2,500 and we still have to resettle another 1,400, which is nothing short of a complete miracle which this Government has performed over the past eight to ten years. This is what the Government occupies itself with. These are the positive things with which we occupy ourselves, to which we give our attention but what do we get from that side of this House? Only disparagement and gossip stories as I have never heard in politics. I iust want to tell them this. I am 56 years old, and when a man is 56 years old he is no longer 46 years old, but I shall wear out my feet in the provincial elections to expose them as they have never been exposed before.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development stood up in this House in his customary way and made a great to-do about the good work of his Department. Now, one knows why the hon. the Minister acted in this wav. It is because he is one of the Ministers who is most frequently criticized by his own people about the question of housing in South Africa. The hon. the Minister cannot forget, and we shall not let him forget it either, that a few years ago, before his own congress in Port Elizabeth, he was criticized in this way, and not by an ordinary delegate, but by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North), so much so that the hon. the Minister had to stand up and tell that hon. member that he was irresponsible; there is no such housing shortage in South Africa. That hon. Minister will remember well that just after this election an article by Dawie appeared in Die Burger, and Dawie laid down certain priorities which the Government ought to give its attention to, the so-called overhauling that should be done. The making available of more houses in South Africa by that Minister was amongst the first three priorities Die Burger itself laid down.

It was the second.

It was the second. It therefore does not surprise me that the Minister carried on here the way he did. Sir, let us now just listen to the type of argument he puts forward. He says that the United Party’s policy of “so-called” white leadership must result in black leadership; that is one point he makes, and then, just after that, he says that the United Party wants to keep the black people politically and economically inferior in South Africa. That hon. Minister is always so astute in politics, and what happens? He stands up here and within five minutes contradicts himself about what is allegedly the ultimate object of the United Party’s policy. The hon. the Minister can make a choice; he himself may choose which of the two will be the United Party’s eventual course. The hon. gentleman knows that our policy of white leadership over South Africa as a whole is the policy that the people of South Africa want, a policy under which justice and justness will prevail in respect of the non-white races of South Africa, but under which, at the same time, we can preserve the Western way of life of the Whites in South Africa. But what does the hon. the Minister say further? He says that in his 56 years of life, and his 26 years in politics, he has never heard so much gossip as he did in this election and during this Session.

And you are the biggest gossip-monger.

There we have it again. All this gossip emanates from the United Party! I want to quote to the hon. member from Die Beeld of 9th June, 1968, two years ago. One would say it is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Yeoville or I myself speaking here, broadcasting this gossip to the world. But it comes from none other than that hon. Minister’s bench-mate, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs (translation)—

But listen now, Sir—

That does not come from the United Party members—

I quote the following paragraph—

Then one paragraph further on—

That hon. gentleman who made these accusations disappeared too suddenly, and is no longer here to hear how his own people, his own newspapers, began with the gossip in South Africa. I just want to mention another example. I have here a cutting from Dagbreek and Landstem of 20th October, 1968. The heading of this report is as follows “Beware, you are going to catch it in the neck”, and the sub-heading is “M.P.s with directorships”. The report reads as follows (translation)—

That was two years ago—

That is not what the United Party says; their own newspapers proclaim it. The report goes further—

Then it is the United Party that is spreading these stories! But I want to mention a further example. Here I have a cutting from Dagbreek of 19th July of this year.

This year?

Just the other day. On 17th July, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs announced the Saldanha scheme. Just two days after that the following headline appeared on the front page of Dagbreek: “M.P.s subjected to gossip about Saldanha”. Below that there was the sub-heading “Threaten with action”. Is it possible for the United Party, within two days, to have spread such a gossip campaign throughout South Africa, so that two days afterwards this leader could appear in Dagbreekl No, it is their own people who are responsible for this. They themselves gossip about each other more than anyone else in South Africa. It is their own newspapers that announce this kind of story. Then the hon. gentleman comes along to this House and says the United Party is responsible for this gossip.

But this is surely how we have come to know the hon. the Minister of Community Development. The best way he can settle a matter is to be light-hearted about it, to make a joke about everything, and not to notice the problems of the South African people at large. But there is one thing that was proved during this session. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly said that the Government is out of touch with the South African people. But that is not the only aspect in connection with that Government that was proved during this session. It has also been proved that this Government does not have the solution to South Africa’s problems either. During the election campaign the United Party told the people: Here are your problems. You know them as well as we do. You have inflation problems, you have labour problems. What can be done about the matter? With that in mind the United Party entered this session. Did this Government, during this session, make use of its chance to solve those problems? I read in one of the newspapers about some hon. Minister or other speaking after the election, not only of overhauling that had to be done, but also about the Government having to pull up its socks. I now want to tell the hon. Prime Minister that he must give every member of the Cabinet a pair of suspenders so that their socks can remain in position.

Here we have a question such as the labour question, for example, which the Government cannot be unfamiliar with. The Government was warned years ago in this connection. I remember how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in the past twelve years I have been sitting here, quoted one business leader after another, one economist after another, one academic after another, to warn the Government that we were going to have a shortage of trained manpower in the country. It was done on every occasion, but the Government simply refused to give attention to this matter. Even last year, in 1969, this Government was warned by Mr. Luloffs, the chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee of the Federated Chamber of Industries. He then said, and I quote (translation)—

Then they say they are doing everything possible for industrial expansion in South Africa!

I must say the hon. the Prime Minister at least gave us a reasonable answer when he told us he did not want unemployment among the black people. I think his words were that the black man would still have to come along to the white area for generations to come to help South Africa develop economically. Now the hon. the Minister of Community Development comes along and says that the United Party wants to throw the country open, and that we want free influx control. How can the United Party want free influx control, when it is also our policy to allow the Whites, with their capital and initiative, within the confines of the Native reserves? In that way they will surely immediately have the suction power to give the large number of Bantu there a chance to work in an industry that lies on ‘heir doorstep. Now the hon. gentleman comes along and says that the United Party wants to throw the world open so that the black people can simply stream in. The hon. gentleman ought to know that the United Party has always said that influx control will remain in existence. It will always be applied, because when the local authorities must create certain facilities for the black people, it is absolutely necessary for those people not to be overrun with problems. Where there is an overabundance of black people, and where the people will be needed in our present industrial complexes, they will be allowed to enter our white areas in a controlled way.

However, I can understand the Government’s problem. The Government’s problem is that the people of South Africa are becoming more and more conscious of the fact that their policy in connection with separate development and in connection with their efforts to keep a black man in his own area, has failed hopelessly in the past 22 years. For that reason they now have to come along with the census figures to show that the numbers of black people have increased in their nonwhite areas. However, the fact they would like to suppress is that the Bantu in the white areas increased to eight million in the past ten years. This Government could only prove that its policy has succeeded if, after 10 or 20 years, it could show that there were five, six or seven million Bantu in our white areas instead of eight million. Then the people will believe that their policy is succeeding. While the numbers are increasing, the people of South Africa accept that the black man in our black areas has come to stay, and that economic expansion cannot take place unless those people are there. This will be shown to the people of South Africa again. It beats me to think that the hon. the Minister of Planning could come along with his statement pretending to the people that their policy has succeeded. No, every last person will see through that pretence of the hon. the Minister of Planning.

But, Sir, they have not only failed in respect of the labour question, they have also failed in another respect. They have not only failed in respect of housing and the increasing cost of living; they have also failed in keeping our white people in the rural areas, as they promised 20 years ago. They have not succeeded in giving us a sound agricultural policy in the past 20 years. During this Session it was once more left to the United Party to put forward the problems of the South African farmers. What did we get from the Government? We received only one reply, and the most inefficient of replies at that, i.e. that the Government will assist the South African farmer by means of ad hoc plans and assistance. But there was no message from the Government in respect of long-term planning to ensure a healthy agricultural industry in South Africa for us.

What about the livestock withdrawal scheme?

The hon. gentlemen on that side know that the South African farmer is not only interested in ad hoc assistance. He appreciates it from time to time, when there are droughts or disasters caused by the forces of nature. But what the farmer is striving for is not to be constantly dependent on the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure for help every year or few years just to help him keep his head above water. What the South African farmer wants to know is what is going to be done to ensure a sound, economic future for him. That is the South African farmer’s biggest problem. He wants to know what this Government is going to do to take the steps that have already been requested by the South African farmers, inter alia, the creation of an agricultural planning council. A while ago it was proposed in Rhodesia that they should obtain an agricultural development corporation. The South African farmers are asking for an agricultural planning council so that they can put their industry on a sound footing. The farmer of South Africa cannot compete with the present financial institutions that demand tremendously high interest rates. He wants to know from this Government whether they cannot create an agricultural financing division that can incorporate the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Land Bank, with all the State help that can thereby be given. It is not only the subsidies or interest rates that are of importance here. If the farmer wants to have a long-term future in South Africa, he must pay ap interest rate that is in accordance with what he can extract from the land.

But there is just one problem that the farmer is up against every day, and which is becoming increasingly worse, i.e. that his spending power is gradually decreasing, as a result of inflation. Higher production costs are all he has in store for him. What is happening? It is not only the ineffective farmer and the small farmer who are falling by the way-side, but we find that even the large farmer and the more efficient farmer are also suffering the same fate. If this Government wants to do something to establish our white population in the rural areas of South Africa once more, it must begin with the most obvious industry, i.e. the agricultural industry. But this Government can also do a great deal by means of smaller industries in the country districts to help to keep our white people there. It is not necessary for me to indicate to hon. members how the rural areas have become depopulated during the past few years, but there I have the supplement to Die Burger of 8th February, 1969. In it we find an article written by Mr. Hannes Malan. There are photographs of the most wonderful hotels that have been built in the past few years, but which are standing absolutely empty in our rural areas to-day. In this article he states (translation)—

Mr. Malan quoted what was said by Mr. Frans Conradie, a Cape M.E.C., i.e. “that everything possible must be done to turn the stream back”. But what does the hon. the Minister of Planning say? When he replied the other day, he asked: “What can we do now to keep our whi'e people in the rural areas?” His own M.E.C. in the Cape says that steps must be taken to turn back this stream that is flowing from the rural areas to the cities. In this respect the Government has completely failed the rural population of South Africa in the recent Session. In this connection we want to make an appeal to the Government. It is not loo late yet. There is still time. Those Ministers of Agriculture must put their heads together. In conjunction with the South African Agricultural Union. Let them then orientate us in respect of how to keep a forward looking rural population in the rural areas, and how to save the South African farmer.

Mr. Speaker, before coming to other matters, I have a duty to fulfil which, on the one hand, is a very pleasant one and, on the other hand, is one which fills one with a measure of sadness. I am here referring specifically to a person who is known to all of us. He is not only a person whom we all know; I think he is pre-eminently a person who knows us better than anyone else does. I am referring to Mr. Herman Rooseboom of this Parliament. He is 71 years old now and he has intimated that he will retire at the end of the present Session. Mr. Rooseboom’s career with Hansard covers a period of 47 years. This is an enormously long period to have been in service here. He assumed duty as a Hansard shorthand writer on 25th January, 1924, at a time when Dutch was still frequently spoken in the South African Parliament. It is interesting to know that this presented no problems to him, as he had had his training in shorthand in the Netherlands. In 1934 Mr. Rooseboom became editor of the Afrikaans section of Hansard. Shortly before the 1939-’45 war he became editor of both the Afrikaans and the English Hansard. He occupied this post of editor-in-chief of Hansard until the end of 1965. Then, as hon. members know, Hansard was taken over by the Department of the House of Assembly. Mr. Rooseboom has since been attached to the Hansard staff of the House of Assembly, where his wide knowledge and experience have been invaluable, both in dealing with the work itself and in training junior members of staff. Mr. Rooseboom has now moved to Oudtshoorn, where he intends to retire. We are grateful that he still enjoys excellent health, and he intends to devote all his energies to his business interests from now on, but he says that he will nevertheless find some time to indulge in his hobbies, namely chess, bridge and bowls. In that regard he will be able to compete with the hon. member for Yeoville. I shall unfortunately be out of the picture.

The Prime Minister should leam to play chess.

I meant as far as the last one is concerned!

Mr. Speaker, to-morrow, God willing, we shall probably come to the end of this Session. In the course of this Session many matters were raised and many discussions were held. There have been matters on which we differed sharply. Fortunately, however, there have also been matters on which we agreed.

One of the matters on which, as I have seen —and I am grateful to say this—all political parties were agreed, was the objection we all felt to the decision of the World Council of Churches. Because I regarded it as my duty to South Africa, I made—as I understood, with the agreement of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—a very strong appeal to individuals and to churches not to adopt an equivocal attitude in this connection. I am glad that some of the churches which have already met in synodal and other assemblies have adopted a clear-cut attitude. I am glad that churches have decided to withhold their contributions from this organization. However, I am sorry too, because I would have liked to have seen churches withdrawing from membership completely, in protest. However, that is their affair. Apart from expressing my regret in this regard, I want to leave it at that.

I am raising this matter again this afternoon because I am aware that certain newspapers and certain church leaders have been doing their best, and will do their best in future, to bring about a confrontation between the Government and a church. I am not seeking a confrontation with any church. I want to repeat what I said during the discussion on my Vote. I have too much respect for my own church as well as for other churches to raise my hand against churches as such. But I want it to be quite clear that while I am not seeking any confrontation with churches as such, I shall not allow myself to be intimidated into not taking action against individual persons if and when it is necessary. I want to make it very clear that persons have come to South Africa in the past, and that persons will again come to South Africa in the future, under the cloak of religion, but with the real object of promoting interests other than those of the Gospel in South Africa. It is indeed a tragedy that in the year 1970 one once again has to complain, like Piet Retief, that South Africa and its people are being accused before the world by persons standing under the cloak of religion. As I have said, I am sorry that member chinches here in South Africa have not withdrawn from membership. Certain church leaders have adopted the attitude, have adopted it in good faith, that they would like to have the opportunity of stating their point of view to the World Counoil of Churches. I do not think that will be of any use, but I want to make it clear here that, irrespective of what has been inferred from what I said earlier on, if there are church leaders who believe that they have a calling in this regard, who believe that they have a case to put, and who believe that they can achieve some good by stating their point of view to the World Council of Churches, I shall not stand in their way. It must be clearly understood, however, that since I have the certainty—it is not just an idea that I have, but a certainty—that the leaders of the World Council of Churches are not primarily interested in spreading the Gospel here, but are primarily interested in bringing about a complete change, even if it be a violent one, in the existing order in South Africa, I therefore want to make this standpoint very clear: They will be unwelcome to come to South Africa, and not only will they be unwelcome—I know it is difficult and I may not always be able to do it in practice— but I will also not allow them to send money to South Africa—in so far as I can prevent it —in order to promote their objects here. Above all, money will not be allowed to be sent out of South Africa. But I am grateful for the reason that I have to believe that there is no church here, not even any of those that are continuing their membership, that will send money outside for this purpose.

Because I have been asked about it, I owe it to this House this afternoon to say why I mentioned the name of Mr. Beyers Naudé when this matter first cropped up. This contact with terrorist leaders is not a situation which has developed now; this moral support which the World Council of Churches is giving to them is not something which arose yesterday or the day before. In addition to what I know, I have been informed—interestingly enough, by an English-speaking churchman—that when Dr. Blake came to South Africa he was aware of the fact that this decision to give moral support to the terrorists in this way had already been taken. He conferred with his brothers in Christ here and preached from pulpits here. But except to one certain clergymen—so I am informed—he did not say a single word to other Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking clergymen about the fact that this decision had been taken. As I have said, I owe it to this House to say Why I mentioned, the name of Mr. Beyers Naudé. On 28th/29th October, 1969. Mr Beyers Naudé, with the members of the World Council of Churches, among others Dr. Visser ’t Hoof and also Dr. Vercueil, who were here in South Africa, met for the purpose of holding discussions. In those discussions consideration was given to the way in which they could act against South Africa. These are people who say that they stand in the name of the Gospel. One of the things they discussed there, was that they should exert influence—

This is what they occupied themselves with. They also occupied themselves with how to get South Africa ousted further from the world of sport; they occupied themselves with how to make matters difficult for Portugal; they decided what influence they should exert upon ambassadors and others to bring pressure to bear on South Africa. I shall read from the minutes which were kept, by Alan R. Booth, one of the members—

Do you see, Sir, how far it goes back? It goes against the grain that a member of one’s own people—I am not putting it more strongly than that at the moment, because I said that he owes South Africa an explanation—was present at this discussion, as recorded here by Booth.

Sir, than there is the case of Mercer and of Chamberlain in Stellenbosch. Certain newspapers have levelled the accusation at me that, when I quoted from Mercer’s pamphlet, I did not … Let me first say that, as far as Chamberlain is concerned, I never mentioned his name in this connection. His case falls in a completely different category. But I have ascertained the facts and I fully agree that his time in South Africa is up, just like Mercer’s.

I just want to say the following for the sake of the record, and I am sorry that I again have to bore hon. members with it, but I am doing this because the allegation has been made against me that this was not what Mercer said, but that in fact he was merely stimulating people into thinking. Not even Eve would have put up such a fig-leaf! Sir, I previously read the following to you—

And then he quotes—

Here the quotation ends. This is supposed to be what he put forward to stimulate people into thinking. In the process he states his case against South Africa in a very subtle way and, in addition, slanders us in passing. Continuing, however, he is no longer dealing with quotations, but is stating his own point of view—

And then the Archbishop of Cape Town has to say to me that I misread and misunderstood it and should reconsider my standpoint! But it goes further. He not only says: “If the motive was indeed something like this, then we cannot quarrel with it”, but goes on to say—

This is no longer an opinion; it is his standpoint. And then the Archbishop of Cape Town comes along and publicly accuses me of having misread it and of not understanding it! And then he continues—

Then I am asked to use my influence in order to keep in South Africa such a man, who, is a foreigner, abuses the hospitality of South Africa in such a way.

Before the hon. the Prime Minister goes on to deal with something else, I wonder whether if may not be in the interests of South Africa that he should say something more about the case of Chamberlain.

As far as the case of Chamberlain is concerned, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that it is customary, not only in South Africa, but also in all countries of the world, if you do not want to allow a foreigner to stay in your country any longer, not to give any reasons for that. America does it; England does it; France, Germany and South Africa all do it. But I shall tell the hon. member this. I personally acquainted myself with the reasons which motivated my colleague the hon. the Minister of the Interior to take action against him. I want to say to hon. members of this House that if I had been Minister of the Interior, I would have adopted precisely the same attitude as my colleague did. I think my colleague acted correctly and properly and I believe that South Africa, and Stellenbosch in particular, are much better off without Chamberlain than with him.

But while we are on that point, I do just want to mention an interesting thing. The Council of Churches and their apologists in South Africa so lightly reject any suggestion that communism has infiltrated among these people. In the most recent defence put forward by the Council of Churches, which they officially sent to the churches of South Africa as their defence, they of course deny that they have any communist infiltration or that they have any inclination towards promoting communism. But this same Council of Churches, which reprimanded President Kennedy when he wanted to take action against communist Cuba, but which have never lifted a finger to reprimand any communist country for what it has done, nevertheless find it necessary to say the following in this official document of theirs—

Please note, not in South Africa—

This is the view of the World Council of Churches in regard to the growth of Communism in Europe. One need hardly say anything more about that.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of this debate the hon. member for Durban (North) made an attack for the third time; this time, however, it was not made on me, for very good reasons. Previously the hon. member had in fact done so. The hon. member for Durban (North) made another attack on the hon. the Minister of Mines, and did so because of an incident which took place between the hon. the Minister and a certain Marendaz 11 years ago and from which a dispute arose as to whether the Minister (Dr. De Wet) had been a director of a certain company or not. There is nothing else of importance about this incident, neither as far as the company is concerned nor as far as Dr. De Wet is concerned, but the member for Durban (North) has now again made use here of this eleven-year old incident, which he wanted to use against me under my Vote earlier on in order to cast suspicion on me as Minister of Justice at the time and now as Prime Minister. The hon. member knows that I pointed out to him that his attack largely consisted of half-truths and untruths in respect of myself in this connection. In this debate I am now as innocent as a lamb; now he has no fault to find with me. It is wonderful what lessons one sometimes learns.

He said you were mis-informed.

I am not referring to that now; I shall come to that. I am saying that the hon. member supported his previous attacks on me with half-truths and untruths. Now he again comes along with this dispute, a dispute which has not become known only recently, but which became known seven years ago. It was in the Sunday Times as far back as seven years ago, after the case in Vereeniging. The hon. member is aware of that. With that dispute which has been known for seven years and which is 11 years old, the hon. member now comes along in order to do this ugly thing in this House. The hon. member used the pretext that new evidence had come to light. A new letter has come to light, one of which I too was not aware. That is all that has come to Light, but the substance of this letter is exactly the same as that of the other letter of 12th February, in that it is a confirmation by Dr. De Wet that he was resigning as a director of that company.

What about the letter of a year later?

In the letter of a year later he was still helpful to that person, because he fell in that area.

He was in a mess.

It was a mess from which he had to extricate himself.

Yes. That is why he dissociated himself. Can the hon. member for Yeoville, who now knows all about this matter, tell me why a man would resign from a board of directors five months after he had become a member of it? Why would he dissociate himself from it if it were not to get out of a mess?

He did not dissociate himself; he merely began to act unofficially.

This is a new story again. If the hon. member prefers to come and tell this new story, he may do so. I want to place on record, in view of what has been said here, that we are here dealing with a Minister who came to Parliament in 1953 and who represented South Africa in Britain for three years with great distinction and free of any blame or blemish. He is a man who. furthermore, has served in the Cabinet for four years in such a manner that I have received no complaint from any hon. member on the other side in regard to the way in which he has managed his portfolio. In this connection I want to ask hon. members opposite, and my hon. friend the member for Yeoville is going to speak after me …

I hope there will be time.

You will have the time. The hon. member must answer a question for me on behalf of the Opposition. Surely the Opposition had a Parliamentary remedy in this matter, since they have used the hon. member for Durban (North) as an instrument for attacking the character of the Minister. If the Opposition in this Parliament is of the opinion that a man is unfit to manage and to hold his portfolio, the customary way to show this to the world is to move that the salary of the Minister concerned be withdrawn. This is our Parliamentary way of doing this. They have been lodging complaints against this hon. Minister with me all session. They say that he is so unsuited, because he is dishonourable, that I should throw him out at once. However, his portfolio came before this House, and no motion was moved by that side. They did not even level any reproach at the hon. the Minister. Let us ask ourselves this, and the reply to this question is one which not only the hon. members opposite must give to themselves, but which the members on my side of the House must also give: Did the hon. the Minister act falsely? I am using this ugly word deliberately. Was he being false when he said that he had not been a member of that board of directors? The Minister was quite prepared to have it tested in court. That is why an objection was lodged on his behalf and that case was to have come before the court. But what happened then? When the case had to be placed on the roll and had to be heard, it was Marendaz who took the initiative, as I proved conclusively to hon. members, in settling the matter. Then he did not want to go to court, but wanted to settle the matter. A deed of settlement was then drawn up, as the hon. member for Durban (North) will know. I think it was dated 2nd February, if I remember correctly. Was that the date of that letter from Marendaz’s attorney?

I cannot remember.

The hon. member will know that the deed of settlement came from Marendaz’s attorney with a covering letter.

That is customary.

I know it is customary, but I just want the admission from the hon. member that the letter came from Marendaz himself.

But he got damages.

Yes, but the settlement was initiated by him.

But who paid?

The settlement came from him and the deed of settlement from his attorney.

How much did he pay?

If the hon. member for Yeoville would just listen, he would find out that I am not dealing with the payment now, but with the deed of settlement. The following appears in the deed of settlement: “Plaintiff …”, i.e. Marendaz, and it comes from him and not from Dr. De Wet, “undertakes forthwith to withdraw his action against both defendants. The plaintiff formally withdraws the averments made against both defendants and/or their agents or servants in the particulars of plaintiff’s claim.” The dispute is now whether Dr. De Wet was being false when he said that he was not a director or whether Marendaz was right.

Those are always the terms of a settlement.

Yes, but the hon. member has not yet heard what I want to say now. After all, he is not an oracle like the hon. member for Hillbrow, who knows in advance what is going to happen. But what more do we find in this settlement? I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the following: “In particular plaintiff retracts his allegations that the law was set in motion against plaintiff maliciously or falsely.” Marendaz himself says here that he withdraws any allegation there may be that either Dr. De Wet or the Department acted falsely against him.

You always find that in a settlement.

You may always find that in a settlement, but this settlement was sent under a covering letter from their attorneys. Surely, if words have any meaning, it was not necessary to have used these words? Why then were they inserted? For Marendaz and his attorneys. Please note that the settlement, which is in the possession of the hon. member for Durban (North) as well, was not signed by Marendaz’s advocates and attorneys, but by Marendaz himself. This makes the matter all the more remarkable. Nobody asked for this and his attorneys did not sign it, but Marendaz himself did. He admits that no false or malevolent act whatsoever was committed against him. The hon. member for Durban (North), however, knows better. He knows better than the advocates and the attorneys who dealt with the matter all along. He also knows better than all those who have studied the merits of the case. He knows better than Marendaz himself and then makes allegations in this House. I can only say to the hon. member for Durban (North) that he has not risen in my estimation for having done this thing. He is an hon. member of ability and with possibilities. In the discussion on my Vote I devoted a great deal of time to arguing the merits of this case. I have now conclusively discussed the so-called new facts which have now been put forward by hon. members on the opposite side. I say, Sir, that on that basis and with those facts in mind hon. members see their way clear to levelling accusations of this kind.

In passing I just want to put right one matter which I mentioned in the course of that debate, because it may possibly be misunderstood. That is the reference to the Ramzam Company (Pty.) Ltd., and to what Dr. De Wet’s reaction was, as well as his reaction when he was subsequently approached in regard to the company Marendaz Diesels (Pty.) Ltd. At that time I disposed of the matter briefly by saying that his reaction had been the same. It was the same in every respect, hut he was not asked the question—I have verified this—whether he knew the company Marendaz Diesels (Pty.) Ltd., nor did he react to that in any way. I am just putting this right, because I am responsible for it.

You were in collusion with him.

Order! Who said that?

I did, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw it immediately.

I withdraw, Sir.

Sir, I shall not react to that hon. member. It is quite beneath me.

I just want to put right one other matter here too, because it has received publicity. I have here an affidavit from a certain Daniel Johannes Joubert Fourie, who is a senior clerk in the Companies Registry Office. According to this affidavit Dr. De Wet is listed as being a director of Bamzam (Pty) Ltd., a company with which he never had anything to do. It is pointed out that he was listed as a director of that company from 15th September, 1959, to 2nd November, 1960. This was in spite of the letter of 12th February, 1960. Hon. members can now further decide this matter for themselves.

Sir, ‘I have dealt with the World Council of Churches.

Have you finished with Marendaz now?

I have finished with that. If the hon. member has any question to ask me, he may do so now.

I asked so many questions, but I have received no replies.

That is typical of the reaction of hon. members opposite. Apart from what I said previously, I have dealt with the matter in the light of the new attack made by the hon. member. If the hon. member wants the assurance from me, I want to say to him very clearly that I regard Dr. De Wet as an able Minister, just as the Opposition does. I regard him as an honourable man. Let there be no doubt whatsoever about that. He was caught by a person of Marendaz’s type. I am sorry about that. He and his family have suffered as a result of that. But what I regret profoundly is that a person of the calibre of the hon. member for Durban (North) allowed himself to be used as an instrument by such a scoundrel for making such an attack in this House.

We now come to what was raised in the debate. I come, in the first instance, to the hon. member for Transkei. For the umpteenth time the hon. member used the United Party’s scare-story which they spread in every election. They go from platform to platform and ask, “Where are the boundaries of the black areas in South Africa?” For the umpteenth time, but for the sake of the record, I want to state it here once again. There is not a single person who does not know where those boundaries are at the present moment. Surely anybody who wants to ascertain where they are can do so.

At the present moment.

Yes, at the present moment. Do you agree with that?

For how long?

First just tell me. Does the hon. member agree that this is so for the present?

At the present moment, yes, of course.

Now we have at least got that far. For the present we now know where the boundaries are. To-day the boundaries are no longer the same as they were ten years ago. Nor are they the same as they were 20 years ago.

That is what we say. …

I shall tell the hon. member why this is so. He should not try to give out that nobody knows where the boundaries are. What are the facts? In 1936 this Parliament went out of its way to lay down by means of legislation exactly what was white land and what was black land in South Africa. The architects of that were Gen. Hertzog and Gen. Smuts. I have here the Act and the Schedule thereto. We have no argument in that regard. If they had left the matter at tnat, the final boundaries would have been demarcated. Whether those boundaries were good or bad, would not have mattered. The hon. member knows, however, that they did not leave the matter at that. They went further than that. In section 10 of Act No. 18 of 1936 they stated that in addition to the land which was black land at that date, the white people had to give 7¼ million morgen of their land to the black people.

We all know that.

Very well, until such time as those million morgen have been granted, there can be no finality as far as the boundaries are concerned. That goes without saying.

They did not suggest that there should be separate states.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of boundaries. Let us for the moment forget about those areas becoming independent. We are now speaking of the boundaries between the white area and the black area. Until such time as those million morgen have been purchased, there can be no question of saying exactly where the boundaries are going to be for all eternity, because other land will still have to be added.

Under our policy it does not matter where.

I do not care what your policy is. If you know what your policy is, you will amaze me, because in that case you will be the only one who knows your policy. I am now concerned with the factual situation of the boundaries. While we are on that point, I want to say that we are being reproached with not spending enough money for this purpose. Do hon. members realize how much money has to be spent in order to carry out the promise given by the white man to the black man in 1936? To date it has cost R81 million in round figures to give effect to that 1936 resolution of this Parliament, It is interesting to note that 5.4 million morgen of the 7¼ million morgen have been acquired to date. In other words, in terms of the promise made by the white man in 1936, a considerable number of morgen still has to be purchased. This Government will honour that promise that was given, no matter how suspect it is made by the Opposition, because it concerns the promise of the white man to the black man and it is the honour of this Parliament that is at stake. That land still has to be purchased. Surely it goes without saying that until such time as that land has been added, there can be no finality with regard to the borders. In 1936, and to-day to a lesser extent, there were black spots and white spots which ought not to have existed, as hon. members know. The Act makes provision fox the exchange of white and black spots. That process has not yet been completed. My colleague is expediting it. I want to ask the Opposition whether they will give their support to expediting the process even more.

What will then become of the black area at Rosslyn?

It will remain there.

Surely one will not have consolidation in that case.

Consolidation cannot be absolute. Therefore it is not an absolute condition either. Surely the hon. member for Yeoville knows that there are many states which do not have consolidated land. The land of Pakistan does not form an unbroken entity, nor does that of Portugal, not does that of the United States and nor does that of Mauritius. I can mention many other states to the hon. member. Whether this land consists of one, three or ten pieces does not alter the principle of the matter at all, i.e. that there are countries whose land does not form a consolidated whole. It is, however, our aim to have the largest possible measure of consolidation. The process of exchange and consolidation will continue. It is not in the interests of anyone to have too many pieces of fragmented land in the form of white islands here and black islands there. It is the policy, just as it was the policy of the United Party under Gen. Hertzog, to bring about that consolidation. What that side of this House is going to do in this regard, I do not know. Since the hon. member now admits that we know exactly where the borders are to-day, and since he knows what the facts are with regard to the additions, I want to ask him what one actually achieves by making propaganda of this matter?

I now come to something with which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition charged me. For many years I have been listening with a great deal of interest to the various people quoted by the hon. member in his attacks on us in this House. They are professor this and doctor that. My friend will forgive me if I tell him that I would appreciate it very highly if he said something original himself in this regard one day. However, this is his way of debating. He quotes this doctor and that professor. Let me now put a question to the Leader of the Opposition in all seriousness: Is there one of the doctors or professors who supports the United Party’s policy?

The very reason why I quote them is to prove how wrong you are.

Do you mean they are United Party supporters?

No.

But that is what I want to know.

I mean that they are your supporters but they do not agree with you.

If the position is as the hon. the Leader wants to suggest, i.e. that they condemn our policy, surely they cannot be my supporters, as you have said.

It does not follow.

But they are my supporters and I am very grateful that they are. But they do not support the hon. member. They do not support his policy and his ideology either.

That has nothing to do with the matter.

Of course it has everything to do with the matter. But I shall put a further question to the hon. the Leader. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition attacks our education policy. It is interesting to me to put this question to him. The hon. member for Yeoville can reply to it. What educationist in South Africa supports the education policy of the U.P. when the U.P. is talking politics in this House? I know of no single recognized educationist anywhere who supports the United Party’s policy. The hon. member has a lot of time to ponder on that now and to reply later.

I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. On several occasions he said and in this debate he spelt it out … I notice the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is asking the hon. member for Yeoville something. Will the hon. member please give it to him?

Thank you very much.

The hon. member has said that a few times now and has again repeated it in this debate. I want to quote to him from his Hansard in respect of section 77, which he says he is going to repeal. He said—

Now I want to issue a friendly and sporting challenge to the hon. member. After all, he says that he is no longer an alternative Government for the distant future, but that he is prepared to take over now. Section 77 is on the Statute Book and is there for everyone to read. My challenge to the hon. member now is to publish before the provincial election his formula for the “greater protection” which he will offer to the white worker.

I have stated that here repeatedly, and you will still hear it many times.

I do not want any circumlocution; I want the hon. member’s formula as it would appear in the legislation which the hon. member would introduce if he were to come into power. Then at least we shall have something in common to argue about. But to use mere words now, to say that they will offer better protection to the white worker, surely means nothing. My friend the hon. member for Yeoville will agree with me as far as this is concerned.

Section 77 is mere words too. Only 2 per cent of the workers are affected by it. It therefore actually means nothing.

Now section 77 means nothing to that hon. member, but when they attack us on the labour problem, they say it is the result of section 77—work reservation. And now, when the hon. member wants to make politics out of it, he says it means nothing because it affects only 2 per cent of the workers. Surely he cannot have his cake and eat it too—either it means something or it means nothing. All of us want to give to the white worker the best which can possibly be given in South Africa. If this provision of mine then means nothing, if it is not worth the paper on which it is written, let the hon. member publish his formula so that the workers can take note of it. The hon. member has never come forward with a concept of what his formula would look like if they should come into power. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, why is he afraid to take up a standpoint? There is, for example, the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, which I have already raised in this House. I am referring to the loading and deloading of constituencies, a matter which the hon. member has raised on more than one occasion. Finally I have now got the Leader of the Opposition so far as to react to it. But what has his reaction been? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout openly expounds his point of view in this connection. Over against that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes here and says that he has taken note of the interesting idea of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and that it will receive attention in due course and that when the time arrives a Select Committee will have to decide about it. But this is not what I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

And what about the Minister of Information, who speaks of a separate Coloured state?

But I took up a clear standpoint in regard to that; I said that it was not practical politics. I am not afraid to take up a standpoint. If my colleague here says that this is a matter which he wants to think about, then I can say that, as far as I am concerned, it is not practical politics. Therefore I am taking up a standpoint.

I have also taken up a standpoint.

No, you have not. I do not just want you to say that it was an interesting suggestion by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; you must say whether you agree with it or not.

With what?

With the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

What was the suggestion?

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me what the suggestion was! The suggestion was that the loading and deloading of rural constituencies should be done away with …

You are making a mistake.

That it is wrong. May I now in all modesty ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Are you in favour of the retention of the system of loading and deloading as it applies at present? You need only reply “yes” or “no”.

I think the matter should be investigated. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition charged me with other things as well. He accused my Government, inter alia, that—

Sir, the various revenue votes have all been discussed here. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes here, at the end of the debate on the Appropriation Bill, and accuses me of employing too many of the country’s people. Of course, I have not attended all the discussions, but I have no knowledge of any accusation levelled by the opposite side against a Minister to the effect that he has too many people in his service and that he should get rid of them. Over against that, I know of reproaches levelled at Agricultural Technical Services, at Justice, at the Railways and others, that they have too few people.

There has been too much unnecessary legislation; this requires labour.

Very well. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would very much like to get into power, not so? And I do not take it amiss of him either. If the hon. member for Pinelands now speaks on behalf of the United Party and says that there is too much legislation, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition surely knows what the procedure is. Here he has the finest propaganda before an election, i.e. to come here and propose that the following laws should be summarily repealed because they are not necessary for the administration of South Africa. After all, parliamentary procedure makes provision for the discussion of such a motion. In this connection I want to make another sporting offer to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition …

We have often attacked that legislation.

If the hon. member for Pinelands is right, I am quite prepared to compromise my Chief Whip in that he will, in consultation with the Chief Whip on the other side, create an opportunity for them next session to place such a motion on the Order Paper and to debate it here. What more does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled a further reproach at me. He said it was a fault of the Government that it “interferes too much” with the life of the man in the street, but he gave no example whatsoever of this. He simply made a general statement, and it sounds very fine to say this on a political platform. But it is without any substance. In fact, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not even try to substantiate it with examples. But the most important thing to me as a practical person is the following: The Leader of the Opposition blatantly made the statement: “The Government is spending too large a proportion of the country’s money.” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that this was the case. Well, this White Book, the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, mentions every cent which the Government is going to spend in this financial year. It contains details of the millions and millions which we are going to spend. But I know of no single amount which has been attacked by the Opposition as being an amount which should not be spent. You must remember, Sir, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition came along here at the end of the Session and made this his main accusation—that we are spending too much money. If there is any substance in this, surely it is the easiest thing in the world for him to have his experts, if he has any, get up here and tell the Government with reference to this White Book not to spend this or that amount.

How stupid can you be!

Now that hon. member asks, “How stupid can you be?” Surely one cannot just make the general statement that millions are being spent and that the Government is spending too much money, without making a single attempt to furnish any proof of where the money is being spent wrongly.

I have already told you. [Interjections.]

I know that makes two of us, but at least I am not so stupid, to use the word of the hon. member for Zululand, as to tell the Leader of the Opposition he is spending too much money and then not to tell him in respect of which matters he is spending too much money.

But let us go further. I asked the hon. the Leader of the the Opposition in very great earnest in respect of his black representation, on what grounds does he justify giving the black people eight representatives in this House, and they are Whites, and the Indians two representatives, and they are Whites? I asked him the direct question whether he refused them Black or Indian representation because they were Black or Indian. I asked him whether he refused it because they were irresponsible. I asked him whether he refused it because they were not sufficiently developed. I asked him whether he refused it because he was engaged in a softening-up process. What was the reply of the hon. Leader of the Opposition? Sir, it is one of the most amazing replies which I have ever heard from a political leader in South Africa, and I refer to the English Hansard, column 4269 of 16th September, and it was not a reply which the hon. member gave off the cuff; it was a well-considered reply. If I remember correctly, I asked him the questions on the previous day and he replied on the following day, and you know the hon. the Leader of the Opposition keeps to his text when speaking in this House. He had it in writing in front of him when he gave me the answer, and this is what he said—

… I believe that the prejudice against the Bantu in this House is such that Whites will be able to do a better job for them than they can do for themselves, especially as there will be statutory standing committees under our policy for liaison with the various communal councils.

In other words, I pertinently put the question to him whether they could not sit here because they were black, or because they were irresponsible, or because they were not sufficiently educated or sufficiently qualified or sufficiently developed. The hon. the Leader advanced as a reason that there was too much prejudice in this House and therefore they had to be Whites. Can one imagine that a responsible political leader can found his whole political policy—because this is the crucial question in South African politics— and his motivation and philosophy on the basis that there is too much prejudice in this House?

Do you not believe it?

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition really mean it?

Of course I mean it.

Is that the only reason why they must be White?

You asked me what the reason was, and I gave the reason.

I mentioned four possible reasons. In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition concedes that the fact that the Bantu are black does not matter.

I concede nothing.

Must I then conclude that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that they are responsible enough?

Why do you say they should not be represented here?

I shall tell the hon. member. But since the hon. member is kind enough to ask me questions, I want to ask him if he thinks they are responsible enough to sit here.

That has nothing to do with the matter.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks me questions, and I answer the questions, but he is like a tough cow that I have to milk; I am getting nothing out of him. I am putting these questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and he owes us the answers. The hon. member for Yeoville is a fearless man. He will tell me whether the United Party objects to a black man representing the black people here.

You received the reply.

I am now putting the question to the hon. member for Yeoville.

You are just playing politics.

Sir, I am a politician; I am not ashamed of that, and there is a provincial election ahead of me. These are political problems to which replies must be given. Sir, one of the members on that side presumed to say that he was speaking on behalf of the youth. Can one go to the youth of South Africa and say: “I, who am the leader of a political party, base my political views on prejudice that exists?”

Your entire policy is based on prejudice.

No, my policy is not based on prejudice.

Of course it is.

What about the Coloured representatives?

That is not a question of prejudice. I had the courage of my convictions to say that it was wrong in principle that Coloured people were represented in this Parliament.

Why?

Are they unqualified?

That has nothing to do with it. I say the Coloureds are qualified. Hon. members may laugh about that if they wish. But I say that they will not be represented in this House.

Why not?

Because I adopt the attitude that this Parliament is for the Whites. As far as the Bantu are concerned, I do not hide behind saying that there is prejudice against them.

Your entire policy is based on that.

Sir, I come back to the hon. member for Transkei again, and with this I want to conclude. My standpoint is that if the Bantu want political rights they can have political rights, but that they can obtain them only in their own area and can exercise them only over their own people.

What about the self-determination?

Sir, the self-determination lies in the fact that it is for the Bantu to decide whether they want to go their own way or not; what form of government they want to adopt for themselves, the form of government which they now have here and which they can get up to the Transkei, or a form of government which makes them independent in every respect; therein lies their self-determination.

You give them a choice between two alternatives.

It is for them to decide whether they want independence or not.

And if they say “no”?

If they say “no”, then they do not become independent. But then I am not the one who is keeping them in a position of subservience. Then it is in terms of their own decision that they want to remain in that position. If hon. members cannot understand that, they will most definitely not be able to understand anything else in this connection.

I want to make the accusation against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this reply he gave me, i.e. that his policy is only based on the prejudice existing here, indicates that he and his people are just bent on softening up enough people to bring the black man into this Parliament. I accuse him of just wanting to create the climate that will make it possible for him to do what he said as long ago as 1964 was inevitable, whether we liked it or not. The hon. the Leader of the Oppositions standpoint in 1964 was that it would have to come eventually. He said that at Heilbron. The hon. member for Yeoville adopted the same standpoint. I can very well understand that there are members opposite who do not like that. I can very well imagine that there are members opposite who fear that day. It is typical of that side of the House, when one is discussing the Bantu, to say that one must speak about the Coloureds, and when one is speaking about the Coloureds, they say one must speak about the Bantu. That is how it is. [Interjections.] I have stated my point of view in respect of the Bantu very clearly at all times. It has been stated here over the years. But I want to tell hon. members opposite that they are playing with fire. If they say in all seriousness that they do not want the black man here, why make it possible in principle for him to come here? Why create the circumstances and tell him that he is to come to this Parliament, admittedly in the form of white representation, but that that is simply because there is prejudice against him as a black person? Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is just as concerned about race relations in South Africa as I am, imagine how much harm it would do …

Much less harm than you are doing.

… to race relations in South Africa if the black man were to be told: “Look, there is nothing preventing your presence in the Parliament of South Africa except the prejudice existing against you.” This would surely harm race relations in South Africa tremendously. It is surely much better to tell him: “Look, you are different to what I am; I have my land and you have yours, and you will exercise your political rights on your land and be the master there.”

Is it not better to tell him the truth?

No, if one were to tell him what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says, he would, in the first place, ask one what kind of a leader one was in saying that he could be here, in conceding that it would be a good thing if he were here, but adding: “I regret that I cannot allow you to be here, because there is prejudice against you.”

“And the Whites will do better work for you.”

Do you think that when you have said that he would clap his hands about it?

I want to conclude by appealing to everyone that, whatever we do in the future, we should not unnecessarily disturb race relations, because in a country like South Africa it … [Interjections.] It is not necessary for me to say this to hon. members on my side of the House. Hon. members must not tempt me, at this stage of the debate, to elaborate on who gave offence to whom. Hon. members opposite know this very well.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has very great hopes and expectations for the future. I want to make it very clear to him that I listened to the criticism that came from him and from his party. I listened to it attentively, as is proper, but I see no alternative in it to the policy and the standpoint of the National Party. In fact, there was no attempt on the other side in the last election, neither was there one during this Session, nor will there be one in this election, just as there was no attempt in Klip River either, to state the United Party’s policy, but other considerations will be given pride of place.

Gerdener himself said it was a clean fight.

The hon. member now compels me to say what kind of a fight it was. Hon. members will recall that wnen I made the announcement in this House that we would fight terrorists into the countries from which they come and that we would chase them, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition immediately agreed with me and said that they had been waiting for it for a long time. I was glad of that, but what happened subsequently in Klip River? In Klip River, at a meeting at which the hon. member for Hillbrow was present, Capt. Henderson, their candidate, attacked me on these very words that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had acclaimed in Parliament, according to the Argus of 22nd September of this year. The hon. member for Hillbrow was present at that meeting, according to the Argus’s report. If the hon. member has any complaints about that, he must take the matter up with the Argus. I quote from the Argus—

That is what they said with reference to that matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition acclaimed, and that while the hon. member for Hillbrow was present at the meeting. As far as I am concerned, I have full confidence, not only in the people representing the National Party, but also in the standpoint and policy of the party, and with that confidence. I am going forward to meet the provincial election.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of his speech the hon. the Prime Minister asked a very large number of questions and seemed to indicate that he expected me to answer them all. I should very much like to do just that, but I was given to understand that I would have a half an hour to do it in, and since I have been denied that, I can only answer some of the questions.

At the very outset I want to say that I and all the members on this side of the House associate ourselves with what the Prime Minister has said in regard to Mr. Rooseboom of Hansard. I had the privilege of having known Mr. Rooseboom well since 1938, when I was a member of the Press Gallery. From a personal knowledge I can pay a tribute to his efficiency and his kindness towards young people, whom he was always willing to help in every respect. Therefore, noting the remarkable service he has rendered to the institution of Parliament, I also want to say that we bid him farewell and wish him well, not only as an efficient servant, but as a friend and a generous personality.

Very seldom I can congratulate the Prime Minister, but to-day I want to do it. To-day he made a speech which was a political speech —he said so himself—that was largely superficial, because very often political arguments tend to be superficial.

You are never.

No, of course not. I am glad the hon. the Prime Minister shows such insight. But I have to congratulate him that he did not sink, although he was superficial, into the deep mud of some of the speeches we have heard during this debate. We thought, especially since we became a Republic and because we had assurances from the other side, that our politics would be conducted on a higher level and that, above all, attempts to exacerbate the race feelings amongst the Whites would end. I can truthfully say that there was no evidence of that during the course of this debate, judged by some of the speeches that came from the opposite side. I think we should deplore them. It is a pity that the Prime Minister did not take this opportunity to deplore them too. But I think the difficulty is that in this debate there was an invisible participant. There was a dominating spirit floating over the benches of the members opposite—the spirit of Dr. Albert Hertzog. It is clear that, in spite of his expulsion, the verkrampte point of view is powerful in that party and is likely to gain the ascendancy. I shall not be surprised if in the next year or two the Nationalist Party caucus recalls Albert Hertzog to become the leader of the Nationalist Party. The signs are there, unmistakably.

My very good friend the hon. Minister of Community Development became very excited this afternoon as a result of my Leader speaking about the mobility of labour. He saw the disappearance of influx control and he saw mobility, geographically speaking, becoming unconditional for Bantu labour in South Africa.

Of course.

My Leader showed me what he said. He did not speak of the mobility of labour in the geographic sense at all. He spoke of it in an occupational sense. He said that what must happen, is that labour must become mobile in moving from less productive to more productive jobs. He quoted the example of Sweden and referred to the famous book by P. F. Druker called “The Age of Discontinuity”, one of the most outstanding books on labour relations that have been written in recent times. My Leader pointed out that in Sweden—he commended it to the Government—there is a body representative of the State, Labour and Industry, which considers how jobs have to be adapted to changing circumstances to make the labour force mobile in industry, not geographically. And yet my hon. friend the Minister of Community Development came near to apoplexy. I do not want that to happen. So I suggest that he becomes calm and reasoned and studies his brief before he speaks in Parliament. He is a remarkably eloquent man, but he must never let his eloquence be based upon fiction, because he and I know of the dangers that arise when one indulges in fiction.

I would also like to say just a word or two on this question of national unity, because yesterday my hon. friend the member for King William’s Town was roundly attacked for Certain sentiments that he expressed on national unity. He said—I have his Hansard here—that his father had taught him that if you want national unity, you must be prepared to give up “jou Afrikanernasieskap”. I think, quite frankly, that he used the wrong word. But fortunately we have a very friendly Minister of Defence. For once he and I thought the same thing, but he was quicker on the draw. He stood up and asked the question that I wanted to ask. He brought clarity. He gave the hon. member for King William’s Town the opportunity, which I am glad he got, of specifically stating what he meant when he spoke. What he meant, was the following, and I quote—

I think we are unanimous on this point, Sir—

[Interjections.]

*I mentioned that. I just want to say that we are all agreed on that point.

On a point of order, Sir …

Order! What is the point of order?

Is the hon. member allowed to start his speech in English and to finish it in Afrikaans?

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. member. I want to go further in my support of the hon. member for King William’s Town. Unless we in South Africa appreciate that there is something more important in South Africa than being Afrikaans speaking or being English speaking, and that that is being South African, we shall never have a united nation in South Africa. It is important to us if we are Afrikaans speaking, and it is important to our friends if they are English speaking. It should be important, because you cannot be a good South African if you are a bad Afrikaner or if you are a bad Englishman.

Mr. Speaker …

Mr. Speaker, I do not have time, and I want to say in advance that I am not prepared to answer any questions. I want to put this to the Nationalist Party: The hon. member for Stilfontein was applauded yesterday when he spoke about the Second World War. He said that the Afrikaner had nothing to do with that war and that he had no interest in that war. He insinuated that English-speaking people were being un-South African because they took part in that war. I do not agree with him. But is the suggestion not that there may be circumstances where the English-speaking people will have to be South Africans first and English speaking second? Let me put it this way: If there is a conflict for the English-speaking people between being English speaking and being South African, how must they resolve that conflict? If there is a conflict in my heart between being Afrikaans speaking and being a true South African, how should I resolve that conflict? I say that the interest of South Africa and the South African nation is bigger than the interest of any section. That is the attitude of the United Party. I am not ashamed of that attitude. I am proud of it. Until hon. members opposite can see themselves also as South Africans, all their talk of national unity is so much blah, and it means nothing. Let us get that clear once and for all.

The hon. the Prime Minister asked us to deal with other questions. He asked me why the hon. the Minister of Mines resigned his directorship after five months. I do not know, Sir, but I know what reason he gave. He wrote a letter to Capt. Marendaz, which was quoted in this House. I shall not do so again. He said that certain political developments in his private life, which he was not at liberty to disclose, had required him to resign from all directorships. Yet he was only director of one company. That was the reason he gave. I assume that was true. Why did the Prime Minister ask me, when he had this reason straight from the horse’s mouth? Here he has the reason from the only man who knows what motives persuaded him. That is the sort of superficiality we had from the Prime Minister. It seemed impressive when he could chortle out these questions which seemed so important but which were in fact meaningless.

Sir, he even wanted us to explain how a letter of settlement originated from Capt. Marendaz, in which Capt Marendaz withdrew certain charges. This, he suggested, showed that Capt. Marendaz was in the wrong and that the Minister of Mines was in the right. Sir, what did that letter cost the taxpayer of South Africa? It cost the taxpayer R3,750. Did that originate from Capt Marendaz? Did he offer to pay the State R3,750, or did the State offer to pay him R3,750 provided that he would withdraw his charges? That is all he wanted. He wanted his honour re-established; he wanted retribution for an injustice done to him. Sir, it was done 3,750 times. What more could he want? How can the hon. the Prime Minister debate at that level and ask us to take it seriously?

You are playing politics.

The Prime Minister was playing politics with the hon. member for Transkei about the consolidation of the boundaries of the reserves. He made great play of the fact that we know the boundaries. We knew them 10 years ago and we know them to-day. He did not, however, touch on the crucial factor which we are talking about, namely: What will the boundaries be after South Africa has been called upon to give away millions upon millions of morgen of South African territories to new independent states on our borders?

That is the question. When we spoke in 1936 and decided quite rightly to buy seven million morgen more land for the black people of South Africa, there was no thought of independent Bantustans. That is a subsequent development of Nationalist Party policy which makes the future boundaries of these areas important to every South African. According to a former Minister of Bantu Administration, Mr. de Wet Nel. there were more than 200 isolated little areas of Bantu reserves in South Africa. I am told by my friend who represents Zululand that in Zululand there are 100 isolated spots. They have to be consolidated to a large extent. That is the recorded Nationalist Party policy.

Yes.

Yes. But then surely we are entitled to know what you are going to give away of South Africa. It is not a question of where the boundary was ten years ago; we want to know what you are going to give away of South Africa to-morrow and the day thereafter. What land is to be given away finally and for good to independent states, land which will be lost to us forever? What will it be? The hon. the Prime Minister wants us to support his policy. But surely then there is a provincial election and another parliamentary election. There is a political dispute, a healthy dialogue in South Africa. Let us make it healthy by telling the people exactly what the Government are calling upon them to do. That is our challenge. But they cannot and will not tell us.

The hon. the Prime Minister asked us about section 77 and said that we should not give him mere words. I could tell him by way of interjection that there is nothing which is more mere verbiage on the Statute Book of South Africa than section 77. It is applied to a limited extent. It affects about 2 per cent of the people and in almost every case, except in the case of the white workers who do the night soil cartage in Durban, it is subjected to so many exemptions that even those rules and decrees are meaningless. It is meaningless in practice. The United Party has said again and again, and we say it to-day, that we have a positive policy. We accept that there will be changes in the labour pattern of South Africa which will be brought about through the machinery of collective bargaining. There will be protection for the workers, not only in the trade unions and in the concern of the Government for them, but there will be protection in the rate for the job which will be applied wherever there is the danger of unfair competition. There will be the right of appeal to the Industrial Tribunal by any worker who feels that he has been unjustly or unfairly treated. There are many more. I do not want to conduct a debate on that now. But why does the Prime Minister ask these questions? Only for effect, when, if he were a student of South African politics, he should have known the answers before he put the questions.

The hon. the Prime Minister made the surprising statement that my hon. Leader is afraid to take uo an attitude—“standpunt in te neem”—in South Africa. He then quoted the example of the loading and unloading of constituencies. Dr. Verwoerd was a man who was capable of taking up a point of view. He believed, like many people, that parliamentary procedure should be reformed. That was his attitude, but it was also part of his attitude that those reforms could only be brought about as a result of the deliberations of a select committee where the decisions were unanimous.

Exactly.

So he was afraid to take up a point of view, was he?

Quite correct.

The Prime Minister says, “Quite correct”; Dr. Verwoerd was afraid of taking up a point of view.

He was not afraid of saying whether he was in favour of loading or of unloading.

The United Party, and I know the Nationalist Party too, have from time to time decided that reforms had to take place. There is a growing body of opinion that reforms are necessary in our Electoral Act in regard to postal votes, the question of delimitation and the role the Senate should play in the Parliament of South Africa. The United Party believes that the time will come—even if we are not in power, I think it will come— that these matters will be referred to a select committee, perhaps a joint select committee of the two Houses, in order that they may be thrashed out. I now want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister perfectly clearly what our attitude is. Whatever changes are considered necessary, we firmly believe they should not be the subject of political disputes, but that they should be the result of unanimity between the major parties in this country. That is our attitude and that attitude was taken by my Leader without any question. The Prime Minister was very keen that we should take up attitudes and one of the things he is concerned about is “karaktermoord”, character assassination. The United Party has attacked three people very strongly in this House. They were the former Minister. Mr. Haak, and the present Minister of Mines. We also attacked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the previous Parliament, Dr. Hertzog. We attacked them.

But not his character.

And we attacked them very successfully. We attacked Dr. Hertzog right out of the major Ministry he had.

You did?

We attacked the Minister of Health on a matter on which we could move a reduction of salary, and that was his unreasoned and indefensible attack upon the person and the companies of Mr Harry Oppenheimer. We did it with such success that he was taken out of that Ministry of Planning and it was not necessary for us to move a reduction in his salary. Surely if we have shifted the Minister it is more effective than a reduction in salary. I want to emphasize this: we at least, when we attacked these gentlemen, attacked them here in Parliament where they could answer and where the Prime Minister can canswer on their behalf; and I rather admire the Prime Minister for his Quixotic attitude in defending the indefensible out of loyality. I think that is a nice characteristic, but he can take it too far. because he must decide between loyalty to his colleagues and loyalty to the interests of South Africa—some time or other. But what I want to take exception to is the way in which the hon. member for Randburg yesterday attacked an honourable citizen of South Africa, a political opponent and a worthy political opponent, on an occasion when he could not reply. Everything he said about Mr. Horace van Rensburg, the candidate who opposed him in his seat in Parliament and who is going to win Randburg in the provincial election, was untrue. I will give you one example, Sir. He said that Mr. Horace van Rensburg was suspended by the City Council United Party Caucus of Johannesburg becaust he had called—and you will forgive me. Sir, because he used the expression—the hon. the Prime Minister a bloody fool. Now I know Mr. van Rensburg. He is a man of definite opinions, but that is not the language he uses. This morning I consulted city councillors and the chairman of the caucus of the United Party in the City Council and I am authorized to say in this House that there is not a word of truth in that allegation. Now, far be it from me to impugn his honour in any way. but I do want to reproach him for being so reckless of the truth when he is attacking the character of a man who cannot defend himself in this House. [Interjections.]

Order! I now rule that the word “gossip-monger” (skinderbek) may no longer be used in this House, and the hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

The hon. member may proceed.

I am grateful and I hope the hon. member will have the courage to withdraw that allegation, because he can accept the word of ail the people concerned who know—and he does not know, because he is not a member of the United Party Caucus—that it is untrue.

Was the story in the petition not true?

And I appeal to the hon. member, for the sake of the honour and the dignity of Parliament, to withdraw that allegation, which he should never have made if he had checked his facts.

Now we are going into a provincial election and we must have clarity. But what clarity can we have when on major issues before South Africa members of the Cabinet, not at public meetings but in this House, speak with two different and irreconcilable voices? And I am surprised at the hon. the Prime Minister. We asked him and we gave him opportunities while he was speaking. We asked him questions and he did not answer. I want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to one example of this. Speaking in this House on September 7th. Column 3510, of Hansard, the Minister of Bantu Administration said—

He was busy with another sentence when the hon. member for Turffontein asked him: What about the Coloureds? With his customary courtesy the Minister replied—

Is that the policy of the Government? But then the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs spoke in this House on the 29th of last month, the day before yesterday, and the following happened. He said—

Vir die Kleurlinge ook?

Ja, vir die Kleurlinge en vir die blankes, vir ons wat hierdie land gaan deel in die toekoms.

En die Bantoes?

Ja, vir die Bantoes ook tot tyd en wyl hulle in hulle eie aparte state afgeskei is. Ek gaan nie ’n ander Minister repudieer nie …

And then he promptly repudiated another Minister—

How can one find a greater contradiction? I say that rather than put trick questions to the United Party, the hon. the Prime Minister owes it to South Africa once and for all to stand up and to tell us clearly what the policy of the Nationalist Party is towards the 2 million people in South Africa who are Coloured, 90 per cent of whom are Afrikaans speaking and belong to his church and my church, the D.R. Church, and 99 per cent of whom are civilized people. What is their future? What is their hope? The Prime Minister could wax eloquently sarcastic and ironical in asking my hon. Leader about the colour of representation in this Parliament, but at least my hon. Leader has a policy for these people. What is our policy? We say they must join with us in a federal connection, in a federal bond. What is his policy? I say the Prime Minister has no right to go to the people in this provincial election with such a vacuum in his policy. And before he starts asking us trick questions he should sweep before his own door.

My time is unfortunately shorter than I thought. The hon. the Prime Minister says we have come to the end of the session and what have we achieved? I will tell him what we have achieved: Confusion, lack of direction, lack of leadership, a reversion to verkramptheid on the part of the Government. On the part of the United Party we have achieved this, that the nation now know more clearly than they have before what has always been our point of view—but the facts are beginning to speak more loudly for us than ever before—that we stand for a South Africa strong enough, endowed enough with power and with means, to solve its problems justly. That is basic to our attitude. It is tragic that this Government will not avail itself of the resources we have in South Africa, especially the human resources, to make us so strong and so powerful that we can at least attempt with some hope of success to find a just solution to our problems.

Sir, I have here articles of Austrilia that I would like to commend to every member in this House, which appeared as a supplement to the Economist of the 22nd August, Australia found itself in great difficulty with the collapse of the wool market, with the appearance of man-made fibres in competition with wool, and with problems in connection with the export of wheat—wheat and wool being its major exports. But, Sir, in spite of that Australia is now entering a period of prosperity which is probably equalled only by Japan, because it is exporting the tremendous mineral resources available in Australia. We can do the same in South Africa; people are clamouring for minerals. There is a need for them. But we spend time arguing whether the railway line from the mines should go to Port Elizabeth or to Saldanha Bay. In the meantime the locusts are eating the years and this Prime Minister and this Government are helpless. I was shocked to-day, Sir, to learn that it was necessary to put an embargo on all rail transport to South-West Africa except in the case of utterly essential goods. What is happening to our infrastructure? It is not for the Railways to judge the future of this country; that is the function of the Cabinet. Why does the Government not see what is happening in the country; why do they not plan; why are they not ahead of the needs of the people; why are they always behind and falling further behind? Sir, in Australia they can do it. Australia’s annual exports of minerals are expected by the year 1980 to be more than all the exports put together have been up to now. Sir, we have the same opportunity, but we are missing it. If ever there was a need in a country to export, to get a sound balance of payments, to get money into the country, to expand the country, to use its human resources, that need exists in South Africa. We need it for strategic reasons; we need it for reasons of adjustment among the races. We need it because time is our greatest ally and only strength can give us time, but we plead in vain, Sir. Speech after speech by the Leader of the Opposition during this session showed the way to the Government, but What did we get? We got a debate at the level that we saw in this House yesterday and we get the superficialities of which the Prime Minister made himself guilty for more than an hour to-day. There is no attempt to get to grips with the realities of South Africa. There is no attempt to realize that if we want to survive we must be strong. And we can be strong. They tell us that inflation is the greatest problem Australia has with its tremendous progress, because of the shortage of manpower. We can have greater expansion and greater progress than Australia. We have the same resources, plus and plus and plus more resources; we need not have inflation because of the shortage of manpower because God has given us 20 million people.

One nation.

But we are too small and too petty and too bigoted and too afraid to use the human beings—God’s creatures— who are subjects and citizens of the Republic of South Africa. Sir, if anybody asks me what this session has brought us, my reply is this: It has brought us this contrast: From the Government side we have had petty hatreds, as revealed by the hon. member for Stilfontein last night, or otherwise amusing superficialities from the Prime Minister—amusing but nothing more. From the Official Opposition we have had realities, concern for the future of South Africa and an insight into the needs of South Africa. Sir, I go to the provincial election with more courage than the hon. the Prime Minister.

Sir, in this debate a great deal has been said on a great variety of subjects, but we did not hear much on financial and economic matters. I was surprised, though, that the hon. member for Wynberg, who according to the newspapers was also to have participated in this debate, did not subsequently venture to do so. Perhaps it was sensible of her, under the circumstances, to stay out of the debate.

The hon. member for Yeoville concluded his speech with a lot of hollow cries and allegations, which he did not in any way support.

A Salvation Army speech.

But we are used to that. We had dozens and hundreds of allegations of that kind in the speech made by his Leader. Right at the end of his speech the hon. member tried to give an impression of what he had experienced during this session. Mr. Speaker, what we experienced, is that there is a big difference in philosophy between the two sides of the House. On this side of the House we have a party which wants to respect and build up, recognize and develop what is sacred to us and to other people. But on that side of the House we have a party which wants to demolish, a party which wants to sacrifice its nationhood and even its identity. That is the difference between these two parties. That is the underlying philosophy of our entire policy. It is also that philolophy which forms the major difference between the policy of this side of the House in respect of the future of South Africa and its multinationality, and the policy of that side of the House which wants a conglomeration of everything in one. We want to retain our identity, not only for ourselves alone, but also for any other independent part of South Africa which is proud of what is its own. That is the difference. This is also how it became quite apparent in this debate.

I just want to argue a few points mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville. He tried, as hon. members on that side of the House have often tried, to prove that different opinions were expressed by different Ministers. He referred to what the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said, i.e. that the Whites do not want to share control in South Africa. He compared this to an allegation made by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs who said that South Africa was to be shared by all of us. The one is “control” and the other is “share”. [Interjections]. The hon. members must read it again. That hon. member is like a person walking past a cemetery and whistling to keep his courage up. As far as I am concerned, there is a very clear difference between “control” and “share”. The hon. member spoke about the Coloured Persons’ Council. He then said that a gap had been left in the policy of this party. Now I want to ask the hon. member who gave the Coloureds the constitutional development they have to-day?

The deterioration?

That hon. member has already made his speech!

But you are asking questions?

I shall furnish the replies myself. What party removed the Coloureds from the common voters roll?

And placed them on a separate roll?

On a separate roll. What party deprived them of their representation in this House? What party gave them the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council? What party placed them in a position where they could exercise control over their own affairs? What party placed them in a position where they could control and administer R60 million per annum? Was it that side of the House, the United Party, that did that? No that party kept them on as minions without ever offering the Coloureds a future.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Did the National Party not say that the abolition of this representation and the establishment of the Representative Council were not related, and that they were two separate matters?

That may be so. I am not prepared to argue about that now. The statement I am making here is that the development which took place in the past in respect of the Coloureds, was owing to this Government. The National Party placed them in that strong position in which they find themselves to-day in respect of the control over their own people. Now the hon. member for Yeoville comes along and states that there is a deficiency (holte). But we are not merely uttering hollow words to the Coloureds; our deeds prove what the policy of this party in respect of the Coloureds is. I do not know why the hon. member is always asking, “What about the Coloureds,” and why he is so concerned about that? Surely he knows what we have done with the Coloureds. Surely he knows where they stand to-day. The hon. member referred here to the Electoral Act. He said that this should be a measure on which there was agreement. But is there not such a thing as every person having his own opinion on matters? That is our complaint against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am prepared to say that I am in favour of loading and deloading as it exists to-day. I am saying this now, and I am also prepared to say this on a Select Committee if I had to serve on one, unless I am dissuaded otherwise. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to tell us. That is all we have against him. I just want him, as Leader of that side of the House, to disclose his personal opinion on these matters, and he is not prepared to do so. I should like to raise a few other matters and then reply to arguments put forward in this debate.

As far as financial and economic matters are concerned, attempts were made to create a crisis atmosphere. I want to issue the warning to-day that we should not, in circumstances such as we are experiencing to-day, create an atmosphere of crisis. There is no crisis. We are not experiencing any crisis in the economic sphere. There are admittedly difficulties which crop up from time to time, and it will be our task to iron out those difficulties. I should like to refer to the report of the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch in regard to our economic position to-day. According to them industrialists expect an increase of 10 per cent in the volume of manufacture this year, although we had to listen to this Jeremiad at the beginning of the debate from the hon. member for Parktown on the lack of growth which exists at present and on the increase in inflation which is expected in the coming period. In so far as difficulties exist, and in so far as there are problems, we have heard that consultations will be held with organized industry. Hon. members have also heard the Prime Minister indicate that a commission under the chairmanship of the Economic Advisor of the Prime Minister has been appointed to study matters and to formulate future lines of action in the economic sphere. We are aware that there is a tendency for prices to increase. There is a tendency towards inflation. This is true, and we are concerned about it, and the hon. the Minister of Finance has already done what was necessary in the Budget to deal with this question as a priority. The hon. the Opposition of course, through their speakers, gladly accept the increased salaries for public servants and others. One thing I cannot understand, and this is something which is really a little ridiculous, is that people accept increased salaries—this is politics of course—but that at the same time they do not expect that as a result of the increased salaries there will be an overflow to increased consumption, and that as a result of increased consumption there will also be higher prices. To me it is obvious that if there are increased salaries and if there is more money in circulation there will be an increased demand and that the result of the increased demand will be higher prices. If we make an analysis of the increase in prices for the year ending July 1970 we find that the greatest increases took place in housing and in medical services. Something was done about that in this Budget. In respect of the increasing costs of housing, assistance was given in the form of an interest subsidy on housing loans. As far as medical services are concerned, the sphere which showed the second highest increase during the past year, the hon. members of the Opposition can certainly not blame the labour problem and least of all the Bantu position in South Africa. I admit that price increases over the past year have been high, but I think that it is quite wrong to single out one year and then to come to a decision on the basis of that one year. In the decade 1959 to 1969 South Africa has maintained an excellent record. I want to refer hon. members to the Financial Mail of 25th September. Surely hon. members accept that this is not a publication which is favourably disposed towards this Government. The Financial Mail of 25th September this year placed South Africa fourth among 25 countries in regard to price stability. That is the reply to the charge we have heard in respect of price increases, inter alia from the hon. member for Parktown, namely that South Africa was placed fourth in a list of 25 countries throughout the world as far as its price stability is concerned. In respect of the danger of price increases, it will be our responsibility to cope with them.

The inflationistic pressure we are experiencing to-day is not only attributable to cost factors which may perhaps have arisen as a result of the labour problems which exist in one sphere or another. There are also demand factors which have played an exceptionally important role. If one glances at the considerable expansion in bank credit which was granted, the large increase in the level of consumption which has taken place recently, the gross domestic spending, which exceeds the national product to such a large extent—a matter which we are concerned about—one arrives at the conclusion that these circumstances testify to the fact that demand inflation does in fact exist. As far as cost inflation is concerned, a considerable amount is in fact being done in the Budget to solve the problem The training of artisans, higher education and immigration are the three aspects in respect of which something can be done to cope with the cost inflation which exists at the moment. The Budget now before us wants to make a contribution in these respects.

As far as labour is concerned, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also made an attempt here to indicate that there is an alleged difference of interpretation among the various Ministers. He then said that the Minister of Finance had said that he wanted to hold talks with organized industry and wanted to help them with more labour in the metropolitan areas. Then the Minister of Finance is alleged to have said that the labour to which he referred, included Bantu labour as well, while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleges that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development …

No, that is not what I said.

What did the hon. the Leader say then?

The Minister of Finance did not say to what labour he was referring.

Oh, I thought the hon. the Leader said the Minister had subsequently said that this included Bantu labour.

It was the Prime Minister who indicated that.

By implication.

Then it is the Prime Minister who indicated that, while the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, as well as the Minister of Labour, said that this did not apply to Bantu labour. The relevant point which Dr. Diederichs made, is the following—I quote—

That is what he said. Now I should just like to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that, in so far as he made the deduction that what Dr. Diederichs said also referred to Bantu labour, it was correct. Equally correct was the assertion that the Minister of Labour had said that it did not refer to more Bantu which had to be taken to the metropolitan areas. Whatever was said, I should like, for the sake of clarity, to give the hon. the Leader a definition of the position. I was present, together with the Minister of Finance, when we held the first interview with organized industry here in Cape Town a short while ago. It is probably not necessary for me to give a full account of that now. but the approach of the Minister of Finance, in so far as he has conveyed it according to that quotation I made, as well as in his conduct towards these people, is that we must investigate the problems of the industrialists in regard to decentralization and that we must find the means, if there are problems, to make it easier for the industries to decentralize. In so far as we can succeed in finding means of encouraging them to decentralize, we must as a result of the departure of industries from the metropolitan areas make the labour which had previously been employed there available. That labour will then to an increasing extent have to be made available to the industries remaining behind in the metropolitan areas.

It is not necessary to negotiate on that?

Sir, we are not negotiating on that. We are negotiating in order to determine what the problems of the industrialists are and to find out how they can be encouraged to decentralize. Hon. members need not be so surprised about this. I can give them the assurance that organized industry is not opposed to decentralization. Only, there are certain financial and physical problems in that connection. But organized industry is not opposed to it. I do not know whether the hon. member for Hillbrow thinks that this is not the case. In principle they are not opposed to it, but the means must be found to encourage them to a greater extent. The negotiations which the Minister of Finance envisaged are in fact aimed at that.

To make already available Native labour available?

Sir. I can only furnish the hon. member for Yeoville with the explanation. I cannot give him the common sense with which to think. If there is labour in the metropolitan areas at present which is being used by industrialists who are going to move to border areas, that labour will after all be made available. If they do not take that labour with them, the labour will to a larger extent be available for the industries which remain behind. It will not be necessary then to obtain labour from outside. Does the hon. member still not understand this?

You do not understand it yourself.

Sir, if the hon. member is still unable to understand it, I shall be able to quote from Hansard in the provincial election to prove how matters stand with the United Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated the following, inter alia, in his speech—

I do not differ with the Leader of the Opposition. That is precisely what I said during the discussion of my Vote. I said that we wanted to make efforts to ensure that the industries which had to remain in the metropolitan areas did not stagnate. We want them to survive. There is a certain framework in the policy of the Government which we must as far as possible seek to achieve, but we do not want the industries in the metropolitan areas to stagnate. They must continue to operate. We are aware that the industries in the urban areas will now and in the future have to bear a greater economic burden, until such time as the other areas outside have been properly expanded and developed in order to make their contribution as well. In that respect I do not differ in any way with the hon. member. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to economic growth in South Africa. He referred to countries elsewhere in the world and asked the Prime Minister whether he realized that the common market had during the past decade developed as rapidly as South Africa, while the growth rate in the United States had been slightly less. I do not know why the hon. member said that, nor do I know on the basis of what authority he obtained that information.

I spoke about the per capita basis. That is my whole point.

Is that the point? Now I should like to refer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to another brochure, called “Scope for Investment”. This is also a publication which is not favourably disposed towards this side of the House. I should like to indicate what that publication has to say about the matter raised here by the hon. member. I am quoting as follows—

This is as far as the fifties are concerned—

That is the reply.

Only marginally so.

The hon. members on that side who of course always present the worst side of the picture, are saying that this was only by a margin. Nevertheless it is so. But, if we bear in mind the structure of our population and the fact that in the sixties we performed better per capita than any other country of the world, then these are wonderful results, of which we could be proud.

That is wrong. It was not better than any country in the world.

That was a very great exaggeration.

North America and Western Europe, forget about the rest. The hon. member said that this is not the whole world. I beg his pardon. It is North America and Western Europe, those are the countries to which reference was made.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the growth rate. He spoke about the 10 per cent. Earlier in this Session we heard of Solomon. I should now like to quote to the hon. the Leader a few words spoken by Solomon. He said: “It is not good for a man to be without knowledge, and he who hasteth with his feet, sinneth.” This also applies to what the hon. member said about the 10 per cent growth, which he now wants. “It is not good for a man to be without knowledge, and he who hasteth with his feet, sinneth.” The hon. member has only one thing in mind, and that is a high growth rate of 10 per cent, regardless of the prejudicial consequences which such a growth rate may perhaps imply. After much careful consideration and taking into consideration all the production factors, we in South Africa decided on a growth rate of 5½ per cent as a realistic growth rate for South Africa. The hon. member, for example, gives no indication of the conditions of inflation and the need for investment in the infrastructure, which is going to be created by a growth rate such as the one he is indicating there. He has blinkers on. All that he wants is a growth rate without taking into consideration all the implications which go hand in hand with it.

The hon. member for Parktown, who for understandable reasons is not here to-day and who has made his excuses, referred at the end of his speech to a great variety of matters which were staring him in the face, as it were. He spoke of the cost of living, of the difficulty of getting a house, and of the fact that telephones will become more expensive. He also spoke about salary increases which would be swallowed up by the increased prices. The hon. member also said that there were no clear guiding lines according to which we should develop our economy and according to which we should achieve our growth in South Africa. But now I must say that the hon. member takes no cognizance of our economic development programme, to which he apparently attaches no value, but which to a large extent gives us guidance and direction in respect of our development and growth in South Africa. In the Economic Advisory Council every sector of our national economy is represented, in order to plan in this way the guiding lines for our economic development. But what is more the hon. member for Parktown and other hon. members opposite think only of industries and business firms, but they ignore entirely what had been in respect of the provision of the infrastructure and the development of other state projects in South Africa. They never speak about our steel production and they never give thought to our power generation which has expanded so phenomenally during the past few years. They do not want to discuss water provision in the Budget on which we are spending more than R100 million this year, and which is being developed more rapidly than has ever been done before in the history of the country. They do not think of the Railways and Harbours services which are being rendered and which must be developed, and they do not think of the airways development. They do not mention the building of national roads, and they do not talk about the universities for whom so much is being appropriated in this year’s Budget, or housing and the health services and all the other manifold aspects which I cannot mention. It is very easy to criticize, but if one would only look around, the positive side is also to be seen and there is a great deal of which we can be proud.

I said a moment ago that the hon. member for Parktown had said that the salary increases would be swallowed up by the price increases. I do not think the hon. member is in earnest. Surely the hon. member will agree with me that salary increases were almost twice as much as the price increases during the past few years. How on earth can the salary increases now be swallowed up by the price increases, if the salary increases are twice as much as the price increase? Surely that is nonsense.

With inflation of 4 to 5 per cent.

I said in the Budget debate that our standard of living had been rising more rapidly than prices had been increasing all these years, and this is definitely the case. The hon. member also discussed the sales duty and the loan levies. Sir, this sales duty is a once only, measure and it makes a very slight difference to the price increases. When the sales duty was introduced, it made a difference of only I per cent. This was a once only difference; and this sales duty which has now been increased and which the hon. member was apparently talking about, only made a difference of one-tenth of I per cent on the prices. It is not even worthwhile discussing it.

The hon. member concluded by saying how sorry he felt for the pensioners. He then asked how we could expect a pensioner to live on R35 per month. Do you know, Sir, they are the last people to talk about pensions. I had the list of pensions here from 1935 when the United Party was already in power, up to 1947, and they remained precisely the same.

What were they in comparison to the national income then and now?

[Interjections.] The hon. members will only find themselves in worse difficulties. I remember this from 1935, already, and before that it was also R10 per month. In 1947 it was still R10 per month, despite the war conditions and the major increase in prices which had taken place during the war. Nothing was done in regard to the pensions for the poor old people. Up to 1947 the pensions stood at R10. Then the National Party Government came into power in 1948. Immediately after the National Party came into power, the pensions was increased, and from 1948 until to-day it has increased from R10 to R35, in other words by 250 per cent—far more than the cost of living has increased during that period. That is the last thing hon. members on that side should talk about.

They wanted to let the elderly people die of hunger.

In this debate labour was the theme throughout, and was continually being harped on. I think we must make it clear that while on the one hand we want economic growth, there rests at the same time a major and responsible task on us to ensure that that growth does not take place at the expense of our survival, and that we do not allow an influx of non-white workers to the cities for the sake of that growth to the detriment of the survival of the Whites in South Africa.

It will not be to the detriment of the Whites.

Hon. members on that side are very quick to tell us: “We are in favour of influx control; we do not want to abolish it”, but what do they want? If we say it must be controlled, and we are in fact controlling it, they are dissatisfied. On the one hand they say they are in favour of control, but on the other they are not satisfied when we do in fact apply control.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated what changes we would effect.

They want control, but it must be such an unbridled control that our survival and our position is endangered thereby.

A wild supposition.

We realize that it is important that we must have economic growth in South Africa, but it is equally important that we have labour peace in South Africa, and what is even more important, is that white survival is not endangered.

That you are doing everyday with your Bantustan policy.

Sir, this entire question is an integral part of the policy of the National Party. It is part of the policy of the National Party because we have a policy of separate development in terms of which we want the Bantu to have their own homelands, in which they and their families must live, in which they must be established and where they must exercise their political rights.

And the Coloureds?

Hon. members on the opposite side now want to intimate that the Government is not in earnest with this policy of separate development. Our economic policy, our labour policy, as I have said, is part of this. You cannot separate the one from the other. Sir, do you know what the hon. member for Sea Point did the other evening? He asked which of us wanted an independent Bantu state in South Africa. He said nobody wanted it.

And he is right too.

Sir, there is one person standing here who wants it, myself!

All of us.

Sir, let us clear up this matter once and for all. Hon. members on that side are hawking the story about outside that this policy of the National Party Government is a sham policy.

But your Chief Whip says so.

You lie. I said it was a process of evolution.

On a point of order, Sir, has the hon. the Chief Whip withdrawn that statement?

But surely he was lying, Mr. Speaker.

Order!

Why is he telling such fibs?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

Hon. members of the Opposition are going about outside this House saying the Government is not in earnest with this policy, with the eventual establishment of politically independent states. I want to state clearly and unequivocally here to-day that this is the policy of this party, from the Prime Minister down to the most junior backbencher. I believe that this policy must be implemented.

Until independence is achieved?

There is not a single “hear, hear” to be heard on that side.

Hon. members on this side are not paid to say “hear, hear”. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not make a joke of Parliament. The hon. Minister may proceed.

Sir, the policy of this party is not merely being announced here or outside when there is an election; we have stated it in the council chambers of the world, and we adhere to it. I think it is a good thing that we should repeatedly get to know what the policy of this party is in respect of independent Bantu states, to which we are applying our efforts, and in which we on this side believe. In 1963 Mr. Gerhard Jooste, when he was head of our mission at U.N., said, inter alia, the following in regard to our policy. He made the position so clear that I should like to quote this to hon. members—

I want to inform hon. members of the Opposition that we do not change our policy every Monday.

Only Wednesdays and Fridays.

Our policy is the same to-day as it has always been. Our Bantu policy is stated in the same form to-day as it was originally set out. He said—

He went on to say—

Which Nationalist Minister had ever said that before.

This is what was said at the time by the Prime Minister; Dr. Verwoerd said this in 1961. Sir, the hon. member for Sea Point asked here the other day who of us wanted to give the Bantu states independence. There is no doubt about that. This is our policy—political independence coupled with economic interdependence. This is what we advocate, and this is what we are seeking to achieve. There must be no doubt about this, because I know one of these days, when we are fighting the provincial election, hon. members on the opposite side will again say outside: “The National Party is playing at politics; they are not in earnest with their policy.” That is why I want to state unequivocally here that we will continue to implement this policy step by step, when it becomes possible to do so, until total political independence for the Bantu in their separate areas is achieved. In the economic sphere we will be interdependent with them as we are now prepared to co-operate with other neighbouring states to the north of us in the economic sphere. But I have said that there is a difference in philosophy between this side of the House and that side of the House. Unfortunately this is the case. The philosophy of that side of the House is a philosophy of sacrifice, of giving away what is their own. We on this side of the House are not prepared to do so. I am sorry that it is necessary for me to-day to hold up a foreigner as an example to that side of the House to put the policy of South Africa in its true perspective. Unfortunately I do not get this from the United Party when it has to put South Africa’s policy. What I wanted to quote now is quite interesting. Last year our Springbok rugby team toured England and towards the end of the tour they played a match against the Barbarians. That evening a dinner was arranged for the teams by the Barbarian Club. The president of the Barbarian Football Club, Mr. Glyn Hughes, made a speech on that occasion. Now I am sorry that I have to hold up an Englishman from England, actually a stranger in South Africa, as an example to the United Party of how one should act in regard to one’s own people.

He is not an Englishman, he is a Welshman.

Very well then, let that be as it may. In any case he made the speech in English. I should like to ask the United Party to reflect on their attitude towards South Africa and also to bear buth Africa’s interests in mind. They must not merely play at politics as the hon. member for Yeoville is prepared to do whenever he rises to his feet to speak. Mr. Hughes said the following—

Then he goes on to say:

If I could only succeed in persuading the United Party, even if they did not believe in all the particulars, to state the standpoint of South Africa as it was stated here by a person who is not a South African, then I would have been far more proud of them. But unfortunately we do not find this. Unfortunately they follow a policy of disparagement as was done yesterday evening by the hon. member for King William’s Town. On their part we find a disparagement of what belongs to us, of our own language and culture.

Does South Africa not belong to you?

After all he wants to give his Afrikaner nationhood away. He has no respect for the separate language and culture of the various non-White races. Respect will be lost for good, and everything must be lumped and mixed together in a South African federation. This National Party will not only ensure the economic prosperity of South Africa, but, will, in spite of the United Party, also ensure South Africa’s welfare and security. We shall work for prosperity and for peace, but above all we shall work for internal security.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, as is customary this Bill deals with various matters affecting the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Railway and Harbour Fund. I do not consider it necessary to deal with each clause in detail, since the various clauses are being explained in the explanatory memorandum, which hon. members have before them. If any hon. member requires more information about some aspect or other, I shall do my best to furnish further particulars.

As regards clause 6> of the explanatory memorandum, it may be just pointed out that the reference to subsection (1) (a) and (b) in paragraph 2 thereof should read “subsections (1) (a) and (b) and (2)”, whereas the reference to subsection (2) in the subsequent paragraph should be “subsection (3)”. I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill covers a number of completely unrelated items and I think they can be better dealt with during the Committee Stage. There are one or two matters which I would like to comment on. The first is found in clauses I and 2 of the Bill. Here we establish the principle of transferring items from Revenue Account to the Loan Account in order to balance the Loan Account. It means that the taxpayer, in addition to paying tax to cover revenue expenditure, now also has to pay to balance the Loan Account. The fact that the taxpayer is bearing part of the Loan Account burden, means that the present generation is paying for something which the future generation will have the benefit of. I think it should be made clear to the taxpayer that this will be the effect of these clauses.

Secondly the Bill provides for a transfer of R12 million from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the National Road Fund. This is a new way of dealing with the matter. In the past it was dealt with by other means. This is a new innovation and perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us the reason for adopting this new procedure.

Thirdly, clause 3 of the Bill makes provision for any deficiency in the Bantu Education Account for the year 1971-’72 to be met from Revenue Account. In other words, the taxpayer will for at least this year and next year make a direct contribution for Bantu Education. This is a step we welcome. In the past we have criticized the Government’s provision for Bantu Education because the amount had been pegged. This is an improvement and it has our support. Except for these few remarks, we have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to paragraph (b). As was said by the hon. member for Pinetown, the method of voting this R12 million to the Road Fund is unusual, if one reads the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance when he referred to this item in his Budget. He said that it had become apparent that additional funds would have to be provided to finance the National Road Fund, which had to bear the cost of radical modernization of our national roads in the years ahead. I quote—

It comes as quite a surprise when we find that this is the method that has been decided upon to vote this money. We have no objection to this fund being given the extra money. This year something like R56,200,000 will come from the six cents duty allocated by the Act (Act 42 of 1935). With the added R12 million it will come to R68,200,000. But we are disappointed that the Act itself was not amended. The actual amount of R12 million is approximately 1.3 cents per gallon. One would have thought that the Government would have come forward with an amendment to the Act and increase the allocation from the duty and excise tax.

The position is that next year, when the National Road Fund wants extra money— there is going to be more and more money required for the construction of roads—the Treasury might find itself not in the position or not inclined to give this extra money. But I think it is well to remember that on every gallon of petrol the motorist buys, he pays an indirect tax of 12.08 cents. Six cents is at the present moment allocated from the fund, and now another R12 million is added to the fund. Having read the history of this particular fund and the basis thereof, and when one observes the magnificent roads that have been built, one feels that the provision of this money should be done through Act 42 of 1935.

Then we and the National Road Fund would know from year to year what funds could be expected and what should be budgeted for. At the present moment all they can budget for, is the money that is going to accrue from the six cents levy, with the hope that they may get an additional amount from the Treasury. When one reads the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech, it seems that something went wrong here. I think it was the full intention of the hon. the Minister not to transfer this money from Revenue to Capital Account in this manner, but actually to transfer this money from the tax on petrol. What we should have had, was a Bill amending the National Roads Fund. Then we could have this added allocation year after year. As more petrol was used, the fund would have increased, and the money would have become available for the building of our roads. Now we are going to be in this unhappy position that the Minister of Transport will have to go to the Treasury every year and say: ‘Well, you gave me R12 million last year; can you now give me R14 million?” Actually, when this Act was originally introduced, to stop that procedure was one of the reasons why the amount was to come from the revenue from petrol. It would be on a very sounder basis if we had the National Road Fund Act amended. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister concerned whether he would not give consideration to the matter. I think it is a bit late to do it now. But when the Budget is introduced next year, the National Roads Act should be amended to this effect, to put the matter on a sounder basis than it is at the present moment.

Mr. Chairman, it would probably satisfy the hon. member for Salt River completely if I told him that it is the intention to amend the Act next year. There are, in addition, other amendments which have to be effected as a result of the introduction of metrication. They go hand in hand with this matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

Mr. Chairman, in 1954 the Minister of Finance announced a change in policy with regard to the financing of Bantu education. Instead of the Treasury providing the funds to meet the requirements of Bantu education, it was provided in that Budget that £6½ million (R13 million) would be set aside for that purpose. The figure would be pegged in future.

What was that?

I said “pegged”— p-e-g-g-e-d. The Deputy Minister does not seem to know what I am talking about when I use the word “pegged”.

I do know, but did not catch the word.

I think I should remind the Deputy Minister of what the then Minister of Native Affairs said in this regard. Just to remind him what the position was, I want to explain that at the time an accusation had been levelled at the Minister of Finance. Dr. Verwoerd who was then Minister of Native Affairs, then said (Hansard, 1954, Col. 6211)—

That was the attitude of the then Minister of Native Affairs, who was also responsible then for Native education. I am not going to read further from this speech now, but if the Deputy Minister will read further in that speech, he will see that Dr. Verwoerd then went on to blame the previous Minister of Finance, Mr. Hofmeyr, for the great increase in the expenditure of Bantu education. That attack on Mr. Hofmeyr was of course consistent with Nationalist policy and Nationalist attitudes at the time. It found favour. The pegging of expenditure was very well received by Nationalist politicians. The story they spread to the country was that they were at last restricting the expenditure on Native education, in contradiction to the policy of the United Party and Mr. Hofmeyr. The impression was created that the Bantu were paying for the education themselves, except for the subsidy of £6½ million. But what really happened? The Government merely financed Bantu education in a different way. It is not so easy to ascertain how much they spent on Bantu education. My information is that it was in the neighbourhood of …

Order! I think the hon. member is going too far. It is only the deficiency in the account which can be discussed under clause 3.

That is just what I am discussing, Sir. I am discussing the deficiency in the account.

The hon. member is discussing the principle of the whole matter.

Sir, over the years Parliament met this deficiency by means of moneys from Loan Account. When in the past Revenue paid for Bantu education it only paid R13 million. The shortfall was made up by loans. That is what I am talking about. This was a subterfuge. The loan was made free of interest to the Bantu Education Account. It never had to be repaid. And it is not going to be repaid. In that way there was an attempt to hide the exact amount that was being spent on Bantu Education by the taxpayer. Now, our present Minister of Finance in his Budget speech said that it was pointless to continue increasing the indebtedness of the Bantu Education Account by simply advancing further loans. He therefore proposes to transfer the sum of R17 million which he estimates to be the shortfall on Revenue this year from Treasury to the Bantu Education Account What was done from the Loan Account in the past the Minister now proposes to do from Revenue, as was done before the change in policy. That is what I want to remind hon. members of. We have no objection to the making up of the shortfall by transferring funds from the Treasury to the Bantu Education Account. Not at all. But we want hon. members and Nationalist supporters especially, to appreciate how unfair their attacks were on Mr. Hofmeyr who was a past Minister of Finance. He paid it out of Revenue and was attacked for what he was spending on Bantu Education. All the subsequent Minister of Finance did was to finance Bantu education out of loans.

It is not so easy to ascertain the amount. I tried to do it. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education can tell us the exact amount. What I have been able to ascertain is that at the moment the account stands at about R60 million. That we got from the Department. He could perhaps correct us and tell us what the exact amount is. That is if he knows. We have been trying to find out what the exact amount is by looking through the accounts but were not successful. I shall be glad if he or the Deputy Minister of Finance could tell us what the exact amount is that Bantu Education at the moment owes on this account.

The Minister of Finance has become more realistic. We have no objection to this expenditure. I want to assure hon. members on the other side that we are not going to make capital out of this during the provincial council elections. We are a responsible Opposition. We are not going to appeal to prejudice in the same way that hon. members opposite did. Not at all. We may point out that the money has been spent, but we are going to tell them too that we do not object to this expenditure. All this talk about the “kafferboeties” in the past which they applied to us …

Order! What has that to do with this clause?

Because here there is a change of policy. I will read what the explanatory memorandum says on clause 3 of the Bill.

The hon. member is now discussing “kafferboeties” and so forth. I want to know what that has to do with this clause.

I am sorry, Sir, but “kafferboeties” was quite a popular term at one time.

But it has nothing to do with the clause.

When it was applied to the United Party it was quite popular. [Interjections.] I am sorry, you are quite right. It should be “Bantoeboeties”.

The hon. member should confine himself to the clause.

But, Sir, that is what I am doing. I will read to you what the memorandum says on clause 3—

That is just what I have been pointing out to the House. [Time expired.]

I want to deal with clause 3 as well, with particular referenct to line 22, where it refers to “any deficiency existing in the Bantu Education Account,” which it then says will be met by means of a transfer. My problem is this. How can an accurate assessment be arrived at of the extent of the deficiency? I have asked this question before and I have not really received a satisfactory answer. I believe that the Opposition is entitled to know and that the taxpayers of South Africa are entitled to know. It is my understanding that the whole of the Bantu general tax is allocated to Bantu education. Over the years it was quite apparent that a large number of Bantu had not paid their tax and in terms of questions asked in Parliament it has been revealed that in the last two years. 1967-’68 and 1968-’69, over 400,000 Bantu did not pay their tax. I appreciate that this is a matter for the Department of Police, but surely the tax that is collected by the activities of the Department of Police is the concern of this Minister. My question to the Minister is whether he has any information he can give to this House to indicate the extent of the amount recovered as the result of the prosecutions of Bantu who have not paid their tax.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed on those lines. It has nothing to do with clause 3.

Sir. I accept your ruling, but with respect it means that there is a contribution from the Loan Account because there is a deficiency in the Bantu Education Account as a result of the Bantu not paying their taxes, the full extent of the payment which is a contribution to the Bantu Education Account. With respect, I suggest that the House is entitled to an explanation from the Deputy Minister.

I wish to raise two new points in connection with this clause The first one is the attack on the Government and on the Cabinet contained in the explanatory memorandum on this Bill. This memorandum reads as follows—

What I want to know is what the Government has been doing by proceeding year after year with something which they themselves now accept as pointless. We have been saying it; we have said year after year that the Government was misleading the country in regard to this matter, and we have been told that that was not so. Now the Government’s own explanatory memorandum justifies the line we have taken here year after year. The Government now in an official document, in White Paper No. 11 of 1970 accepts and admits that the United Party has been right throughout and that the procedure followed since the introduction of a separate Bantu Education Account has in fact been nothing but a bluff and an attempt to mislead the public. Now we have an admission from Government sources, officially published in this White Paper, admitting that what the Government has done all these years was pointless and wrong and that there is no point in continuing along these lines. We want to know why the Government has continued following a policy which they themselves now admit has led to a dead end, to a point where it is pointless to continue, doing something which we have said all along would never work and was nothing but a bluff. You, Sir, questioned the reference to attacks on the United Party going back some 22 years, where we were accused of being “kafferboeties” because we were spending some £6 million to £8 million on Bantu education then. We now have the position where the Government after all these years has accepted that the United Party’s policy and its attitude and its method were correct. What I want to know is this, and I am going to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, seeing that he is here, is whether he will instruct the hon. members for Vryheid, Sunnyside, Carletonville and others who have been going around the country saying: “Maar die witman betaal nie vir die Kaffer se onderwys nie” …

Order! The hon. member is making a Second Reading speech now.

I am dealing with a change of policy and I am asking the Prime Minister whether he will make this the policy of his party as well as of the Government in this House.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

I accept your ruling, Sir. Am I entitled then to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether this is only the policy of the Cabinet or whether it will be implemented and praised and announced by all members of the Nationalist Party in the election campaign that lies ahead? Is this going to be something we pass in this House, or are the Government members going to go out and say publicly: We have changed our minds; we are now going to finance Bantu education out of revenue and not out of some mythical loan, some mythical interest-free loan which need never be repaid? Because we on this side of the House are used to being attacked on all sorts of matters, and here we have a fundamental issue, namely the education of a vast section of the population of South Africa, education which must be paid for whether it be from Bantu taxation or whether it be from revenue.

Order! The hon. member is discussing a principle that has been passed by the House. Moreover, it is not contained in clause 3.

But I am praising the principle.

On a point of order, this Bill contains many principles and the Deputy Minister himself, in introducing the Second Reading, said there were many principles which could be better discussed in the Committee Stage. I submit that we can discuss the principle of each clause in the Committee Stage, because this is a general amending Bill.

Hon. members must confine themselves to clause 3, which is under discussion now.

I am glad to be able to agree with you, Sir, and to say that I support the principle wholeheartedly. That principle is something we accept, but what we object to is the manner in which it has been slipped through. Therefore we are discussing the details and not the principle involved. We are not discussing the principle which was accepted at Second Reading; we agree fully with it. What we are trying to place on record is our objection to the manner in which South Africa has been misled over the years and to emphasize that this clause is now rectifying a wrong.

Order! That is the third time that has been said. I do not want any further repetition.

Then I will not repeat that, but I will, if I may, conclude by congratulating the hon. the Prime Minister on having persuaded the Minister of Bantu Administration. who is basically responsible and who is one of the philosophers who opposed this line year after year, that his opposition to our approach that Bantu education should be financed from revenue was in fact wrong. The Prime Minister has scored a signal victory within his Cabinet and we congratulate him.

Order! That argument has been advanced as well.

I want to emphasize that in clause 3 there is no principle involved at all. [Interjections.] Give me e chance to explain. I repeat that at this stage there is no principle involved at all, the simple reason being that clause 3 is an interim arrangement making provision for the period up to March, 1972, because, as I explained to hon. members during the debate on my Vote, the Department, in conjunction with the Department of Finance, is engaged in seeking a formula for financing Bantu Education under these changed circumstances. Therefore, the entire matter is in actual fact pending or sub judice. I repeat, therefore, that no principle is involved here. The reason why we, in conjunction with the Department of Finance, are in the process of seeking a formula, is the introduction of the P.A.Y.E. system for Bantu taxpayers and of the purchase tax—the system that was introduced this year; consequently provision is being made here for the period up to March, 1972. Once we have found the formula and laid it before the Cabinet, the principle will be submitted to this House, and then we shall certainly be able to discuss it very profitably.

Why is it referred to as being “pointless”?

I have already explained what the circumstances are. I can explain it more fully by saying that the amount of R45 million which appears on this year’s Estimates for Bantu Education, is made up, inter alia, of R13 million* which comes from the Revenue Account, and R1½ million for higher education, both of which are laid down in this way in section 20 of the Exchequer and Audit Act. The amount of R17 million, which is now being transferred from Revenue Account to the Bantu Education Account, is no more than an ad hoc allocation. Further provision is now being made in clause 3, pending the search for a formula, for also making this ad hoc allocation on 31st March, 1971. and 31st March, 1972, in order to give the Department of Finance and the Department of Bantu Administration ample time to find a proper formula, which we cannot do at the moment, simply because as yet we do not have the particulars and we do not know what the position will be in respect of the P.A.Y.E. system in regard to Bantu taxation and what the position will be in respect of the revenue raised from the purchase tax. But we envisage that the revenue yielded by this tax will, once it is known, most definitely be involved very closely in this account. For that reason hon. members may rest absolutely assured that the provision being made here is for an interim measure, and definitely not for anything else.

But this clause covers the entire accumulated backlog.

But, surely, the principle does not change. I repeat that the arrangement made with the Department of Finance this year, amounts to this being an ad hoc allocation of R17 million.

Every year?

No, not every year. It is an ad hoc allocation of R17 million for this year, and the clause provides, since we do not know what the position will be on 31st March, 1971, that provision will be made again for such an ad hoc allocation to cover the backlog, and also for any backlog at the end of March, 1972. When the new facts in regard to the purchase tax and in regard to the P.A.Y.E. system for Bantu are made available to us, we shall come to this House again and discuss the principle thereof. Therefore, the position is very clear. I want to conclude by saying that I have a great deal of appreciation for the statement by the hon. member for Transkei, i.e. that he would not like to make political capital out of this matter. Now that he has obtained all the facts in regard to the matter, I assume that he will content himself with them, and that the hon. member for Durban (Point) will follow the fine example set by his senior colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I told the House that we do not want to make propaganda. The hon. the Deputy Minister has just referred to that and I can assure him that that is so. We will not make propaganda, but we now want some information.

You have got it now.

I am very sorry but I have not got the information. The hon. the Deputy Minister has now said that there is no change in principle involved. I cannot agree with him. After all, the principle accepted in 1954 was that the amount paid from the Treasury would be pegged but with this measure which is now before us, the Treasury is going to pay more. The Treasury is now going to pay at least R17 million more than the R13 million which was pegged in 1954. I cannot understand how the hon. the Minister can say that there is no change in principle. The principle as stated by Dr. Verwoerd was that R13 million or £6½ million, as it was then, would be paid by the Treasury and the Africans would pay the balance themselves.

That R13 million still stands.

The R13 million still stands, but in addition the Treasury is now going to pay R17 million more. How is the R17 million arrived at? It is the estimate of what the shortfall will be. The R13 million comes from the Treasury and is the amount that was fixed. There is R1½ million extra for higher education, which was a subsequent amount to be paid from the Treasury. In a recent account presented to this House I saw that there was R11 million paid by Bantu taxation.

That is right.

The R11 million is right. The balance, which was required every year, was provided by way of a loan. Is that not right?

That is almost right, but not quite.

I would be glad if the Deputy Minister would tell us how the balance was made up. We have the money from taxation; we have the R1½ million and we have the R13 million. How was the balance made up, if not by loan?

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to ask how the deficiency was made up. I have given my ruling.

But, Sir, may I again refer you to the White Paper? The White Paper says that there is a shortfall and that the method of financing the Bantu Education Account has for some time been unsatisfactory.

That point has been made by the hon. member too.

Surely I may refer to it again? The whole object of this clause is because it has been unsatisfactory.

The hon. member must not argue with the Chair. The hon. member raised that in his first speech.

I am raising it now as a point or order. Sir, why is this clause before us now? It is before us, because the previous method or principle was unsatisfactory. The hon. the Minister just mentioned the principle, but the previous arrangement was unsatisfactory. So the Minister of Finance says that he must have something new, and I am discussing the new method. Surely we are entitled to ask the Minister what was unsatisfactory about the previous arrangement?

I do not want the principles of taxation to be discussed.

But, Sir, the White Paper tells us and the hon. the Minister of Finance himself said in his speech—

The hon. the Minister of Finance said that—

I am discussing this legislation and the reasons given by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has told us that an unsatisfactory method has been adopted in the past. Surely, I am entitled to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education what has been unsatisfactory about it. I want to know this, if we are now going to take at least R17 million from Revenue. I am trying to find it out from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance can answer it. I should rather address my questions to him instead of addressing them to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education. He can tell me what the shortfall was. Can he give us any idea of what is expected to be raised from Bantu taxation this year? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education shakes his head …

It is R11 million.

Would you please leave it to the man who knows something about it, the Deputy Minister of Finance? That hon. Minister is now nodding his head and he says that he can answer the question. I address my questions now through the Chair to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance. Can he tell us what has been the shortfall in the past? How do we know that that R17 million is going to cover the shortfall or is not going to be more than the shortfall? Then I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance as well what is the amount which has been paid to the Loan Account normally to finance Bantu education? Perhaps he could give us that information. We will have a better idea then as to what is basically required in future. There was an article written by the Secretary of Bantu Education and he said that that account was expecting something from the sales tax. Is the Department of Finance intending to give or to allot something from sales tax as Bantu taxation towards the Bantu Education Account?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member started in a very exemplary manner here to-night, but I do resent most strongly the mean way in which he is now trying to make political capital here. He has been trying to create the impression that I do not know what is going on in this Vote. I very strongly resent this conduct on his part, and if he wants to look for trouble with me, he is going to get it. I have tried to furnish the hon. member with the facts in a decent manner. He has definitely not come back to the facts in any way. The facts of the matter are that this is an interim measure, and that it makes provision until the year 1972. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance can reply to it further in a moment, but it is being done because we do not know at this stage what the position will be in respect of the P.A.Y.E. system and in respect of Bantu taxation. We do not know what the revenue from those sources will be, and we do not know what the revenue from purchase tax will be. Does the hon. member understand it now?

I have already said it.

The interim measure in regard to this matter was introduced between my Department and the Department of Finance because we do not know what the position will be. One can make an estimate, but we do not know what the amounts will be.

What is your estimate?

However, we do not know what the precise amounts will be. Now I want to tell the hon. member how this account was made up. I was doing that when that hon. member interrupted me. For that specific reason I could not finish doing so. For that reason I told him that he was 50 per cent correct, just as the U.P. members always are, but I shall now furnish him with the facts so that he may know why I am saying that he is 50 per cent correct.

Furnish the facts.

I am blaming the hon. member for this type of thing. There is an amount of R13 million from the Revenue Account in terms of section 20 of the Exchequer and Audit Act. Does the hon. member understand it now?

I said so.

Then there is an amount of R1½ million for higher education, also from the Revenue Account, and that is in terms of section 20 of the same Act. Does the hon. member understand it now?

I said that, too.

Then the hon. member is getting clever now. After all, the hon. member wanted to be funny to me; now I am doing the same.

Order!

Then there is another R1 million of miscellaneous revenue. This comes from examination fees, from class fees, and so forth. Then there is R11 million from Bantu taxation for that purpose. In addition there is the amount of R1,182,000, which is the balance which stood over from last year’s Estimates. As far as I know, the Department of Bantu Education is the only Department which allows the balance on the Estimates to revert to the Estimates for the new year.

This is too complicated for him.

Yes, it is R1,182,000. I think the hon. member has already forgotten again the figures that were given to him. I shall have to read out the whole lot once again. In any case, if the hon. member adds together the figures which I have furnished now, he will see that the total is R45,182,000. If he adds the amounts appearing on the Estimates, he will see that an amount of R45,182,000 is reflected there. This is the whole picture. However, for the sake of completeness, there is something else which I must add. Hon. members will see in the Estimates that an amount of R17 million is being drawn from the Revenue Account and being paid over to the Bantu Education Loan Account as an ad hoc allocation. But, as I am afraid of being accused of not giving the whole picture, I want to furnish all the facts. Hon. members will see that an amount of R500,000 appears on the Additional Estimates. Therefore, this gives us R17 million, plus the R50,000—in other words, R17.5 million. That amount of R500,000 which is also being transferred now from the Revenue Account to the Bantu Education Account as an ad hoc allocation, is the estimate of what it will cost to finance the salary increases which were announced, i.e. from 1st January to 31st March, 1971.

This is absolutely the full picture in regard to the Bantu Education Account, as regards every cent which is being spent. I want to repeat that this is definitely an interim measure, and no more, which is being taken because of the P.A.Y.E. system, in respect of which we are not sure what the revenue is going to be, as well as because of the purchase tax, in respect of which we are not sure what the position is going to be either.

Mr. Chairman, we are thankful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the explanations which he has given us to justify this clause. But what worries me, is that the clause before us, clause 3, is a blank cheque clause. The object of the clause is to transfer “the requisite amount”, whatever it might be. The hon. the Minister has referred to the fact that he is carrying forward a credit of R1 million plus from last year.

R1,182,000.

Yes. Now he is carrying that amount forward to this year. But is that a surplus, having taken into account loan advances in previous years? What was the loan advance last year? Why I ask this question, is that the explanatory memorandum before us does not indicate that this is a new item for the year 1970-’71. The explanatory memorandum says that the financing of the Bantu Education Account has for some time been unsatisfactory. “Some time” is not the current 12 months. It reads further:

The question I want to ask the hon. the Minister is, where be mentioned the “requisite amount”, is this an amount without taking into account the capital advances on Loan Account over previous years? He had indicated the figure of R1,182,000, which is a surplus. But that is a surplus which partially arises from previous Loan Account appropriations. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this because he has emphasized on several occasions that this is an interim measure, presumably for this year only. Interim measures very soon become habits, and then established practice. This appears to have happened with the financing of accounts out of Loan Account in previous years. We are now asked, in terms of this clause, to authorize the payment of any deficiency existing in the Bantu Education Account from the period 31st March, 1971, to 31st March, 1972, by means of a transfer of “the requisite amount” from the Revenue Account to the Bantu Education Account. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether, when he says that this is an “interim measure”, it is the first instalment of requests which will come to us to wipe off Loan Account appropriations which have been built up in previous years. He himself has used the expression “interim measure”. Are there other requests which will come before this House for the transfer of amounts from Revenue Account to the Bantu Education Account, to clear off previous Loan Account Appropriations which are now being carried in the Bantu Education Account? As has been stated by the hon. member for Transkei, we on this side have no quarrel with the idea of increasing the amount available in the Bantu Education Account. What we must know, however, is how much has been put through in this way in the past. Is this “requisite amount” going to cover those past advances, and what is the anticipated figure for “requisite amounts” in years ahead that we might be asked to vote? Only when we have such information, can we weigh up and decide whether we should give what is in fact a blank cheque to the Minister. I would appreciate it if the Deputy Minister of Finance or the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration could explain the position to us. There is no need to hide anything. What is the accumulated Loan Account? We are going to begin to pay it off this year. We are going to square off the account. If some new system is to be produced in future, let us have the whole picture. Let there not be anything hidden as to what is involved here.

Mr. Chairman. I have gained the impression that hon. members of the Opposition have not been able to resist the temptation of trying to steal a political march on the Government. The picture is not quite as it was presented here. It is not true that a change in policy has taken place with the Government. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education clarified the position. Furthermore, it is apparent from the explanatory memorandum that an arrangement is being made here which is to be valid until 31st March, 1972. in order that the position may be clarified as regards the pattern for the future. Further to questions put by members of the Opposition, I want to say that the present position is that the total indebtedness amounted to R33.6 million on 31st March, 1970. The total is not R60 million, as was observed by one hon. member. Furthermore, there is an estimated deficiency of R17,967 million for this particular year. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration referred to the amount of R11 million, which represents taxes collected from the Bantu. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is not here at the moment, but I want to say that this paints quite a different picture from the one he described in respect of the time of the late Mr. Hofmeyr. It is now being asked that the amount in respect of this year will not be debited again, but that it will be advanced, together with the amount for next year. This is what is being envisaged through this clause, as I interpret it. This also becomes apparent from the explanatory memorandum.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

An endeavour was made to make the contents of this Bill available to hon. members at as early a date as possible, and copies of the draft Bill and explanations were made available to certain hon. members on both sides of this House prior to the First Reading.

In addition to the usual section with regard to the coming into operation of certain provisions which appear in the Schedule to the Bill, the text of the Bill consists mainly of less important amendments. However, there are a few clauses to which I want to draw the attention of hon. members. The Republic is at present changing over to a system of metric weights and measures, and the Schedules to the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, which are based mainly on imperial weights and measures must consequently be adapted as well. The Department of Customs and Excise, in co-operation with other bodies, inter alia the Board of Trade and Industries has made a great deal of progress with regard to the provisional adaptation of the ordinary customs duties in Part I of Schedule No. I to the said Act. It is hoped that next year this part of Schedule No. I will be published in a Government Gazette for general information to the extent to which it is possible to do so prior to the inclusion of that part in the Act. As regard the adaptation of the excise duties, just as in the case of import duties, the position is that it is not possible in practice to convert the present duties into exactly the same duties on the basis of metric quantities, and the duties must necessarily be increased or reduced slightly without affecting the income to any real extent. However, excise duties can be increased or reduced only by means of taxation proposals, which are introduced in the House of Assembly by the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that it is not possible for all the industries which manufacture excisable goods, to change over to the metric system on the same date, the rates of excise duties which must be amended as a result of the change-over to the metric system, cannot be put into operation by means of taxation proposals. For these reasons, provision is now being made in terms of which the Minister of Finance may amend the Schedules to the Customs and Excise Act by notice in the Government Gazette in order to introduce duties which are based on the metric system of weights and measures. It will then also be possible to convert the excise duties as and when the industries concerned change over to the metric system themselves.

Last year a provision was also included in the Customs and Excise Amendment Act in terms of which the Minister could give retrospective effect, if he deemed such action justified, to certain amendments regarding sales duty which he had effected by notice. In a few cases the introduction of the sales duty gave rise to less serious anomalies which could not have been foreseen and which could then be rectified with retrospective effect. In view of the fact that this provision automatically ceased to be of effect with the introduction of the 1970-’71 Appropriation Bill, and in view of the fact that new goods have been made subject to sales duty this year, it was decided to include an identical provision in this year’s Bill.

The Schedules, which comprise the largest part of the Bill, also contain, in addition to the taxation proposals in connection with the customs and excise duty on aviation kerosene and the amended and new sales duty, amendments to the Schedules to the principal Act which have been effected since 30th January, 1969, by notice in the Government Gazette and which are now being sanctioned in terms of the provisions of that Act.

This is a Bill which can be dealt with better in the Committee Stage than in the Second Reading, but the Bill follows a pattern in that it gives effect to the Budget proposals and amendments to the tariffs necessary as the result of our membership of G.A.T.T. and also as the result of the recommendations of the Board of Trade. The Bill in effect covers three main headings, the Budget proposals, the amendments required under the G.A.T.T. agreement and also the Board of Trade recommendations. There are also two matters mentioned by the Minister that meet with our approval. Firstly there is clause 2, which gives legal effect to the procedure already being followed of the “Red” way or the “Green” way in regard to the clearing of customs at terminal points. It will accelerate the customs examination and in view of the introduction of large aircraft carrying 450 passengers, this will speed up the clearing of traffic at the terminals in Johannesburg and Cape Town: and secondly, clause 7, which provides relief from prosecution of an agent whose principals have committed an offence. In the past both the agents and the principals could be prosecuted for doing something about which the agent had no knowledge. The principals overseas could make a false declaration or draw up a false invoice and there were prosecutions where the agent was prosecuted. We drew the attention of the Minister to that in 1968 and pointed out how unfair that was. It is pleasant now to see that at last our advice has been taken, although it is two years later.

But there are also a great number of items which appear in the Bill which do not have our approval. These are items which are alleged to be luxuries and on which the sales tax is imposed. We have said from time to time that we are not opposed to a sales tax on luxuries, but we are opposed to a sales tax on items which we regard as necessities required in the ordinary household. Far too many so-called luxuries have been taxed in the past, items such as cosmetics, toilet preparations, gloves, automatic vending machines, radios, etc. These all received attention from the Minister in his Schedule, and we will deal with these items in detail when we come to discuss the Schedules of the Bill. But in the meantime it is as well to mention that when we complained in the past and the Minister turned down our complaints, it is interesting to find that after a year the Government has heeded our advice and has had a change of heart. For example, in the Schedules attached to this Bill it is indicated that the tax on washing preparations which were regarded as luxuries last year have been reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent and on polishing powders from 5 per cent to nil. The tax on disinfectants and insecticides has been reduced from 10 per cent to nil. The hon. member for Durban (Point) drew the attention of the Government to that last session and pointed out that disinfectants were not a luxury but a necessity and it has taken the Government a year to appreciate the wisdom of our advice. The duty on travel goods has been reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent, on picture frames from 10 per cent to nil and on toilet paper from 20 per cent to 5 per cent. There is still another 5 per cent to go. It is still in the semi-luxury class. The duty on postcards has been reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent and on bed linen from 5 per cent to nil. Most of these reductions are reductions which were recommended by us last year, and it is interesting to find that the Government now takes heed of our advice. On the other hand, there are various items in the Schedules on which the duty has been increased and we will discuss those later. For that reason I hope that the Minister will not ask for the Committee Stage to be taken to-night. We have certain amendments to put on the Order Paper in connection with a lengthy list of items which will require our attention in the Committee Stage and suggest that it would be in the interest of the House to give the Minister and hon. members an opportunity of studying those amendments. They will be printed on the Order Paper to-night, and there will be ample time to-morrow, while we are waiting for the Other Place, to discuss these matters in detail and to try to persuade the Minister to have a change of heart and to accept our advice this year which he ignored last year. Apart from that, Sir, we support the Second Reading of the Bill.

When we started with this new system of sales taxation last year, we warned the Government that many of the items under the heading “Tariff heading and Description” starting on page 97 of this Bill which are now being amended by this schedule were, firstly, a taxation on essentials; secondly, were unnecessary and, thirdly, would bring in excessive revenue. Now, a year later, we are being faced with amending schedules for this tax. What is the situation which has arisen during the past year?—We have been proved right almost in everything we alleged a year ago. Firstly, the Government received revenue in excess of what they estimated, despite the fact that …

Order! The hon. member is now delivering a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with the amendments contained in the schedule under discussion. Am I not entitled to deal with the background to it?

Certainly the hon. member may, but not by means of a Second Reading speech.

I am only sketching the background to these amendments. I am saying that we have been justified in our criticism by the very fact that we have these amendments before us now. Despite the fact that an amount more than the estimate was received last year, we are now being asked to approve increases on a whole range of items, increases which are going to bring in even more revenue than the revenue estimated last year. The fact is that the Government received more money than it expected after actually withdrawing a number of items and yet it is now asking us to approve further increases. In the circumstances I should like to move the amendments of which Mr. Emdin, who unfortunately cannot be here to-day. has given notice and which are printed on page 399 of the Order Paper, as follows—

I move these amendments to express our protest not only at the extension of the list of items but also at the increased duty—from 20 per cent to 25 per cent—which is being imposed on a whole range of items. If you take a sales duty, or a purchase tax—as it really is, because the consumer pays—of 25 per cent, i.e. one-quarter at the point of sale at the factory, by the time that item reaches the consumer, that 25 per cent has increased to very much more than 25 per cent. Where we already believe it was too high at 20 per cent on many of these items, we are now being asked to increase it to 25 per cent, a quarter of the cost at the factory. If you add an average profit of 50 per cent, you are paying not only the 25 per cent, but 25 per cent plus the 50 per cent profit. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this. He was not responsible last year, but it is his department. We were given assurances last year that the department and the Price Controller would ensure that the consumer was not penalized by abuse of the sales tax and excessive increases being brought about under the pretext of sales tax. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how many prosecutions have taken place over the last year, if any, and I suggest to him that there have been none. I want to ask him how many investigations have been made and I suggest to him that the answer is going to be “very few”, because the Government simply has not the staff to check. Whilst it cannot check existing taxes it is now asking us to increase even more the amounts on many items and to bring in a complete new range of items.

In regard to the new items proposed, the amendments which I have moved seek to limit these to luxury items. Here we are being asked to accept a new tax on watches, clocks, stop-watches, etc., on photographic equipment, cameras, etc. It is not restricted to luxury items, to the specialist items, but to any watch and any camera and any stopwatch, even the cheap watch which the farmer has to give to his boss boy to enable him to control operations. We are therefore moving to lay down, in the case of cameras and photographic equipment, R30 as the minimum value on which the tax is introduced, and in the case of watches, etc., to restrict these to items of over R20 in value.

At least then the tax will be on more or less semi-luxury items. But we can see no reason for a Government with a surplus as large as the one it has had this last year to tax “voor die voet” all these new items and certainly no reason to increase the tax on so many items from 20 per cent to 25 per cent. Last year we criticized the Government on many of the items it was taxing. We said that this was unnecessary and would be a burden on the average South African and would increase his cost of living. I just want to look for a moment at some of the items concerned. These proposals before us now withdraw the tax entirely on some of the items we criticized, like floor polish, insecticides and disinfectants and bed-linen. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to explain to us on what basis he chose the items on which the duty was to be reduced or withdrawn, because we pointed out last year that if a person was not going to pay sales duty he would become a queer sort of South African, unwashed and unshaven. Now we see that we must have been right, because one item which the Government has now withdrawn from taxation is disinfectants and insecticides. In other words, our warning must have been correct. Or are these political disinfectants and insecticides which have been withdrawn? But the Government has not withdrawn it on the items affecting cleanliness. I want to ask the Minister why he has not withdrawn the duty on soap? What he has done is to reduce it to half of what it was. Does that mean that a person must only be a little bit dirty, or must he wash only one half of his body and not the other? What is the principle involved? The principle involved is that the Government is taxing cleanliness. What is the object; what is the purpose? Why not do the job properly?

I do not want to deal with all the items concerned, because other hon. members will deal with them. What I am trying to establish is what the thinking of the Government is in this regard. What is the policy, what is the principle behind the items which are chosen for taxation, because they appear to me to be chosen completely haphazardly. You can now disinfect yourself, but you can only half wash yourself. You can now have cheaper bed-linen, but you have to pay a sales duty on the furniture. You can now polish your floor, but you must pay duty on creams and cosmetics to polish your face. Where is the principle involved? What guides the Government? Cosmetics are taxed but you can keep your floors clean now. Disinfectants are free but you have to pay a tax in order to wash yourself. There is no system or logic in this, and so many items of daily necessary use are still being taxed. [Time expired.]

Against the background of a R10 million increase in the Revenue Account shown in the recent Second Estimates, I should like to move the amendments standing in my name on page 400 of the Order Paper, as follows—

I do not propose to go into these amendments in detail as they are set out for all to see. They deal briefly with cosmetics and cosmetic preparations, with soap and washing preparations, with matches and with toilet paper. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give these amendments his very serious consideration. In the case of cosmetics and perfumery, the Minister may take the view that these are not necessities of life, but I think that the women of South Africa would argue differently. I believe that they will claim that cosmetics and perfumes are as essential to their image as the very clothes they wear. Women have lesser privileges in our tax life than men. I think that even the hon. the Minister will realize that the women of South Africa do not enjoy the same privileges as men and they should therefore be treated less harshly in this matter of sales tax. Women not only have the additional burden of housekeeping, but to-day they are expected to go out to work and then return to face the daily chores which would have been done in the past by servants who are no longer available. In addition they are the morale-builders of the family. They must present a happy personality at all times and they are expected to ooze femininity and charm for the benefit of the males in the families. Not only are their financial rewards for the work they do lower than those of the males, but they also have to face the additional cost of transport to and from their work, of office lunches and office clothes. Sir, we in the male world are to-day indebted to the female of the species for the freshness and the charm which they bring into our daily lives. Our lives would indeed be dreary if women did not make the most of themselves. I believe that a woman feels undressed and psychologically incomplete until she emerges from her dressing room, fresh and lovely and with a new radiance of face and added confidence to her personality brought about through the use of perfumes and cosmetics. I believe that the women were unreasonably discriminated against last year when this sales duty of 20 per cent was imposed, and the extension of the duty from 20 per cent to 25 per cent is a further “slap in the face” to the fair sex. Sir, I believe that the hon. the Minister has a reputation of being a man with considerable charm. I would ask him as a man conscious of the cause of women in South Africa to relent and to scrap this sales duty heading completely.

I now come to the item which has probably caused as much criticism of the concept of the sales duty as any other—an item which has done the Government considerable harm among the voters of South Africa. I refer to the heading “soap and washing preparations”. The Government has recognized its error in imposing these sales duties in the first instance, and they have been reduced now from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. In fact, Sir, in making this reduction, all that has been done is to concede too little to too many. Sir. we in South Africa are a people to whom cleanliness comes next to godliness. Unlike the practice in some of the older European countries, the bath in South Africa is a daily rather than a weekly routine.

Don’t you believe it.

Do you not wash every day?

The washing machines or even the washing tub ranks amongst the basic essentials in every home. From time immemorial the South African women have been at pains to ensure that soap has always been available for the family chores.

Is the hon. member reading his speech?

No, Sir. I would only ask the hon. the Minister to have regard to the requirements stated here and to consider eliminating this tax entirely. Finally, Sir, the same applies to matches. There is the adage “let there be light”. I would merely say that in the humbler homes in South Africa, in every Native home in the Bantu territories, indeed in every home, matches represent a considerable item in the cost of living. Without matches people are lost. Here too there has been a reduction, which is significant, but why not eliminate this duty entirely because, after all, the hon. the Minister has R10 million available to him. Here again we would be rendering a considerable service to our people in South Africa.

Finally, Sir. I come to the question of toilet rolls and specifically to the tariff heading which deals with toilet paper in rolls not exceeding 13 cm. in width or in rectangular sheets of which no side exceeds 18 cm. I am not sure, Sir, what the situation would be if the manufacturers of these important commodities merely altered the size and so enabled us to avoid the tax. But this would be an expensive process. If ever there was an essential necessity of life, then surely it falls under this heading. Again the Minister has seen fit to reduce the tax from 20 per cent to 5 per cent. No item has brought the whole principle of the sales tax under greater ridicule or condemnation than this item. From debates in this House, right through to public platforms, in the Press and women’s organizations the application of this sales tax on toilet paper has been condemned in no uncertain terms. The Minister has retreated from his original stand and reduced the tax from 20 per cent to 5 per cent. My appeal to him to-day is to keep politics out of the lavatory, to keep toilet paper out of politics, and to eliminate this tax entirely.

Sir, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Gardens. I want to deal particularly with one aspect of the amendment and that is item 33.05 on page 99, namely—

Sir, when I first read this, I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me because I thought that it would surely be excluding such products suitable for medicinal uses. But, Sir, here it stands in the Bill and as it stands, it means that this is a tax on the sick. I realize that it is only one aspect of a compounded medicine but if you increase the duty or the tax on a basic material in the preparation of medicine, ultimately it must have some effect on the cost to the consumer. Here I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister is discriminating, and he is discriminating in principle against the sick. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the fact that the Snyman Commission’s report on the high cost of medicines and treatment has been published and available for almost ten years. As I recollect the recommendation by that commission it was that the duty on medicines should be done away with. I realize that nothing positive has transpired from that particular recommendation. It would almost seem to me that it has been put into deep-freeze. But, Sir, the costs of medicines are rising and I believe that it is the duty of this side of the House to make whatever attempts we can to encourage the Deputy Minister to accept the fact and to do something sympathetic to reduce costs.

Sir, the duty on certain luxury items has also been referred to. If people do not wish to purchase an item because the price has been increased, then they need not do so, but how can a person who is sick and who has to take medicine decide not to take that medicine if it is in his own interests to do so? I realize again that this is a relatively small amount. We are proposing a small reduction, but I would ask the hon. the Minister to be sympathetic, because basically the amount that he will collect from this will not help him to balance any budget, and I believe that in principle it is unsound that medicines used by sick people should be taxed in any way.

I wish to move the amendment to Schedule I as printed in my name, as follows—

The items concerned cover office printing, calculating and statistical machines, including cash registers. Sir, I find the rather cryptic references which have been made to this proposal to impose a sales duty on these items to be very misleading. The hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech referred in the most brief terms to the imposition of tax on these items. They have been referred to in somewhat more detail in the Schedule to this Bill. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill merely uses the words—

The hon. the Deputy Minister made no reference in his Second Reading speech to this item at all. Sir, in fact, these new impositions on office machines make this tax virtually all-embracing. Not only are conventional accounting and statistical machines of the keyboard type included but we now have a tax which includes the whole gamut of computer equipment. The computer industry is an important industry, judged not so much by its present size—last year the imports of computer equipment totalled some R10¼ million for duty purposes—but judged by its growth potential. Computers are continually finding new applications to which they can be put; they are an important element in helping to solve our manpower shortage and to improve efficiency in administration in general. I would have thought that the imposition of a sales tax on computers was of sufficient importance to have been mentioned specifically on some occasion on which reference has been made to this tax and that this Committee should have been given some explanation as to why such a tax imposition is necessary.

Last year, when the sales tax was originally imposed, certain items of office equipment were included, but the imposition on this occasion is so widespread that I think we have to deal with the principle of taxing office equipment anew. I find no merit whatsoever in a tax of this nature. In fact, on the contrary, I find it thoroughly bad in principle for two main reasons. The first is that it is essentially a tax on office efficiency. All types of office machines are used in offices to increase the productivity of labour employed by these offices, in the same way that machines and equipment are used in factories to increase the productivity of industrial enterprises. In practically every Vote that this House has considered in the Budget, the item of “mechanical labour-saving devices” is found. That is exactly what an office machine is. I think that that is the main article included under this item of the Votes. This tax is so all-embracing that if an office wishes to avoid paying it, its workers will have to do their work with pen and ink and use human arithmetic. I believe that the Government should studiously avoid the principle of taxing the tools of production. In fact, they should go to the opposite extreme by encouraging the community to improve their efficiency by purchasing and using labour-saving equipment.

I also find this tax to be very contradictory because, on the one hand, the hon. the Minister of Finance has allowed investment allowances in respect of industrial equipment, but on the other hand he is imposing a tax on office equipment, which after all is only complementary to industrial equipment. I also find the actions of the Government contradictory and difficult to understand where, on the one hand, the hon. the Minister of Finance is imposing taxes on office equipment, which is a means of saving labour, and on the other hand the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is threatening to take away office labour in the form of Bantu in certain areas. Before I became a Parliamentarian, I was often puzzled by how ministerial decisions were arrived at. Now, having been a Parliamentarian for a short time, and having had a closer look at these decisions, quite frankly, they bewilder me.

The second reason why I find a tax on office equipment to be bad in principle is that it is directly inflationary. It affects the costs of virtually every enterprise. It affects the cost of industry, commerce, finance, insurance, the professions and so on. It adds fuel to the fire of cost inflation, an inflation which is already very sensitive to the shortage of labour. I find it difficult to understand why office equipment, which would help combat the shortage of labour, should be taxed.

Overall I must say that I find the way in which this sales tax is applied, to be very ill-conceived. On the one hand the principle is established that sales tax is applied at manufacturing source. The result is that it cascades by the time it reaches the consumer. At all the subsequent steps in the channel of distribution, additional amounts are added because of the cost and the risk of carrying the sales tax. By the time the consumer pays the tax, he is paying much more than the Government is actually receiving by way of sales tax. It is ill-conceived in that respect. It is also ill-conceived in that it is being applied in such a way that additional cost is going to permeate through to all commodities that are consumed, whether they be essential or non-essential items. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the amendments moved by the hon. members for Durban (Point), Gardens and Constantia. They have all referred to incidence of taxes. I thought I would take as an example an item which cost R10 to import into the country to illustrate the effect of the cascading of taxes referred to by the hon. member for Constantia. An item costing R10 would have added to it R2.5, being the sales tax of 25 per cent proposed by the Minister. The cost would therefore be raised to R12.5. The importer would then add a mark-up of 50 per cent, or R6.25, bringing the total to R18.75. The retailer would add his tax, and 25 per cent of that figure would give you a tax of R4.68, bringing the total cost of the item to R23.43. The tax added to that item, namely R5.86, would be passed on to the consumer. If the retailer had a mark-up of, for example, 33½ per cent, a further R9.76 would be added. The total paid by the purchaser would then amount to R40.05.

We see therefore that an item imported from overseas at a cost of R10 would in fact cost the taxpayer R40.05. The fiscus would take in taxes at each step. It would receive R2.5 at the first step, R4.68 at the second step, and R5.86 at the third, making a total of R14.04 as a result of the method by which the tax is added. If the tax were reduced to 20 per cent the tax would be R9.09 instead of R14.04. This cascading of taxes, this escalation, is having the effect of pushing costs up the inflationary spiral and for those reasons I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Point).

The hon. member for Constantia has made another valid point, namely that we have had the Minister of Finance enjoining us to be more productive and calling upon industrialists and businessmen to provide for more efficient methods or organization. One of the best aids for a more efficient organization is the use of computers in this electronic age. On the one hand the hon. the Minister is telling us to be more efficient and on the other hand he is taxing that efficiency. It is completely contradictory and for those reasons we cannot support this item.

Mr, Chairman, I think it stands to reason that the hon. Opposition should be granted the right to differ with us and, for that reason, to move amendments and to plead their case. But I think hon. members of the Opposition will, just as I understand their position, also appreciate the position of this side of the House and understand that those amendments cannot be accepted in this way. This is a fiscal measure with which we are dealing here. If these funds, which hon. members of the Opposition are implicating here by their proposed amendment, are to be sacrificed, then those funds will have to be raised by other means. They will either have to be raised from other sources or by way of other levies on the sale of goods. If other levies are to be imposed, it becomes very clear that we shall have to tax other items, such as food and clothing. Hon. members on that side of the House be prepared to put up with that either. Hon. members will realize that we cannot get up here and sacrifice, without more ado, R10 million or R15 million, or whatever the amount may be, simply by accepting amendments at this stage.

Then I want to tell hon. members that it is possible to argue about each of these items which are subject to sales duty. One can argue about whether they should be subject to sales duty at all. Should the sales duty be 10 per cent or should it be 5 per cent? In this way it is possible to conduct an argument about each of these items. To illustrate what I am getting at, I want to tell the hon. Opposition that if the Minister of Finance were to say to them to-day: “Look, here is the list of commodities; here are all the necessary statistics. I want to collect R100 million from sales duty.” If he were then to ask hon. members of the Opposition to draw up that list individually so that he might collect his R100 million, there would be just as many different lists as there are members on that side of the House. I am not saying this disparagingly, because it does not only apply to that side of the House; it applies to this side of the House as well. It applies to experts. The hon. the Minister can appoint 10 or 15 or 20 or more experts, and then ask each of them to work out individually particulars as to how he can obtain his R100 million. They will all differ. This shows how debatable each of these items can be made if one wants to argue about them.

But this also proves something else. It proves —and this is one of the cardinal reasons why amendments cannot be accepted in this connection—that when such a list in respect of sales duty is compiled, that whole process of how decisions are taken on what the levy will be and what commodities will be subject to the levy, will have to go through the mill properly. Hon. members of the Opposition have proposed amendments and expressed ideas and made suggestions here. It goes without saying that cognisance is taken of those amendments which have been proposed, the ideas which have been expressed and the suggestions which have been made, just as cognisance is taken of representations coming from all quarters, representations by business entrepreneurs, manufacturers and by whoever they may have been made.

As was stated here by my hon. predecessor last year, the levies which have been imposed, will be reviewed in the light of experience, in the light of the merits which may become apparent through the implementation of this process, either through representations or through the experience gained by officials. That is why that wise decision has been taken, namely, as we were dealing with a new measure, to make that provision in the Act so that the Minister will be able to review it. That provision is being made again this year. The Opposition is putting a feather in its cap and saying that its representations have been proved to be correct. I have no objection to their putting it this way, but it proves that this decision which is taken here, should go through the mill properly. Then finality can eventually be reached. It is also being made with retrospective effect, where necessary.

Then I want to say something about a few general points. Hon. members on that side of the House raised the point here that they wanted to allow exemptions on a value basis in certain cases, such as watches and cameras. Unfortunately this is in point of fact impossible to administer in practice. I concede that, in the case of motor cars for example, that levy is calculated on a value basis. But motor cars are a completely different matter: motor cars are subject to excise duty. There is, consequently, proper control in this connection, and it is possible to work on a value basis there through the consideration of various models and the price that goes hand in hand with them. But in the case of these other commodities the administration cannot be applied effectively. This is simply impossible, and it must consequently lead to all sorts of malpractices and tax evasion. In connection with those items for which hon. members made strong pleas, I want to point out to them that these cameras, watches and office machinery, about which, for example, the hon. member for Constantia spoke strongly, are durable commodities. They are not commodities which are bought every month or every year. These are durable commodities which can be kept in service for years. When hon. members consider that years of service result from the purchase of those articles and, consequently, from the payment of the levy on them, they will realize that the burden which is placed on that person who has to acquire them, is in fact a very light one, considering their period of duration.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) asked certain questions in respect of which I can supply more information. In respect of the investigations, I must tell him that the investigations carried out by the Price Controller in connection with prices, are not a matter on which the Department of Customs and Excise can comment. The Department is at present mechanizing the accounts in regard to the sales duty, and this will release officials so that they may to a greater extent carry out inspections at the premises of manufacturers. Moreover. I want to tell the hon. member that the real income for the financial year 1969-’70 is approximately R94,500,000. This includes collections on locally manufactured goods over a period of nine months. Collections on locally manufactured goods for the last quarter amount to R19 million. This means that the total collections during the financial year are approximately R113.5 million, as against the initial estimate of R100 million.

I think I have already covered, in the general survey which I have given, the other aspects raised by the hon. member.

As far as the hon. member for Berea is concerned, I am told that water distillates and aqueous solutions of volatile oils are used mainly as raw material in the manufacture of goods other than medicine. It will therefore not be possible to exclude this specially and to grant special relief in that regard. It would bring about administrative problems which will be insurmountable.

As far as office machines are concerned, to which the hon. member for Constantia referred, I think I have already explained the standpoint of the Department. In connection with the cadre to which he referred, I may tell him that the Franzsen Commission thoroughly investigated the matter of the point where sales duty is to be collected, and found that the obvious point was at the point of manufacture. Unfortunately I cannot give more information.

The Deputy Minister says, quite rightly, that when it is suggested that taxes be reduced, other sources of taxation should be suggested at the same time. Well, it will of course be out of order for us at this stage to suggest other sources. However, we have not suggested that the entire schedule be eliminated. We have only picked out certain important items. This debate serves this purpose, that even though the Minister may not accept our amendments he may take them into account when considering the schedules for next year. It has been our experience that where we had given advice some of that advice had been accepted. Similarly, we have no doubt that if the Minister heeds the advice we give him to-day when he draws up the schedules for next year he will once more demonstrate that our advice is usually based on sound reasoning and not just a waste of the time of this House. It has been our experience in the past that revenue is always underestimated and expenditure overestimated. Consequently, to talk about looking for new sources of revenue does not convince us altogether, because I am sure the Minister is going to receive more revenue than he anticipates receiving, also more from the schedules he has put before us to-day.

I support the views of the hon. member for Pinetown and also want to go further. We want the Minister to tell us the principles on which items are selected for sales duty and the principles on which items are removed from sales duty. What is the policy of the Government behind this? There seems to be no logic in it—this seems to be just a haphazard list. When we try to criticize particular items the Minister says that is the list, whether or not we may disagree on it. I gave the Minister specific examples of what we regard as anomalies. Where is the logic in Government thinking? But the Deputy Minister in his reply ignored this and instead dealt with computer machines. He refuses to tell the House and the public why he has to tax cleanliness and female beauty—two items we have fought against last year and again this year: the cleanliness of the body and the attraction of the female face. These are two simple items we have emphasized over and over again.

I want to know what the Government members are doing. They have been silent throughout this debate—not a single Government member has made one constructive suggestion in connection with this taxation, no criticism, not even a gentle suggestion “asseblief, mnr. die Minister”, not even a polite suggestion. Instead they just sit there—silent; they are not interested in the public and in the burden they have to carry; they have not even read this Bill. Let them look at it from page 99 onwards. On page after page they will come across items in everyday use, things that are being used all the time. But hon. members opposite have not even noticed then, let alone making a constructive contribution to this debate. In the circumstances, how can they go back to their constitutencies and tell their voters that they sat in Parliament and debated the wisdom of taxing soap, toilet paper, face powder, baby powder, babies bottles and other daily necessities? I speak with feeling on this point because I have to start paying for babies bottles, babies powder and all types of other things myself.

Congratulations!

Thank you. I am looking after the white population! These are practical items. We, the fathers who have to pay, we are sensitive about these things. But when in Parliament we ask the Minister to deal with essential items, we do not get the support of hon. members opposite—not even from the Minister of Defence who, like myself, has just become a grandfather. He too ought to think about the necessities for bringing up a child, of keeping the child clean, of keeping it powdered and in a decent cot. He and I ought to feel the same about it—so why does he not support us on this? I know he is a director of Die Burger and Die Beeld. For some items he may need newsprint but on other items I am sure…

I am a responsible grandfather.

But you are not doing much to lighten the burden on your grandchild’s supporters, on the people who have to pay. I think it is wrong that Government members sit here and not lift a finger in the interest of their own voters who have to pay this tax. The Deputy Minister shrugs his shoulders and says we must find the money somewhere. Here are the Estimates of Revenue, estimating for R126,685,000—an increase of nearly R30 million on the estimate for last year. All this is additional money. But when we ask them to tell us on what principle they select items, by what right they tax baby powder, toilet paper and soap, they are silent. They are silent because there is no policy, no principle behind it. These are essential everyday items. We are not pleading with them to remove the duty on furs, jewels or Cadillacs but are talking about the day to day things. The hon. Minister of Sport and Recreation has forgotten what it is to buy baby powder.

I have more grandchildren than you have.

Cannot the Minister be a little more compassionate? Can he not make some contribution towards the compassionate society for which my Leader has pleaded? Let him have some compassion for people, for the ordinary people, particularly the young people who have to buy these things to ensure that their homes are kept clean. Can we not at least remove these things which I mentioned which deal with cleanliness and the essentials for bringing up a family?

While I am speaking, we cannot allow this debate to go by without again pleading with the hon. the Minister to reconsider the iniquitous excise tax on beer, the most healthy drink. [Interjection.] Yes, babies do well on beer. I have had seven of them and look at me. This punitive system of taxing beer firstly on a very high level, one of the highest in the world, and then on a discriminatory scale, is, I believe, wrong for South Africa. It is a wrong system of excise. Firstly, we should encourage. as the Malan Commission pleaded for South Africa to do, the drinking of the lower alcohol content drinks like beer and natural wines. We should encourage the young people particularly to drink the drink with the least alcohol in it.

Order! I think the hon. member is going very far from the items under discussion.

But these are the excise schedules. Are we not entitled to discuss them?

The hon. member is discussing certain amendments now.

I am dealing with the basic excise tax which, if we vote for it now, will be part of the excise schedule.

But not on wine, etc. The hon. member may proceed.

I will obey your ruling, Sir. I have made my point to the hon. the Minister. I think this is a disgrace for South Africa. Coming back to two aspects of the sales tax, one is the question of the determination of value. I raised questions and the hon. the Minister gave a theoretical reply on this. In point of fact, this is done on an ad hoc basis, without any real fundamental basis, and I suggest the time has come when the determination of value for sales duty should be put on a proper footing and not be arrived at by ad hoc decisions by an individual official, without any pattern or any rules or principles laid down for it. [Time expired.]

I do not know whether the hon. member for Pinetown misunderstood what I said. I was not dissatisfied with their attempt to express criticism here, and move amendments. I accept it, and I intimated that, like all other representations, they are receiving attention. The wisdom of that is put to the test by experience, and it is tested by the merits of each case. This links up to what I said in connection with decisions in this regard that have to go through the machine. This must be calculated. However, I now want to say, in pursuance of what both the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Durban (Point) said, that there will, in any case, be sufficient money; we can expect a surplus. But there I want to differ. The Exchequer cannot argue in that way.

What was your surplus last year? More than R100 million.

Yes, but the Exchequer cannot act in that way, and I cannot accept all these proposals and think that there is, in any case, going to be a surplus. The calculations are made. [Interjections.] No, it is wrong to say that this is being done deliberately. The calculations are made, obviously with reasonable conservatism, and our expectations for the coming year. One must be conservative about this, otherwise one could encounter great difficulties somewhere in the future. Those calculations are made on a conservative basis, and one cannot then simply deviate from that in the supposition that there is going to be a surplus in any case.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) again had quite a lot to say about anomalies that allegedly exist here. I want to tell the hon. member that from this list of commodities he cannot extract a single one that will not affect some or other person or group of persons disagreeably. He accepts the principle of a sales levy. His party accepts it, and they say so repeatedly, but then they must also accept that there is no such thing as being able to tax commodities by placing a sales levy on them that will not inconvenience some or other person, or affect them less favourably. The hon. member is, for example, quite satisfied that furs should be taxed. He has no objection to that, as he has just intimated, but I just want to tell him that both in South-West Africa and South Africa there is considerable consternation about the taxation of furs.

Yes, among the rich people.

No, not among the rich people; among the producers of the untreated furs, because the karakul fur is involved here. They want to encourage the sales of the fur on the local market, and they do have a case. But the hon. member is quite satisfied with that. It just shows you, Sir, how there can be differences and arguments about every commodity. As I have said, a debating point can be made of every commodity.

The hon. member wanted to know how we set to work. The normal procedure would be for the Minister to consult his expert officials. He gives them the general principles according to which he wants to introduce this taxation. They set to work, with all the experience and knowledge at their command, and draw up lists. They suggest scales. But somewhere there must be a person, as I said previously, who must decide, because you will find that everyone will draw up a different list. Somewhere there must be someone at the end who can again decide what the final proposals to this House must be, and that is the Minister. Then he comes along with his final proposals. If he wants to revise them, and he does not want to create administrative impracticabilities —and here I indicated that hon. members are advocating steps that cannot be implemented administratively—he goes back and the whole process is churned through the mill again. Then one has the position that at the end of the year the Minister comes along, and he has introduced amendments and given relief, something the Opposition is now appropriating for itself. But if the Opposition is sure that they have such a good case to-day, they surely have the satisfaction that, since on past occasions the Minister granted relief when they had a good case, this will also apply again in the future, and they do not have any reason for concern and for making such cutting remarks as the hon. member for Durban (Point) made here, disparaging remarks about an entire process and a great deal of labour expended in drawing up this list.

I am afraid we cannot accept the arguments of the hon. the Deputy Minister. He says that we accept the principle of the imposition of a sales tax. Yes, we do, but we made our standpoint quite clear that we accept the imposition of a sales tax on luxuries and durables only and not on items such as we have here, like matches, perfumeries, soap, toilet paper and so on.

Order! That argument has been advanced before.

I abide by your ruling, Sir. I am merely replying to the argument now advanced by the Deputy Minister. But we go further. The hon. the Deputy Minister also comes with the argument that certain of the suggestions made by this side of the House cannot be accepted because they cannot be carried out administratively. His easiest way out is to scrap that item altogether, as we have suggested. I cannot see that his argument with regard to cameras, where we suggested a figure of R30, holds any water at all. Ninety per cent of the cameras sold in this country are imported, so he has a value on which he can work. He must not say that he has not got a value on which to work and that it is only on motor cars that he has an excise value on which he can impose this tax.

It is not a matter of value; it is a matter of control.

But we have control when they come in through Excise. If he cannot control cameras under R30, how does he control all the other matters? Does he not depend on the integrity of the manufacturer or the supplier? Is he not prepared to depend on the integrity of the manufacturer or supplier when it comes to cameras? What is the difference, Sir? I am afraid we cannot accept this sort of argument from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Sir, let us go further. He criticizes the fact that we are trying to reduce the taxation he is going to get and he points out that the fiscus has estimated the income that it will receive, that this is part of the estimated income and that therefore it is impossible at this stage to reduce the amount of tax which is to be recovered. But, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that the Minister of Finance has budgeted for a surplus of R95 million anyway, R95 million which he does not need; from this sales tax he anticipates collecting R100 million. If he were to scrap the whole lot he would only have to find another R5 million. Sir, what sort of argument is this to advance? I want to say that the arguments which have been advanced by members on this side of the House have been fully justified, and we are going to tell the people during this provincial election campaign that hon. members on that side of the House are “vrouehaters” because they want to tax perfumes and other things. It has even been suggested that perhaps this tax which is being imposed here is a subterfuge to allow the farmers to sell their “mieliestronke”. Sir, this is the sort of thing that is going on here. We cannot understand the unreasonable attitude of this Minister. Surely be can see that these are necessities. They are no longer luxuries.

Order! In essence the same arguments have been raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point); I do not want any repetition.

Sir, these are strong points in favour of the arguments raised by this side of the House and I maintain that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not met these arguments.

Omission of all the words of Tariff Heading 33.05 in Sales Duty Item 136.00, up to and including “uses”, proposed by Mr. H. A. van Hoogstraten, put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

First amendment proposed by Mr. W. V. Raw put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Question put: That Tariff Headings 33.06, 34.01, 34.02 and 36.06 in Sales Duty Item 136.00, and paragraph (1) of Tariff Heading 48.15 in Sales Duty Item 140.00, stand part of the Schedule.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and remaining amendments proposed by Mr. FI. A. van Hoogstraten accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. D. D. Baxter put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Remaining amendments proposed by Mr. W. V. Raw put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Schedule, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 11.35 a.m. and resumed at 6.58 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, I wish to inform hon. members that a proclamation will be issued summoning Parliament to meet again on Friday, 29th January, 1971.

I move—