Mr. Speaker, earlier today I tabled Report No. 1262 (M), Part V, of the Board of Trade and Industries on resale price maintenance in respect of pneumatic tyres, and I should like to make a brief statement in that regard.

In terms of the provisions of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, 1955, a general prohibition of the maintenance of resale prices was announced in our country on 25th June, 1969. However, at the time a number of commodities, which included pneumatic tyres, were exempted from the prohibition on a temporary basis in order to afford the Board of Trade and Industries an opportunity to complete its investigation into the applications for exemption which had been received from interested parties.

In Part V of its Report No. 1262 (M), which was tabled in this House today, the Board of Trade and Industires recommended that pneumatic tyres should not be exempted from the general prohibition of resale price maintenance.

The system of maintaining resale prices, as it is being applied in the case of pneumatic tyres, has the disadvantage of restricting price competition among manufacturers and also of eliminating this competition among dealers, whilst consumers are denied the advantages of such competition. On the other hand, the said system has the advantage of promoting competition in respect of the quality of locally manufactured pneumatic tyres, which includes the durability, safety and retread ability of these tyres, and of ensuring stable conditions in the manufacture and the distribution of pneumatic tyres as well as in the rendering of service to consumers.

These advantages and disadvantages involved in resale price maintenance in respect of pneumatic tyres, should be weighed up when a decision is taken as to whether or not the system is to be terminated.

On the strength of several considerations mentioned in the report, the Board of Trade and Industries arrived at the conclusion that the prices of pneumatic tyres would, in the absence of resale price maintenance, be lower than was the case at present. This board also held the view that the abolition of resale price maintenance in the case of pneumatic tyres would not eliminate to any appreciable extent such advantages as were in fact implied by the system, but that the abolition of the system would, in essence, merely bring back the undertakings and risks involved in a normal market economy in the marketing of pneumatic tyres.

However, I must point out that the manufacturers’ selling prices of pneumatic tyres can be controlled effectively by the Government if it appeared that the present situation gave rise to serious abuse. Further to this matter it should be borne in mind that in an oligopolistic market condition, as prevails in the case of pneumatic tyres, it is by no means inevitable that the abolition of resale price maintenance will give rise to effective price competition. It is equally possible that a price leader would come to the fore, a leader who would be followed by the other manufacturers, and this would give rise to results which would not differ fundamentally from what was the case under resale price maintenance.

If price competition were in fact to develop, it would be quite possible that a reduction in the prices would be attended by a proportionate decline in the quality of pneumatic tyres, the result being that the consumer would actually be receiving less value for his money, i.e. in the form of the number of kilometres he could cover per tyre. What is more, it is to be expected that the consumer, in the absence of resale price maintenance, would be exposed to a variety of undesirable practices, such as misleading advertisements, artificially high listed prices with deceptive discounts, as well as the supply of lower-grade tyres, as did occur in overseas countries where resale price maintenance had been abolished.

I also considered the effect of the abolition of resale price maintenance in respect of pneumatic tyres on the branch of industry in question and on allied industries, and I arrived at the conclusion that such a step would in all probability have disruptive consequences for the tyre manufacturing industry itself, the local suppliers of raw materials to the industry as well as the distributors of tyres.

In the light of the said considerations it is still, as far as I am concerned, by no means a foregone conclusion that, all things considered, the abolition of resale price maintenance in the case of pneumatic tyres will in fact, on balance, be in the public interest. Consequently I have decided, for the time being, against implementing the recommendation made by the Board of Trade and Industries, i.e. that the temporary exemption of pneumatic tyres from the general prohibition of resale price maintenance should be withdrawn.

However, I want to issue a word of warning to the tyre manufacturers. To my mind the profits realized by the industry are particularly good, and in some cases they are possibly even higher than can be justified on economic grounds. Moreover, there are indications that the same criteria are not always being applied when it comes to the degree of latitude allowed to the larger and the smaller distributors, respectively, in regulating their affairs.

The manufacturers must therefore accept that their actions will be followed with critical interest, and if, in due course, it appears to be desirable, I shall not hesitate to give effect to the recommendation made by this board.

Mr. Speaker, I move—-

Mr. Speaker. I rise to deal immediately with the Agliotti affair, an affair about which, I may say, we do not have all the facts that we ought to have, a matter which stinks to high heaven.

Sir, it is necessary, I think, for the House to have in chronological order the salient facts relating to this affair. Very briefly the facts are that in February, 1965, Agliotti— and I will refer to Agliotti and his company as ” Agliotti” —bought the properties concerned for R93 600, and additions were then made to them. Thereafter he made every effort to sell these properties: he was very anxious to do so. In 1964 he applied for a re-zoning of these properties, which necessitated a valuation, and a valuation of something like R840 000 was put on his properties. He objected and said that they should in fact be valued at only R109 000. Then in March, 1969, he concluded an agreement with a firm called Lideor. He signed a conditional agreement of sale in terms of which he disposed of the properties for R1½ million. Sir, throughout this period the State was aware of this firm and of the property because of various applications that were made to Bantu Affairs and to Planning.

Then in October, 1969, the Department of Transport decided that it wanted to expropriate the property for the purpose of extending Jan Smuts Airport. This was conveyed to the Department of Land Tenure in November, 1969. They wanted the property less 120 morgen, but Mr. Venter, the administrative officer of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, recommended to the Department of Transport that the whole of the property be bought. The consulting engineers, acting on an untruth on the part of Mr. Venter, recommended to the Minister of Transport that the additional 120 morgen should be bought. That was then authorized by the hon. the Minister with specific instructions that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure had a thorough investigation made into the alleged clay content. The so-called Prof. Lombaard and Mr. Behr were then called in. They were not told the real purpose of the report and indeed Prof. Lombaard says had he known what the purpose was, he would have made further inquiries and would not have accepted the information given to him. Anyway, Sir, they then placed a valuation upon the clay content.

Then in February, 1970 the adminstrative officer of this department. Mr. Venter, made a recommendation and a submission to the Land Tenure Board that although R8¼ million was requested by Agliotti, R4½ million approximately should be paid. At that stage he ascertained that there was money under Loan Vote D, Assistance to Farmers. However, that is where the money was, and that is where it was apparently taken from. On 1st March, a Sunday, he has what he describes as an “ingewimg”, an inspiration or idea, whereby he conceives the idea that Agliotti should receive in fact R6,l million, instead of R4,5 million. On 3rd March the Land Tenure Board met, and the board, in the most extraordinary circumstances described in the report, which will be dealt with by other hon. members, accepted the new thoughts of Mr. Venter on the basis that they should pay R6,l million. Two days later, on 5th March, Mr. Venter saw a Mr. Neethling of the State Attorney’s Office to make inquiries about the value that should be placed upon clay. On the very same day there was an extraordinary meeting of the Secretary of the Department, the Deputy Secretary and Mr. Venter, and at the suggestion of Mr. Venter they upped the amount the I and Tenure Board had agreed on two days before, namely R6,l million, by another R1,4 million approximately. If you take into account the R800 000 that the Land Tenure Board took off, it would be an increase of R2,2 million approximately; and this in a manner described by the Commissioner as “arbitrary and involving an arithmetical error”. On that very same date, on the same day of this extraordinary meeting, the expropriation order was served on Agliotti; on the same day the cheque was issued, and on the following day. March 6th, Friday, the cheque was handed to Agliotti.

Now, on March 6th, according to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, he heard about the deal for the first time. He and the Deputy Minister had talks with Dr. Henning, the Chairman of the Land Tenure Board, about high prices the State was paying for land, and they specifically mentioned the Agliotti deal. On that very same day the hon. the Minister said he called in the Secretary of the Department Mr. Viljoen, and then called for the file and tried to stop the cheque.

That is not correct. We tried to stop the payment.

That is right. He tried to stop payment of the cheque. But, he says, he was a day too late and he could not do it, I will come to that in a moment. I will deal with that specifically just now. I just want to set out the facts now.

On 8th March, two days later, the Nationalist Sunday newspaper, Die Beeld, for the first time raises the matter in public and you will remember what it said, Sir: How wonderful it was, what a wonderful department we had, and are we not lucky that we got this land for only R7,5 million because if we had waited until 1985 goodness knows how much we would have had to pay. Anyway, that was the first time it was raised by this well-informed Nationalist Sunday newspaper. Now, according to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, on the Monday following Die Beeld's publication, on March 9th, there was a meeting of the Cabinet at which the matter was discussed. According to the hon. the Prime Minister, on 14th March, the following Saturday, there was a meeting of Nationalist candidates for the general election and Mr. Sias Reyneke, M.P., raised the Agliotti deal. He said there was something fishy about it and he gave specific reasons. The hon. the Prime Minister, in the result, decided to set up a commission of inquiry. That is his story.

That is not a story; it is the truth.

Then on the very next day the Sunday Times came out with an article on its front page indicating the true facts of the Agliotti deal; indicating for the first time, as opposed to what Die Beeld had said, that a year before Agliotti had tried to sell it; he had offered and was prepared to sell this property for R1,5 million. And at midnight of the same night that the Sunday Times made this all important disclosure, that very night, a commission of inquiry was announced, to look into this deal.

During that inquiry, in early September, Agliotti agreed to pay back to the State approximately R5 million. On 16th September the matter was raised in this House by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition under the vote of the hon. the Prime Minister. As a result, the Prime Minister replied immediately, and his replies form a very important part of the whole picture involving him directly so far as responsibility for the state of affairs which has developed here is concerned. Then, according to the hon. the Minister of Police, the Prime Minister also ordered a police inquiry that month and a police investigation into the matter. The commission completed its report on 14th December, 1970. On 22nd January it was available to the Prime Minister for the first time. On that day the Government considered the report and on that day the Government referred the report to the Attorney-General of the Transvaal.

On 1st February the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter again and the Prime Minister answered again. This is also an important part of the whole story.

During March or April Agliotti's passport was withdrawn, presumably as the result of the police inquiry. On 1st June Mr. Venter, involved in mala fides according to the finding of this commission, with Agliotti, left the country on a valid South African passport. Two days after that, on 3rd June, the report was laid on the Table of this House and made public. Why it took so long to translate it is another matter we would like to know. Why it was not laid on the Table before is yet another matter. Translation is certainly not the answer. We have our Hansard here translated within a week, with far more material than in the report. The report, as anyone now knows, found that there were the most serious irregularities on the part of the Secretary of the department, the Deputy Secretary of the department and the Chairman of the Land Tenure Board, and gross irregularities amounting to fraud on the part of Venter and Agliotti. Those, briefly, are the facts of the matter, and I am pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister is now in his seat.

I have indicated that in regard to some of the matters he is as responsible for this affair as much as anyone else. On 16th September, 1970, when this matter was first raised in this House by my hon. leader, what did the hon. the Prime Minister say? He said—

Now, that is the grasp that the hon. the Prime Minister had of the situation.

He is wrong in fact and in law. In fact, under the Expropriation Act, the Minister expropriates; he has the power to expropriate. And under the Land Tenure Act the Minister may expropriate for fanning purposes only, or exchange land for farming purposes only, and the Land Tenure Board has no functions like this whatsoever. In fact, if you look at the Act you will see that it says that the functions of the board shall be “to advise the Minister in regard to the value of land and any rights in or over land, the alienation and allocation of State land, and in regard to any other matter which the Minister may refer to the board.”

That being the situation, the whole approach of the hon. the Prime Minister is based on a misunderstanding of the functions and of the position. In fact, the land is expropriated by a Minister who long ago assigned his powers to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of his department, so when the Prime Minister says in Column 4286—

He was obviously quite unaware that the powers had already been assigned or delegated under a special general power of attorney to the Secretary and to the Deputy Secretary of the department, without any qualifications whatsoever. There were no qualifications whatsoever. So one wonders at this stage what it was, because it was in this month that the hon. the Prime Minister ordered the police investigation, and who it was and in what respect, and in what department and how he ordered that investigation by the Police. We would like to know that.

But this is very surprising, coming from the hon. the Prime Minister, who in that very same speech, in Column 4288, said—

Sir, what records was he going to look at? Apparently he did not know where to look. He nevertheless talked about the records in relation to two professors (Hansard, volume 30, column 4288-9)—

Well, Sir, I am afraid that he was wrong again. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture told the House on Friday that the two persons who drew up the report were Prof. B. V. Lombaard and Mr. S. H. Behr, “who were not attached to any university at the time”. The hon. the Prime Minister at that stage therefore seems to have had a remarkably good grasp of the situation!

He talked in the same speech about the Sunday Times and said that he was not induced by its report of the 15th March to appoint a commission of inquiry. It was at the candidate’s meeting of the 14th March, according to him, that Mr. Sias Reyneke raised the matter, This hon. gentleman, who is not concerned about street gossip, says that the matter was raised by Mr. Sias Reyneke, who said that there was something fishy about the matter. He continues (Hansard, Volume 30, column 4289)—

The Prime Minister also talked about Die Beeld. I have already indicated what Die Beeld said.

At the time the hon. the Prime Minister had access to these records, and said: “The fact of the matter is that everybody who can and could have shed light on this matter was summonsed to appear before the commission.” This was after evidence had been led, and before argument before the commissioner was to follow, Is this in fact so? Was the hon. the Minister of Agriculture called? Was he called upon to explain why it was that he was never told about this matter? Was he called to explain how this state of affairs could exist in his department without his knowing anything about it? Was Mr. Sias Reyneke called before the commissioner? Was he called upon to shed light on why he thought the deal was fishy? He must have had a very convincing case, because the hon. the Prime Minister says that he was induced by that and the street gossip in Boksburg to appoint the commission. One also has the case of Mr. van der Merwe, M.P., from Meycrton. I do not know which hon. gentleman that is, but he is referred to in the Commission’s Report as “Mr. van der Merwe, M.P.. from Meyerton”, He wrote a letter to the Minister of Transport, saying that Agliotti had not got his money’s worth. This was referred to the Secretary, (Mr. Viljoen) and you will see in the report, Sir, that the Secretary wrote on it, after the event. “Hier is iemand wat met ons saamstem”, or words to that effect. Sir, have they been called? They are all fortunately here today, and perhaps they will be able to enlighten the House as to what has been happening.

Sir, there is another question for the hon. the Prime Minister. If he was convinced that there was something fishy and was prepared to go to the extent of setting up a commission of inquiry, why did he not also ask the Police to investigate the matter? He asked the Police to investigate the matter during September, while the commission was still sitting, and before it had reported. Why did he not, if this was so fishy, also order a Police investigation at that time? We should like to know.

I should also like to say that I find it odd, to say the least, that after the Police had been investigating the matter since September, 1970, one finds this sort of report, which appeared in the Cape Times on the 8th June, 1971: “Brig. Burger said that he had no comment to make on the investigations at this stage, except that they will be very thorough”. Then one finds the following report in the Sunday Times of 6th June. “Gen. Danie Bester told me that detectives who belong to a special unit of the Police were making a thorough investigation into matters concerning the Agliotti affair.” This is not the sort of comment one would have expected, had these investigations been pursued vigorously since September, 1970. We should like to know the result of these investigations.

Another very important question for the hon. the Prime Minister to answer in this regard is: How is it that although Agliotti’s passport was withdrawn, Venter’s was not? It must be borne in mind that Venter is, on the finding of the commission, guilty of being mala fides in cahoots with Agliotti, the implication being that they have defrauded the Stale. We should therefore like to know how it is that although Agliotti's passport was withdrawn, Venter was able to leave the country on a valid South African passport two days before the report was published. Sir, are we to believe that this happened despite the fact that there is a Cabinet decision on the matter, or a Government decision, of the 22nd January; despite the fact that the matter was referred to the Attorney-General; despite the fact that there have been Police investigations since September, 1970; despite the fact that, according to the Minister of the Interior, the Bureau of State Security is used to help in passport applications; despite all the machinery the Minister of the Interior told us about on Friday—according to him the best in the world, second to none, as regards passport investigations; despite the fact Agliotti's passport was taken away; despite the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister himself said earlier this year that the report would soon be laid upon the Table and that those responsible would be dealt with according to law. That was the reason why the commission was appointed, he said.

How can this possibly happen? How did it happen? We expect to be told all these things by the hon. the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Justice, by the Minister of Police and by the Minister of the Interior. These are questions requiring an answer.

The Minister of Agriculture is responsible to Parliament for the administration of his department and is responsible to the Prime Minister. Yet he has allowed to develop within his department a situation where gross irregularities and dishonesty have flourished. This is not the only case. Yet he did nothing when he learned about the situation.

He delegates his powers—a complete delegation of his powers; he delegates his powers under section 14 of the Expropriation Act completely. He has no safeguard in the special power of attorney. Yet he says, and the hon. the Prime Minister says, that these large amounts should have been referred to the hon. the Minister. How does that arise? In terms of what practice?

At the same time he told us on Friday that while he had delegated his powers to these hon. gentlemen, he had not delegated his duties. He specifically said “of course he had not”. What are these duties that he has not delegated, that he, on his own admission, has kept? These are to ensure that the powers he delegates are exercised properly and reasonably at all times. He never loses his power as a delagator; he always retains it. His duty is to ensure that the public’s money is properly spent and to ensure that he keeps in touch with his department and his department with him.

Now, what has he done in regard to any of these things? The evidence suggests that he has done nothing. He heard about this matter on the 6th March and was alarmed. He tried to stop payment of the cheque on the 6th March. Yet the meeting which took place seemed to be almost a casual one. Is this the manner in which the advice of the Land Tenure Board is given to the hon. the Minister? It failed miserably in its duty; it did not do its duty at all in this regard; it ignored the hon. the Minister completely.

He said he wanted to stop payment of the cheque but it was a day too late. It was on that very same day when he heard about this that he was so alarmed—obviously there was something fishy in his opinion—that he wanted to stop payment of the cheque on the very day it was handed to Agliotti. What did the hon. the Minister do? Did he pick up the telephone and ask for the Governor of the Reserve Bank in order to stop the cheque in case there was still time? As a matter of fact, did he do anything at all? I think the answer to that must be “no”. Was he informed? If so, what was he informed? Was he informed that the cheque was issued on the day before or was he informed that the cheque was handed to Agliotti the day before? In fact, the finding of the commission was that it was handed to him on that same day.

What we would also like to know is what happened to the cheque and where in fact that cheque was banked and when it was deposited by Agliotti and where. Also, when was it in fact paid by the Reserve Bank? Those are important questions to which we would like answers. The hon. the Minister owes us an explanation.

The attitude of the officials of this department is significant in this case. Even in respect of the biggest single transaction in the history of the department—R7½ million for a comparatively small piece of land of 300 morgen— they did not even feel that it was necessary to refer to the hon. the Minister. This shows a lack of control and a lack of supervision by the hon. the Minister. It shows how out of touch he must be with the administration of his department and it shows what little confidence the officials of his department have in him as a Minister.

Why did the hon. the Minister not do something on the 6th. when he knew and was alarmed about the transaction? He presumably told the Cabinet about it on the 9th March. The first time we heard about that was when we heard from this hon. Minister. According to the hon. the Prime Minister action was taken not as a result of the alarm of this hon. Minister or what he told the Cabinet meeting cm the 9th March, but as a result of what Mr. Sias Reyneke said at the candidates’ meeting on 14th March and as a result of the street gossip in Boksburg or wherever it was.

This is not good enough. Let me say that there is a precedent which is on all fours with what I believe the hon. the Minister should do. Let me say that the hon. the Minister should resign. He is responsible to this House and this country for the administration of his department. After such a shocking report, he ought to resign in the interests of the administration of this country.

Let me name a very good precedent: In 1954 the Minister of Agriculture in Great Britain, because of rumours of scandalous treatment by way of expropriation of someone’s property, ordered a public enquiry into the workings of that department. I refer to the Crichel Down case. Sir Thomas Dugdale was the Minister of Agriculture. The commission reported that there had been maladministration, but that there were no mala fides on anyone’s part. No blame whatsoever was attached to the Minister in that case. Nevertheless the Minister conceived it his duty to resign, because he was responsible for the administration of his department to Parliament. In this case it is very much more so. The hon. the Minister is not only responsible, but he has demonstrated how out of touch he is with his department.

The hon. the Prime Minister says he has confidence in his Cabinet. Here we have one peep into one window of one department. What can be going on elsewhere! What else can be going on where powers are delegated and we have a myriad Statutes which give the Ministers power to delegate their functions? With all the boards we have which are appointed by the other Ministers, what else can be happening? If the hon. the Prime Minister wants the country to have confidence in his Cabinet, the only way in which he can do that is to call in this case for the resignation forthwith of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, at the start I want to rectify one important matter, and that is with regard to the Opposition’s charge that steps had not been taken to investigate this matter prior to the publication of the report in the Sunday Times. As in many other departments, powers are delegated in the Department of Agricultural Credit, In my departments I have delegated very many powers to officials. When it comes to veterinary surgeons who have to take certain steps in connection with the control of diseases, and in many other cases, it is essential that there should be delegated powers. In this case it is not a new practice, because powers have been delegated throughout the years. In this case the powers have been delegated to two senior officials of the department. In all cases of delegated powers, it is always the practice that in a case such as this, where the matter is not completely clear and beyond doubt, and if there is any doubt whatsoever. the matter should be referred to the Minister. In this way hundreds of matters are referred to me. I can mention examples of this. More or less at the same time negotiations were also being conducted in regard to the purchase of land for the diplomatic suburb in Pretoria. Every step of these negotiations were referred to me by the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of the Department. In this case this was not done. The reason why this was not done, is very difficult to determine. For that reason a commission of enquiry was appointed.

But now I just want to give this House the particulars of this matter. On Friday, 6th March, the hon. the Deputy Minister and I held discussions with Dr. Henning, the chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board. I cannot remember the exact time but, in any event, it was after 3 o’clock in the afternoon. In the course of those discussions we in fact discussed the question of land valuations and how it should be done. We had before us valuations which differed by 300 per cent. These valuations were in respect of the purchase of certain agricultural land. During that discussion Dr. Henning told me he was very concerned about the high prices being paid for land and about the methods of valuation which could not be determined exactly. The fact remains that on the occasions when we have had to deal with these matters, and when we have gone to court with matters concerning valuations, the department has lost the cases virtually without exception. Virtually without exception, larger amounts of money were awarded to the plaintiff than those the department was prepared to pay. In regard to the case under discussion, I want to say that Dr. Henning told me that Friday afternoon, that he was concerned about the high prices, for example, the case which had been before the board on the Wednesday. i.e. the case of the purchase of land on behalf of the Department of Transport. I then asked him to what case he was referring and he mentioned the case and explained what the case was about. He said that the case which had been before the board, represented an amount of R6.3 million. I immediately said to him that I would not decide about such a matter, hut would take it to the Cabinet. In reply to my question why the amount was so large, he said that according to reports which had been submitted to them, the soil contained certain sand minerals, I immediately instructed the Secretary to report to me. Mr. Schoeman, the Deputy Minister, was present. I told the Secretary that I wanted a full analysis of this matter, because I as Minister would not take a decision myself in respect of a case which involved such a large amount, but would take it to the Cabinet. The Secretary then informed me that the cheque had already been paid out.

Paid or given out?

I was informed that the cheque had already been handed over. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to play with words now. [Interjections.] I was informed that the cheque had already been handed over to the sellers. I then asked him why this had been done, because in practice such cases are always referred to me, especially when such a large amount is involved. I asked him on what authority that cheque had been paid out and who had signed it. He immediately told me that the cheque had been paid out by Mr. Todd. I again asked on whose authority it had been done, to which he replied that it must have been on the authority of Mr. Todd himself. I cannot judge in respect of that. The commission investigated it. I told the Secretary that I wanted the documents to be submitted to me immediately so that I could see on what basis it had been done.

My first question to him was whether the Department of Transport had been notified that such a large amount had been paid for this land. His reply to me was: “We have purchased on the instruction of the Department of Transport.” I said to him that that was not what I had asked but that I wanted to know whether the Department of Transport had been notified that such a large amount had been paid for the land. I added that one could almost buy an airport for that amount. My second question to him was whether, since they had been dealing with a case involving land containing mineral deposits, the provision of the Agricultural Credit Act that the Department of Mines should be consulted in such a case, had been complied with. His reply was: “No, they have a letter from one of the geologists of Planning who said that according to the reports, this was not a high price.” In spite of this I issued the instruction that these things should be submitted to me. On Saturday and Sunday the offices were closed, of course, but on Monday this matter was discussed in the Cabinet. I informed the Cabinet that contrary to all practices, customs and ways of the past the amount had been paid out without the Minister having been consulted, I also reported that the Department of Mines had not investigated the matter.

While the Cabinet was still in session, the Prime Minister immediately announced that, if necessary, he would order a commission of inquiry into the matter. I undertook to go further into the matter in the course of the following week and to submit further reports in that regard at the next Cabinet meeting. During that week I investigated the matter and found that things had been done which were usually not done in matters of this nature. The first was that the practice which is usually followed, i.e. that the Minister is informed about such matters, had not been complied with. Secondly, I found that the demand I had put to them, i.e. that this matter should be submitted to the Land Tenure Board for comment had in fact been met and that this Board had recommended an amount of R6 300 000. Subsequently, however, the officials increased the amount by more than R1 000 000 without referring the matter to the Board again. This, of course, gave me the impression that something could be wrong in this case.

But you did not suspend the officials?

I then investigated the matter further. You must remember that here I was concerned with two of my senior officials in the department. In any event, I then found that they had not complied with the Treasury regulation either, an instruction the Treasury had given to every department. Hon. members will find this instruction in the report of the commission as well. It reads as follows—

Accounting officers are requested to indicate in their initial applications whether the property is to be purchased as an independent transaction or as part of a scheme which envisages the subsequent purchase of further property and to furnish an estimate of the total cost of such scheme, including costs of buildings, equipment, running costs, etc.

The fact that funds have been appropriated for the purchase of land for public and general purposes, should not be construed as authority to proceed with any particular service which has been included in the programme of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure.

I was to report this finding at the next meeting of the Cabinet, that is on the Monday, in consequence of what the hon. the Prime Minister had said at the previous meeting when he made the statement that, if necessary, he would appoint a commission. On Saturday, 14th March, the candidates’ conference to which the Prime Minister referred, took place. I was not present at that conference. On the Saturday evening, it could have been between 8.30 and 9 p.m., the Prime Minister telephoned me and informed me that he had attended the conference and that he felt that instead of an ordinary inquiry, he wanted to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry into the whole matter. I informed the Prime Minister that on the basis of the investigation I had made in the department up to that stage, I agreed with him 100 per cent, because things had taken place where the officials had not followed and carried out the normal practices and instructions.

In other words, the decision to convert an ordinary inquiry into a judicial inquiry, had been taken by the Prime Minister on that Saturday evening already. He consulted me in regard to the matter and asked me what my standpoint was. As I have already said, I agreed with him 100 per cent. So, when the Sunday Times published the report the next day, the Prime Minister had already decided to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry, therefore also before the Monday on which I would have had to report to the Cabinet again in accordance with the decision which had been taken in that regard at the previous meeting of the Cabinet.

In regard to delegated powers, these do, of course, exist. The relationship between a head of a department and his Minister is such, however, that in practice cases of this kind are always referred to the Minister, that on each occasion when a dispute arises, the Minister always takes a decision with regard to the matter from which the dispute arises. Most of these cases are not concluded by means of expropriation. It is first done by means of negotiation. It is only if this does not succeed, that an expropriation order is issued and normally in all cases such an order is first discussed with the Minister in order to obtain his approval. But in this case this was not done, and because of this, I immediately felt that something could be wrong in regard to the whole transaction—carelessness, neglect or whatever. As a result of that, I then undertook to investigate the matter.

As I have already said, it became apparent from this investigation, that, according to the practice over the years, such matters were usually referred to the Minister and, in the second place, that in cases where mineral rights were involved, the Department of Mines should be consulted. This, too, was not done in this case. In the third place, I found that the Treasury instruction, to which I have already referred, had not been complied with. It became quite evident from this that here was a case which had been dealt with in an extraordinary way in comparison with other cases. But immediately, as soon as possible after these matters had come to our attention, we decided to order an inquiry. If hon. members want to suggest that I have neglected my duty because nothing like this ever happened in the past —surely something like this must happen for the first time, otherwise it will never happen… [Interjections.] Such a thing must happen for the first time, otherwise it will never happen. I would have expected hon. members at least to have given credit to the Prime Minister for deciding as soon as possible after the investigation in the department had been conducted, to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry.

Furthermore, in cases like these, where we are dealing with officials, I would have expected hon. members… Let me say that when it comes to carelessness of officials, as in a case such as this one cannot determine in advance whether those officials would act differently in a particular case than they would have done under other circumstances. One cannot determine this in advance; one can determine this only afterwards. If, for example, one of my officials acted by proxy and placed a certain district under quarantine at the outbreak of some cattle disease or other, and he made a mistake, it would not be possible for me to determine in advance that he would make a mistake; I could do so only afterwards.

But immediately after there was any suspicion that this matter had not taken its normal course, that the officials responsible had not carried out the instructions and had not complied with the requirements of the Treasury, the hon. the Prime Minister appointed a commission of inquiry, not an ordinary commission of inquiry, hut a judicial commission of inquiry. A Minister, of course, is responsible for the management of his department, but in the same way as he is responsible for this, he is also dependent on his officials who administer the department. If suddenly the normal practices which have been followed throughout the years were not followed in one case, he could not have known in advance that the normal procedure would not be followed. All that can then be expected of him, is that he would have the matter investigated in order to establish why the normal practices had not been followed, why the instructions had not been complied with, and why the provisions of the Act had not been complied with. He cannot have them prosecuted before something like this has taken place.

Sir, hon. members speak about the steps which have been taken in this case. While the commission was conducting its inquiry, when certain things came to light from the evidence, the hon. the Prime Minister immediately instructed the Police to investigate the matter. The recommendations of the commission were that this matter should be referred to the Attorney-General. There are two ways in which one may deal with an official if one thinks he has been negligent, and I want to point out that this commission did not find that there had been dishonesty on the part of anyone. The commission possibly created suspicion that there might have been dishonesty.

What it in fact said, was that there had been gross negligence on the part of certain officials, and that when officials were negligent, action should be taken against them in terms of the procedure laid down by legislation. When an official is charged with negligence, the head of the department must lay a charge against him which must then be investigated. This matter was discussed with the Public Service Commission and, as always in the past, their standpoint was this: When such an inquiry is ordered and a criminal charge is also being investigated by the Police, they wait until that inquiry has been completed before further steps are taken against such an official. This is also the reply which the hon. the Minister of Justice gave hon. members.

Sir, action can also be taken against the head of the department concerned with the matter, but action can only be taken against him by the State President. According to the commission, there is proof of negligence on his part and of his failure to have followed the normal practices, but there is no indication of any criminal offence. Even in this respect I negotiated about the matter with the Public Service Commission, and they felt that the matter should first be investigated by the Attorney-General before action was taken.

Three officials are concerned in this matter. In the first place, there is the chairman of the Land Tenure Board, and in this respect I want to say that the chairman of the Land Tenure Board had no delegated powers. In this case he acted in an advisory capacity only. The Act provides that transactions involving agricultural land, as well as other transactions, may be referred to the Land Tenure Board. The chairman of the Land Tenure Board acted merely in an advisory capacity on the basis of the evidence available to him, but, in any event, he is not implicated in the payment of the money before negotiations have taken place with the Minister in regard to the matter. The other two officials have been removed from the posts they previously occupied, and have been transferred to other sections of the department, pending the inquiry by the Attorney- General in order to determine whether there is any reason to institute criminal proceedings against them.

This, Sir, in brief, is the history of the whole matter. I just want to put it very clearly once again that the inquiry had been ordered by the hon. the Prime Minister before a word had appeared in the Sunday Times about this matter. The decision to institute an inquiry had been taken at that time. Hon. members need not accept my word or that of the hon. the Prime Minister that he telephoned me on the Saturday evening; there is sufficient evidence that the Prime Minister said at the conference already that he was going to appoint a commission and there is sufficient evidence that he said at a Cabinet meeting on the previous Monday that we would have to investigate this matter if It appeared that things had taken place which should not have taken place. I do not think it was possible to act more quickly than was done in this case, because within a week after the cheque had been paid out or forwarded, within a week after the matter had been brought to my attention and to that of the Prime Minister, that commission was appointed, but the Sunday Times is reserving to itself the right to claim that it saved the State R5 million. The whole Opposition, as it is sitting over there, is guided by the Sunday Times, as it always has been guided by the Sunday Times in the past. In the same way as the Sunday Times has always told the Opposition what to say, it is still telling the Opposition what to say in this case as well. I am convinced that hon. members opposite are going to rise in a moment and say that the report in the Sunday Times led to the appointment of this commission.

You should resign.

Sir, there is sufficient evidence that this commission had been appointed by the Prime Minister before any report ever appeared in the Sunday Times about this matter. Sir, the hon. member is asking me to resign.

Yes.

I have been a Minister for 13 years, and I am not ashamed of anyone for my record as Minister of Agriculture over those 13 years. What happened in this case, can happen in any administration. The question one should ask oneself if something like this happens, is whether action was taken quickly enough, and if hon. members accuse me of not having taken action quickly enough, they may perhaps have a case. But I maintain that something like this can always happen when powers are delegated to people, when they are put in a position of trust, when they have always carried out their duties in a certain way and then suddenly deviate from the normal practice. Something like this may then happen for the first time, and if it does not happen a first time, it never happens. This is what happened in this case, in spite of the normal practice in terms of which these matters are always referred to the Minister, in spite of the restrictions imposed by the regulations in spite of the provisions of the Act and in spite of the Treasury instructions, which had not been complied with. In spite of the fact that the United Party is making a big fuss about this matter now, it should at least be grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister for having acted so quickly in this matter.

I am, frankly, astonished at the tenor of the reply of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Land Tenure. On hardly any issue have we had a reply from the hon. gentleman which can satisfy our disquiet. Indeed, we could have forgiven all that, had the hon. gentleman ended with these words: “Having now had this opportunity of rendering account to Parliament of the actions which I saw fit to take, I have, as the Minister responsible during this period, tendered my resignation to the hon. the Prime Minister.” Those were the closing words of a speech by Sir Thomas Dugdale, who resigned over an issue in his department far less important and far less far-reaching than the issue we are discussing here today. Had that been said by the hon. gentleman, we could have forgiven him the contents of his speech.

Do not be so hypocritical.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

In the course of my speech I shall deal with a number of the issues which the hon. the Minister has left uncovered. There is one prime issue which was put pertinently to him by the hon. member for Durban North which the hon. gentleman has not answered, and we demand an answer on this issue. If I can have the hon. the Minister’s attention for a moment, the question is this: When and where was the cheque for R7 million banked and paid out?

But the cheque was not made out to me. [Interjections.]

The Minister is on the defensive already, which makes it more imperative that before this debate is ended, we should have an answer to that question. When and where was that cheque paid out, and what steps did the hon. the Minister himself take in an attempt to stop payment of that cheque? I know that it was already handed over; we all know that. We know it was handed over on the 6th. But what we want to know is what steps the hon. the Minister himself took in an attempt to secure the stopping of that cheque.

None whatsoever.

Can you imagine. Sir, if this money had been the personal property of the hon. the Minister, that he would merely have sat back and shrugged his shoulders and said in effect: “Well, it is too late; the money is gone.” Or would he have taken immediate steps to get into touch with his bank to see that that cheque was stopped? This is public money, which is even more important than the hon. the Minister’s own funds, and we must have an answer to these questions before this debate is concluded. Because of the almost inconsequential attitude of the hon. the Minister, I should like to deal, a little more closely than the hon. member for Durban North was able to, with some of the aspects of this case, basing my criticism on the officials involved.

We have, first of all, the man at the top of the tree, the Secretary for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, Mr. Viljoen, the accounting officer for the department, a man exercising the delegated powers of the hon. the Minister, about which I shall have more to say later on, a man whom the hon. the Minister promoted over the heads of others when he appointed this man to this post. The report of the Public Service Commission in this regard is instructive. It says—-

The Commission recommended the person who was in line by way of seniority and by way of merit for the post, Mr. Steyn, but that recommendation by the Public Service Commission was overruled by the Government and the person hand-picked Mr. Viljoen, who was hand-picked by this Minister and by the Government, was placed in the position of head of that department against the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. That is the first point.

This person is a person for whom the Minister must take full responsibility, and what did this person do? First of all, he gave evidence so badly that he was disbelieved by the Commission and branded as an unreliable witness. Secondly, as accounting officer, he failed to obey the most elementary instructions and to refer the case to the Department of Mines for an accurate assessment of the value of the clay; thirdly, he conspired with two other officials, Venter and Todd, to pass this transaction off as an expropriation so as to avoid a reference to the Treasury in terms of the instructions which the hon. the Minister has told us about; and, fourthly, he arbitrarily altered the decision of the Land Tenure Board, and in a matter of moments and for no apparent reason added over R1 million to the price which that board had fixed. All this when the officials involved, the three I have mentioned, did not even fully know the facts of the case. Now this man is, as I have said, the head of the department and the most senior official of the department, a man who presumably, if the job is being done properly on both sides, is in daily contact with the hon. the Minister, a man hand-picked, as I have said, for this job, a man guilty of conduct which suggests either neglect of duty on a quite incredible scale or a man who has been party to a gigantic fraud, through which Agliotti stood to gain some R5 million from the State. There is the first individual we are concerned with in a matter which the hon. the Minister has tried to brush off with the speech he has just made. He has, indeed, in a manner of speaking, shrugged it off, as I am reminded.

Let us come to the next senior official of the Minister’s department, Mr. Todd, the Deputy Secretary. Much the same could be said about that gentleman, as I have already said about Mr. Viljoen, save that he was not hand-picked for the job; he appears to have got there through normal promotion. But he has one saving grace, and that is that when giving evidence he was found by the Commission to be an honest and reliable witness. This man stood second in charge of the hon. the Minister’s department, and presumably he had contact with the Minister at frequent times.

Then there is Mr. Venter, another senior official near the top of this department. Now I am not going to say a great deal about Mr. Venter. Suffice it to say that his conduct covers almost four columns of the Commission’s report, almost four columns of irregularities of one kind or another, ending up with the positive charge that he was guilty of mala fides in circumstances from which one can draw only one inference, namely that he sought to derive advantage, if he did not in fact do so, from this attempt to defraud the State.

Then we come to the Land Tenure Board. This is a board consisting of members appointed entirely by the hon. the Minister. One of that board’s functions is to advise the Minister on land values when there is land to be purchased by the Government. The Chairman, of the board, a certain Dr. Henning, was found to be an unreliable witness who was not frank with the Commission. The board itself did not make even a pretence of doing its job. Its job was carefully to dissect, discuss and weigh up the facts and the opinions collected by Mr. Venter in regard to this piece of land and the value which should be attributed to it. Its task was further to check the probity and accuracy of that report, to examine the calculations, if necessary to call for independent inquiry and opinions in regard to the matter, and after that to come to a conclusion upon which it could advise the Minister. That was the function of this board, a board which one imagines operates almost daily, and has done for years. What did they do, Sir? It is almost unbelievable. They did not even open the file! Had this not been said in an official commission of inquiry report, one would simply not have believed a statement of that kind but these are the facts. Not only did they do that; they also misinterpreted a memorandum drawn up by the Department of Planning. This is pointed out by the commissioner. They then plead by way of excuse that none of them had any knowledge of the type of valuation they were supposed to be doing. This, Sir, they plead as an excuse: They had knowledge neither of the valuation of the surface nor of the valuation of what lay underneath. Without that qualification or knowledge, and without opening the file, they then made an unqualified recommendation that the property should be bought for R6,3 million! This was an unqualified recommendation made, as I have said, without even opening the file.

They did look at one thing, and that was the submission by Mr. Venter, which he materially altered in their presence, whilst the board was sitting. The commissioner finds that they applied completely the wrong principles in coming to their conclusion, and that they accepted what was put to them by Venter ” without displaying the most elementary circumspection”, As I have said, he had altered his original submission in their presence.

This state of affairs is hardly credible, and it is in these circumstances that one stands up after hearing a speech such as the one the hon. the Minister has just made, in which he has almost shrugged this off as something which could happen to any body. The head of the department, party to what is tantamount to a fraud, the deputy head of the department, likewise situated, a senior administrative officer of the department, the principal functionary in the fraud, and the Land Tenure Board, a body of persons appointed presumably because of their knowledge and experience, one would imagine, in this sphere, by the Minister, come to a decision that R6,3 million of the public’s money should be paid out, without even opening a file. Then, too, this decision of the board’s was based on wrong calculations and wrong principles.

Who are these people that the Government appoints to serve on a board of this kind? I would have thought that the hon. the Minister in his speech would have at least justified his selection of these gentlemen for appointment to the Land Tenure Board. But not a word was said about them. Have these gentlemen any qualifications of any kind? The record of the report suggests that they have none what ever, not even the qualifications of elementary common sense. I believe we are still entitled to this information: Who are the members of this board and what are their qualifications, or is this simply another case of “jobs for pals”? How many other cases of this nature have there been, where an official like Venter, acting mala fides, has put forward a cooked-up case which has been accepted by the Land Tenure Board without even opening the file concerned? If it can be done in a case involving over R6 million, what then is the attitude of this board to a mere R100 000? This board also plays a part in the alienation of State land. This board inquired into and recommended the lease which Mr. Bell now enjoys at Umfolozi, but that is not a matter I can discuss this morning.

Mr. Speaker, we have here a state of affairs where the three top officials of a major Government department are to a greater or lesser extent involved either in a gigantic fraud, designed to do the State out of millions, or are incompetent to an extent undreamed of before in the history of this country. These are the only two conclusions to which we can come. Furthermore, Sir, you have an advisory board, the Land Tenure Board, whose incompetence is of such a magnitude that it is hardly credible—that is the extent to which matters have gone in the Minister’s department. But despite all this, the hon. the Minister comes to Parliament and asks us to accept his story that the Minister and the Prime Minister acted as quickly as they could be expected to, that this is something which could happen in any Government department, that he, i.e. the hon. the Minister, knew nothing about this—which I accept immediately—until after the event. He heard it almost casually, if I understood him correctly, from the chairman of the Land Tenure Board and, consequently, he says there is no question of his resigning. Let me say at once that the inference to be drawn is that if the hon. the Minister knew nothing about this, if this sort of thing can take place within his department in the circumstances in which we know it took place, then, Sir, the hon. gentleman was as incompetent as his officials were. [Interjection.] The important principle is this, that here you have a whole clutch of top officials, including a statutory board, who felt free under the administration of this Government and this Minister to act in this manner. They felt free to act in a manner which was so incompetent—to put it at its best—that it is almost unheard of in the Government of any democratic country. That is the principle and that is the charge which this Government has to answer for—that they have allowed an atmosphere to develop when senior men— not clerks at the desk—can feel free to act in this manner and presumably expect to get away with it. Otherwise they would not have done it.

Let us look at this question of the delegated authority. The hon. gentleman was questioned but he has not answered it. He says there was a practice that difficult matters, or one might say expensive matters, should be referred to the Minister. But what we would like to know from the hon. the Minister is what written instructions were given, standing instructions, not by the Treasury, but by the hon. the Minister to the men to whom he delegated a general power of attorney. What written instructions were there that in any amount, say, over R100 000 for example, there should be a direct reference to the Minister for his consideration?

The instruction to the Secretary is that all doubtful cases must be referred to the Minister. [Interjections.]

I am sorry, but I could not hear the Minister. No doubt some other speaker may be able to inform us of that. The point is whether there were written instructions limiting the exercise of the general power of attorney which the hon. gentleman gave to his two top officials. Were there written instructions limiting that power? Were there written instructions limiting the exercise of the general power of attorney which the hon. gentleman gave to his two top officials? [Interjections.] You see, Mr. Speaker, we cannot get an answer. Therefore we are entitled to assume that there were no such instructions. Did the hon. gentleman demand periodic reports from his senior officials and from the Land Tenure Board as to their handling of matters of this kind? Again, Sir, we do not get an answer. Were there no instructions given and they would have to be written instructions in a properly conducted department- setting out those cases in which the Minister wishes to be involved personally? As I said, we have still not heard when and where that cheque was presented and paid. What check has the hon. the Minister carried out in the Past to see that such things did not happen?

What of the hon. the Minister of the Interior? Agliotti’s passport was withdrawn, according to the statement of the hon. the Minister, some three months ago because —so we were told by the hon. the Minister —he was involved in this affair. I presume that Agliotti’s passport was withdrawn because it was felt that he was in some way criminally involved. Presumably criminal proceedings were expected to be brought against him. Mr. Venter, the main culprit and principal offender in this matter so far as we can judge, was allowed to retain his passport because the hon. the Minister ” did not know that he was Involved”. Those are the hon. the Minister’s words. As printed in the Cape Times, his words were: “It has been done in the case of Agliotti and it would certainly have been done in the case of Venter if we had reason to think that he was also in any way involved in the matter.” How could any competent person possibly come to the conclusion that Agliotti was criminally involved, without knowing automatically that Venter was likewise involved?

How could we infer that Venter was involved?

The only criminal proceedings which are likely to be brought against Agliotti were those of issuing a bribe of some kind or of undue influence. And you cannot be either of those things, unless you do it in respect of somebody else.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Will the hon. gentleman reply to this: Was Mr. Venter’s name and were other officials’ name also mentioned in the Sunday Times as Agliotti’s was? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture spent the greater part of his speech explaining to the House that it was not the Sunday Times which exposed this matter but let me answer the hon. the Minister. Whether or not it was mentioned in the Sunday Times, the evidence before this commission, was concluded in September, which was when the Police were brought into this case, according to the questions which were asked last Friday. That evidence was splashed all over the daily newspapers. Everybody in the world who had any intuition at all, knew that Venter was as much involved as was Agliotti. But Venter goes overseas on a holiday and Agliotti had his passport withdrawn. The hon. the Minister or his predecessor—whoever it was—did not know that Venter was involved. The Cabinet's decision to refer this matter to the Attorney General because of what was contained in paragraph 238, was taken on the 22nd January which is nearly six months ago. That referred specifically to the mala tides of Agliotti and Venter. Yet we are to believe that the hon. gentleman did not know!

Now we come to the position of the hon. the Prime Minister. He is praised by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for having appointed this commission of inquiry very quickly. I do not believe it was quick at all. It was apparently announced on the evening of the 14th for the first time to a select group of Nationalist Party candidates, or during the day of the 14th. Yet apparently it was known earlier that week, on the 9th, because that is when it was discussed in the Cabinet. The hon. gentleman has appointed a number of commissions of inquiry, and I am thinking of two in particular. It is well known that judicial commissions are normally appointed from the ranks of either judges or magistrates. Judges, from their training and qualifications, take the cases of the Supreme Court which are the more difficult and more involved cases because, as I have said, of their training and background. Magistrates, because of their training and background, take the less difficult and involved cases. In the Kolver inquiry, where the answer to the commission’s terms of reference was known before it sat, the hon. gentleman appointed a judge of the Supreme Court. In this inquiry, one of the most difficult and involved inquiries, I imagine, that this country has ever seen, the hon. gentleman appoints a magistrate. I mention this merely to show what appears to be the ineptness of the hon. gentleman in the appointment of his commissions. However, let me say at once that the magistrate involved has done a magnificent job under the most difficult circumstances, in unravelling a very tangled web.

We have had a number of events in recent months. The question arises: Where are we going? We have had the unease which is felt in the country with regard to ministerial shareholdings. We have had the disquiet which arose over the Carel De Wet—Marendaz affair. We have had the doubts which have been raised over the fish issues which have not yet been answered. Now we have the Agliotti affair upon which there is even greater disquiet. I believe that what the country wants at the present time is an image from the administration of its affairs, not of smartalec stuff, not of oratorical slickness in this House, hut of solid reliability, of seriousness of purpose, of a grave approach to our problems such as we get so often from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. *

Mr. Speaker, there is a saying which goes: “It is easy to be wise after the event”. That is precisely what we have here this morning: Full wisdom after the event. But there is nothing wise about the things which are being said here; this is a malicious attempt to make political propaganda out of a matter which, I think, is perhaps best described by the Commissioner when he states, in paragraph 267 of the report of the commission of inquiry—

We have now had this furore here this morning and where what was at issue was not this R5 million in regard to which the United Party, as they wished to imply, are concerned, but nothing else but political gain, [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I wish you would ask those public mourners to give me a chance to make my speech. It seems to me that they are only here to make a noise and for no other purpose.

When the report on this transaction appeared in the Beeld of 8th March, 1970, under the caption “State paid R7½ million for 303 morgen of land”, I was shocked and disappointed because, owing to my long residence in Boksburg, where that land is situated, I know about these things and the land values there. A week after that report appeared in the newspaper I spoke to several people in Boksburg. People also came to me and expressed their disappointment. Knowing that we would on Saturday, 14th March, have a conference of candidates I undertook to raise the matter there. I consequently did so on Saturday, 14th March, in Pretoria. When I discussed the matter there, I furnished reasons why I was of the opinion that irregularities had taken place. In the first place, that R1½ million transaction, which had fallen through a year before was not a disclosure by the Sunday Times. I told the Prime Minister that morning that Agliotti had less than a year before received a signed offer on condition that he obtain industrial rights on that land. He did not obtain industrials rights. I also told the Prime Minister that R7½ million was completely out of proportion to land values in that area. When the valuation court sat in Boksburg in November of the previous year, I attended that session. That was in fact the day on which that piece of land belonging to Mr. Agliotti was under discussion. As appears from this report, the sworn appraiser, Mr. Kruger, valued that land at R840 000. Mr. Agliotti and his attorney were terribly full of excuses that morning. He alleged that the land was absolutely worthless because he had been unable to obtain industrial rights and because he could not convert it into a residential area and also that it was useless for agricultural purposes owing to the lack of water. The valuation court decided that day to reduce the valuation of that land to R250 000, and Mr. Agliotti appealed aganst it. I told the Prime Minister that in spite of mention being made of clay values, as in the Beeld, that whole area, thousands of morgen, contained the same kind of clay. Therefore it was not the value of the clay which could increase the value of that 303 morgen. I was at the conference when the hon. the Prime Minister said that he would be receiving the necessary documents that very day, that he would have the matter investigated, and that if it appeared that there had been any irregularities, he would appoint a judicial commission to investigate the matter. He said that if it should appear that there had been irregularities he would introduce legislation to invalidate the transaction. That was the undertaking he gave at the conference held on Saturday, 14th March. And let me say that the Prime Minister has kept his word. That same Sunday evening the statement was issued. In a report in Die Transvaler of Monday, 16th March, it was said that if the commission should find that there had been any irregularities in regard to this transaction, either in regard to the price or the value of the property, the transaction would be invalidated, even if this should require legislation, and suitable action would be taken against the persons responsible, if any. That is how Die Transvaler announced the decision, Sunday, 15th March, the Sunday Times published its report. What do we find there? In the first place the report is nothing hut a eulogy to the business acumen of Mr. Agliotti. [Interjections.] hon. members are laughing, but I challenge anyone to read that report and point out where it is stated, anywhere in that report, that there were any irregularities whatsoever. Let us read what is stated here —

business coups in the history of South Africa…

[Interjections.] Nowhere is any mention made here of clay values or anything of that nature. There is nothing here implying that there may perhaps have been something wrong with the transaction. The second part of the report, virtually two- thirds of the entire report, dealt with the lamentations of Mr. Agliotti over the great loss he had supposedly suffered. Inter alia, it was stated there—

That is what the report was concerned with —Mr. Agliotti’s business acumen and his lamentations over the loss he had supposedly suffered. Actually, the Sunday Times tried to imply through this report that the land, according to Mr. Agliotti, was worth far more than that, than the R7½ million. No reasonable person could deduce from the report in the Sunday Times that any irregularities had occurred or that too much had been paid for the land. If hon. members want to imply that the Prime Minister should have concluded from this report that a judicial commission should have been appointed, they are being foolish, for no reasonable person can say that he had been able to deduce that from this report. But it is interesting to note that six months later, on 6th September, after it had been reported that Mr. Agliotti was prepared to pay back R5 million, the Sunday Times appeared with its version of an eulogy by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that they were supposedly the watchdog of South Africa. Inter alia, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

[Interjections.] In that same edition the Sunday Times published the untruth that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had allegedly said that the land had been offered to the State two years before for R1½ million. Of course, I do not know how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came by that, and whether it was that same watchdog which supplied him with the information. If the Sunday Times had allegedly been responsible for the appointment of this commission of inquiry, why did it wait six months before laying claim to having done so? In no other edition of the Sunday Times was any such claim made. Why did they not come forward immediately after the appointment of the commission and say that it had been they who had disclosed these things?

The hon. the Prime Minister, on 16th September last year, when the Opposition raised the matter, stated the matter in this House inter alia as follows. He was referring here to that conference—

Sir, if he will give me his attention, I now want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition in all earnestness this morning: Does he accept my word for the events as I have now recounted them to him? He can just answer “yes” or “no,” I want to ask him if he accepts the word of the hon. the Prime Minister? I want to ask him whether he accepts the word of all the Transvaal Ministers who were present at that conference, and the word of the almost 150 candidates who were present there? Sir, I do not know whether he first wants to go and consult the Sunday Times to hear whether he should accept our word. Sir, I challenge the Sunday Times to publish this version, just as I have stated it here, just as it was, to give the people outside an opportunity of judging who was responsible for the appointment of this commission of inquiry. But, I can tell you in advance. Sir, that they will not do it because the Sunday Times has never had any respect for the truth. It is very clear that the investigation was not instituted as a result of the so-called disclosures of the Sunday Times, but as a result of information furnished by this side of the House and as a result of representations made by this side of the House to the hon. the Prime Minister.

Sir, I think it is fitting that we on this side of the House praise and thank the hon. the Prime Minister this morning for his actions. Once again it proves to us and the people outside his unimpeachibility and his great integrity in having even been prepared, and he still is, to act without fear or favour if there is any irregularity in regard to any transaction. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who is known outside as a gentleman, why he is not big enough, why he is not man enough, to stand up and to express his gratitude to the hon. the Prime Minister. He prefers to turn to the Sunday Times, which he describes as the watchdog of South Africa. Sir, may Heaven preserve South Africa if the Sunday Times has to be the watchdog over the interests of South Africa, I think all of us shudder at the idea that a Joel Mervis, a Stanley Uys, or a George Oliver should be the watchdog over the interests of South Africa. We know them, Sir, to be people who have only one object in mind, and that is the destruction of the National Party and the Whites here in South Africa. The other day I read a short article about Alsatians which one apparently cannot trust. It was stated in the article that as long as an Alsatian was handled well, it would not attack its handler, but that as soon as it lost confidence in its handler, it would turn on him and savage him. All I can say is that that watchdog of theirs, that Alsatian of theirs, the Sunday Times. is already savaging the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, for it is the Sunday Times which said that he is no longer listening to them; it is the Sunday Times who told him about his poor performance here in the no-confidence debate.

Sir, over the years we have got to know this Government for three things: the first is its weak administration; the second is its inability to manage the economy of the country at all confidently, and the third has been its failure to plan adequately for the future happiness and security of the people of South Africa. Sir, when I speak about its weak administration, this Agliotti case is but one example. We have had other examples in the course of this session. We have heard about odd things happening about fish; there is a butter muddle at the moment; there is a muddle over the motor industry at the moment; there has been a muddle over the hire purchase business and this morning we heard of the greatest muddle of the lot, and that is this appalling example of administration by this Minister in respect of the Agliotti affair.

Sir, the hon. member for Boksburg, who seems to have spent the whole of his time trying to prove that it was he and not the Sunday Times who should be called the watchdog of the nation, wants to know whether I accept his word as to the truth of what happened at the candidates’ conference. Yes, Sir, I accept his word but why should we have waited until the candidates’ conference before any action was taken by the Prime Minister or the Cabinet. Sir, this hon. gentleman is patting himself on the back and wagging his tail because he feels that he was responsible for the watchdog activities on the Saturday which resulted in the appointment of a commission. Sir, if he was so upset by this deal why did he not go and talk to the Minister of Agriculture about it when he saw those articles in Die Beeld the week before?

He was not present.

Was it not his duty as a good member to ring up his Minister and to say: ” This is not a deal that you should be supporting; this is not a good show; this is an extremely bad show”.

Now, Sir, I want to deal with another matter in connection with this administration. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister straight away that there is one thing that has to be clear, I think, if we are to have decent democratic government in South Africa and that is that we do not criticize or attack officials in this House; that is not part of the tradition of this House. If anything goes wrong within a department, we criticize the Minister and hold that Minister responsible. It is the tradition of democratic government throughout the world that where there has been inefficiency, incompetence, negligence or dishonesty in a department it is the Minister’s responsibility. He must not come to this House and hide behind officials and tell us that they cheated him and that they did not do their jobs. His business as a Minister is to see that his officials do their jobs, that they do them properly and efficiently in the interests of South Africa, or he must cease to be a Minister and get out. Sir, what do we find here? Here, we find a department responsible for the expropriation of land, not just one deal, not just this deal of R7-½ million, but deals amounting to millions all over South Africa, and here we find a machinery apparently set up by the Minister and his predecessors to see to it that public money is not wasted. The suggestion of the hon. the Minister is that although he delegated his powers, he expected the officials to report to him in certain cases. He did cot say in all cases; he said that he expected them to report to him in certain cases where those delegated powers were being used. Did he give them any instructions as to above what sum they were to come to him with these matters? He has told us that he would have gone to the Cabinet over a deal as big as this. Did he ever say to his officials that if it is above R¼ million or R½ million, or R1 million or R5 million, they have to report to him because he wants to take such cases to the Cabinet? No, we have no idea what the hon. gentleman told his officials. He says they usually reported to him, and yet we have a most remarkable state of affairs. The officials do not report to the Minister. They do not observe the regulations laid down by the Treasury that they should obtain Treasury approval. There is a long letter published in Die Transvaler only a few days ago by Dr. Holloway, a former Secretary for Finance, in which me makes it perfectly clear that this is not just a formality. He deals with a case of R700 000 and says how effective it was when this was reported to the Treasury, because the Treasury actually saved R100 000 of the taxpayers’ money. That was a former Secretary for Finance, and he says how proud they were. But here we are dealing in millions and these officials do not observe the regulations and report the matter to the Treasury.

Then you have something else. You have, laid down by taw, that where there is anything to do with minerals, or something under the ground, you have to have consultation with and get the approval of the Minister of Mines. These officials knew that, but it was not done. Then you have your Land Tenure Board meeting considering the biggest deal it had ever had to deal with in its history, but it never opens the file. It has the file available. To me there is one question that we have to put: How could these officials have acted like that if they knew they were being properly supervised by their Minister from day to day?

It is other people’s money.

If they were being properly supervised, they would not have dared to take a risk of that kind, because they would have known that it would be discovered at once. But what happens? They do not take one risk. They do not risk it just in respect of one set of regulations or one safeguard. They throw the whole lot overboard.

It was discovered at once. That is the point.

By chance.

Yes, purely by chance. That is my next point. If they knew that in regard to any deal that was put through they would have to report to the Minister and tell him all about it, the Minister would have known about it, but how does the Minister find out? He finds it out in a chance conversation, not with the senior official or the deputy senior official of his department, but he finds it out from a chance conversation with the chairman of the Land Tenure Board, Dr. Henning. This hon. Minister tells us he always had confidence in his officials. What is the position? The commission has now found that Dr. Henning was evasive in answering questions. It finds that it did not believe Mr. Vilioen, who was the Secretary of the department. It speaks well of Todd, but cannot explain his actions, and it does not believe Mr. Venter. But these are the people in whom the Minister has been placing his trust for years. How do we know that this sort of thing has not been going on month after month? You see. Sir, this is the fish that did not get away; this is the big one, but what about all the other little ones that may have been getting away month after month, year after year, without this Minister ever knowing what was going on? And what did these people do? Look at the irregularities in this department. Not only do they not take the advice of the Land Tenure Board, but they buy at a higher price, a price pushed up R1,4 million, with an arithmetical error in it, and extraordinarily, they buy it for a price which apparently Venter and Agliotti had talked about a few days before, R7.5 million. The Minister is not told that they had acted contrary to the advice of the board. He does not know what is going on, and when the Secretary of the department is asked: What happened, and who exercised the delegated power on behalf of the Minister? He does not know; he is not sure. The Commissioner says quite frankly that he does not believe it.

Sir, is this the sort of thing that can g0 on in a Government department? How could there be these endless irregularities if that department knew it had a Minister which was breathing down its neck and supervising them from day to day and from week to week in doing its duty? and then, who signed that cheque? It must have been signed by the accounting officer of the department. The Minister must tell me whether I am wrong. It must have been signed by Mr. Viljoen, the accounting officer.

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE; Mr. Todd signed it.

There you are, Mr. Todd signed it. The Minister discovered, quite by chance, on the day the cheque was handed over to Mr. Agliotti, that it had been handed over and he was very upset about the deal and he says he hopes to be able to stop payment. I ask. Sir, what would you do if you had issued a cheque for R7,5 million and you wanted to stop payment? Would you not immediately have got into touch with the manager of your bank and said: “I have issued a cheque and I want to stop payment”? Did the hon. gentleman telephone the Governor of the Reserve Bank? Did he find out whether the cheque had been paid out?

It was past 5 o’clock already.

Did he inquire on Monday morning? Did he inquire on Saturday? You see, Sir, I have taken the trouble to talk to some bankers and they tell me it is a miracle if that cheque was cleared by the Reserve Bank before Tuesday. I believe that the Minister, either through ignorance or through negligence, failed to take steps which he could have taken to ensure that that cheque was not paid out. What interests me so much is that this matter was discussed by the Cabinet on the Monday, the 9th, and the Minister reported to the Cabinet and told them, I have no doubt, of the irregularities that had taken place. Did nobody in the Cabinet think of trying to stop payment of that cheque? I ask the hon. the Minister: That is a cheque issued by his department. The cheque must come back to them when it is paid. There will be stamped on it at which bank it was deposited, and there will be stamped on it the date on which it was paid out. That is information we on this side of the House want, because we believe that cheque could still have been stopped as late as the Monday. Now, where is the cheque? Here is the Minister of Finance. Here is the hon. the Prime Minister. That cheque must be in the hands of somebody somewhere in some Government department or of the Reserve Bank, and that cheque must show at which Bank it was deposited and when: it was paid out, and where it was paid out. I think this is most important and that is information that we on this side of the House want to have before this debate comes to an end.

Now, what is the attitude of these officials to the Minister? This speaks volumes. Here you have the biggest deal in the history of the department. The Secretary does not mention it to the Minister, nor does the Under-Secretary mention it to the Minister, and the chairman of the Land Tenure Board mentions it purely in passing, complaining about the high prices he has to pay for land. He does not rush over to the Minister and say: We have just had to deal with something costing R6 million; this is a most serious matter, and has it been discussed with you? No, he just talks about the high prices of land and mentions this particular case. Sir, can you imagine that that attitude would exist in a department where the Minister was keeping proper control? You see, Sir, it is no excuse to come along and say that Agliotti was making misrepresentations. It is no excuse to come along and say that Agliotti was telling untruths. These officials are appointed just to ensure that people do not get away with that sort of thing. They are there to see to it that the public are not done down by people who are trying to do them down. What is the position then? Is it that they were not intelligent enough to see what the man was up to, or is it that they did not want to discover what was going on? Sir, one thought has come to me. Surely, that cheque was not signed by just one official? Surely it was signed by two officials? No company has a cheque signed by one official. It is always signed by a director and the secretary. In every big concern two people sign cheques. The hon. the Minister says that Todd signed it. Who signed it with him? Does the Minister know?

Todd signed it,

Alone? He does not know!

What happens in the hon. the Minister’s department? Who signs cheques? Is it only one man or two officials?

He does not know.

Sir, this Minister delegated his power. He told us that the officials usually talk to him. He has given no specific instruction regarding above what amount they are to talk to him, or in regard to what deals they are to talk to him. There is an old Afrikaans saying: ” Ver van jou goed, naby jou skade”. The trouble with this Minister is that that he has been here too long. He has become too remote from his department to protect the public interests. I believe that in the best interests of the country he should be offering his resignation.

The Minister says that nothing dishonest was revealed by this report.

I did not say that. I said that, according to the report, it found nothing dishonest apart from referring… [Interjections.]… the matter to the Attorney-General for investigation.

Sir, the hon. the Minister says that the report reveals nothing dishonest. There is a finding in the report, in respect of two people, that there was mala fides—bad faith. That is dishonesty. The report has not found that a crime was committed. I accept that.

That is the point.

I accept that, but the whole thing reeks of dishonesty from start to finish.

That is why the matter was referred to the Attorney-General. [Interjections.]

Paragraph 238 of the report reads as follows:

That is exactly the point I made. The point is that he was not proved by the commission…

Sir, let us not have any misunderstanding about this. The Minister accepts then that there was dishonesty.

The point is that there was not dishonesty found by the commission. It was referred to the Attorney-General, [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I have to disagree with the hon. the Minister. Here is a dear finding of dishonesty in this report. This paragraph speaks of material misrepresentations and dishonesty on the part of two people. Whether that amounts to fraud, which can be a crime, is another matter, but the whole thing reeks of dishonesty from start to finish. The hon. gentleman has suggested that the Prime Minister did everything possible, as speedily as possible, to deal with this matter.

That is correct.

The hon. gentleman says that it is correct. Was he at the Cabinet meeting on the Monday morning when the Minister of Agriculture reported? He says it is correct. According to the question the hon. the Minister of Agriculture told us he had put to his officials, he must have reported to the Cabinet on Monday morning that the Treasury regulations had not been followed. Then he must have reported to bis Cabinet on Monday morning that no regard was had to the Treasury regulations; he must have reported to the Cabinet on Monday morning that the Minister of Mines was not referred to, because these replies he received from his Secretary on Friday afternoon.

Not about the Treasury regulations; only that the Minister of Mines was not consulted.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF; But the hon. gentleman told us that he put the question to his Secretary on the Friday afternoon about whether the Treasury regulations had been observed.

I did not tell you that.

According to my notes the Minister did, but I accept that. In any event, he reported an irregularity to the Cabinet cm the Monday morning. Why did the Cabinet not act at once? Why did they not say something must be done straight away? What further questions were asked by members of the Cabinet?

Then we come to the question of how Mr. Venter obtained his passport. The question from the Minister of the Interior is one of the most revealing put in this House. Apparently there is no system in this Government, or in the Cabinet, by which information is passed from one department to another. We had the very tragic case of Tsafendas, a case with disastrous results, also at a time when one department was not keeping the other informed. One would have thought that after an experience of that kind the whole administration would have been tightened up. But what do we find? The Minister of the Interior says that Mr. Venter’s name was never mentioned in the Sunday Times [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I ask: Is it possible to run the country in that way? [Interjections.] Must it not be obvious to everybody that if there is a charge of fraud, such a charge can only be proved by Mr. Venter giving evidence against Mr. Agliotti or Mr. Agliotti giving evidence against Mr. Venter? How can you take steps against the one and not against the other? Sir, there is negligence of a very high order somewhere. It seems that the liaison between the various portfolios of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet is so slack that the one does not know what the other is doing, not even in an important matter such as this.

To the hon. the Prime Minister I want to say that this report was in his hands in January, but it only came to this House in June. Presumably that report could have gone for translation when it was completed in December. Have we really reached the stage that it takes four to five months to translate a report of this kind? Mr. Speaker, we see what your officials in this House do; we see the speed with which Hansard is translated. Here we have a most important document. Should we not accept as a rule in future that important documents are tabled at once, no matter the language in which they have been prepared, and that the translation is done afterwards for the purposes of printing and availability to the public? Because, Sir, delays of this kind cannot be tolerated in matters as important as this.

I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister once more that he has a big responsibility in this matter. He must decide whether the traditions of democratic government, Cabinet responsibility and Ministerial responsibility are to be observed in our Parliament or not. If he decides not, where do we end? Is a Minister only going to resign when he is prosecuted? Is he only going to resign when it is shown that he personally has been negligent? We cannot inquire into a Minister’s doings. The tradition in this House has always been, as has been the tradition of democratic governments throughout the world, that a Minister takes responsibility for his department whether he happened to know about things or not. He should know about it—that is what he is there for.

As I have said, this is just one example. We are getting impatient with this Government. We are becoming very uncertain indeed as to whether this is the Government that is able to face up to the threats with which our security and our future here in South Africa may be faced in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The sort of obvious threats such as terrorism on our borders, the Chinese in Zanizibar arid Zambia and the communist fleet in the Indian Ocean everybody knows about. The trouble is that there are certain insidious, less obvious threats, both internal and external, which have escaped the attention of many South Africans and, if one is to judge by the actions and the intentions of this Government, have escaped the notice of this Government as well,

I believe that the issue involved in these threats is a very serious one for South Africa. I think there is going to be determined within the next ten or twenty years whether South Africa stays part of the Western world, symbolically speaking, or whether it becomes once again an integral part of Africa unconnected very largely with the Western world. I think that depends on three factors: The first of those factors is how fast we develop industrially and economically in relation to the important Western countries, African countries and Asian countries; I think that it depends, secondly, on how rapidly the standards of living of all our people in South Africa rise and, thirdly, on how strong the westernized sections of our community in South Africa can become. If we are going to develop rapidly industrially and economically and can increase the standard of living of all sections of our community, there is not the slightest doubt that we will be in a stronger position to resist the threats with which we may be faced in the years that lie ahead.

I believe that, on that account, these aims should form the basis of our policy and that that basis should be the strengthening of our nation with those objects in view. What is the form with this Government? When we talk about strengthening the westernized community in South Africa, we cannot help thinking back to the 15 lotus years between 1948 and 1963 when, under this Government, virtually no immigrants came from the European countries into South Africa. One cannot help asking oneself how much stronger we could not have been, economically and militarily, if those steps had been taken. The situation today as a result of the hon. the Minister of Finance’s Budget and the steps he is taking, is that South Africa is committed to a growth rate of 5½ per annum of the national income in real terms. How does that compare with the rest of the world? If we compare ourselves with the rest of the world, we find that, at that growth rate, we are not going to move up fast enough into the top league in the world of militarily and economically strong powers. We find, too, that, if we only develop at that rate, we are not going to be attractive enough to attract immigrants from Western Europe. I think we must concede that, when one has regard to our potential human and natural resources, it is quite ridiculous to limit ourselves to a mere 5¼ per cent, because it may not be strong enough to enable us even to keep our position among the nations of the world at the present time. The worst of it all is that the way this hon. Minister of Finance has been operating, there is a very real possibility that we will not reach the growth rate of 51 per cent. One of the reasons for this is that investment in industrial development is already 25 per cent below what is necessary to maintain such growth rate.

With reference to this growth rate and how it compares with other countries, let us look at the countries of Western Europe from which we hope to get our immigrants. One finds that virtually every single one of them except the United Kingdom, is growing faster than 5½ per cent per annum. The position is that our population and our workers are increasing far faster than theirs. Because our percentage increase is faster than theirs, the result is that our living standards are not increasing at the same rate. We are falling behind. This is the most serious thing that could happen to South Africa in the modern world. I know hon. members opposite will ask me for proof of this. Let us just look at the increase in real wages in European countries in the past six years and compare that with the increase in real wages in manufacture in South Africa over that same period. The increase in Germany was 28,5 per cent. In France it was 23,8. In Holland it was 32.3. In South Africa it was 13,5. In the United Kingdom it was only 4,5. That is probably why the majority of the immigrants we got came from the United Kingdom. But apart from the United Kingdom, the increase in South Africa was roughly less than half of the other countries which I have mentioned. I do not like mentioning Japan in this House. Hon. members are so sensitive about Japan. But the increase in Japan in the same period, was 41,5 per cent. Can you imagine what a difference it would have made if that had been the position in South Africa?

But there are people who will not be satisfied with this comparison. Therefore, let me give them another comparison, a test which combines both economic growth and population growth. That is the annual growth rate of the gross domestic product per capita for the same period. There, again, we are ahead of Great Britain, but we are behind Western Germany, we are behind Holland, we are behind France. Of course, the figure for South Africa is roundabout one-third of the figure for Japan. They do not have the natural resources or the labour reserves which we have.

What we have to face and what we have made no preparations for is what will happen if Britain joins the Common Market in the course of the next year or two and her growth rate equals the growth rate of other Common Market countries while our growth rate stays at 5½ per cent or drops below it, as it may very easily do. Then we will be faced with a very serious position indeed in South Africa, because our living standards for Whites in South Africa, not for the whole population, will be below these for Europeans in the Common Market countries. What chance do we then have of getting immigrants? If we do not get immigrants, even immigrants to maintain the percentage of the White population as against the non-White population, it will mean big trouble for South Africa. Just to make things more difficult, this hon. Minister has now introduced provisions whereby the marginal rates of income tax in South Africa will be greater than in almost any European country as well.

I know of course, what the answers will be from the Jeremiahs on that side of the House. They will tell me that South Africa cannot grow faster than at a rate of 5½ per cent, because if it does, it will lead to inflation, to a greater shortage of skilled workers, to lack of capital and to balance of payments difficulties. We have had all those arguments in this House before. There will not be inflation if there is greater productivity. There will not be a lack of skilled workers if there are proper training schemes in education. There will not be a lack of capital, because if we develop fast, the entrepreneurs of the world will be sending their money to South Africa. As for the balance of payments difficulties, the countries with the fastest growth rates have had the smallest balance of payments troubles over the last decade or so. Of course, the Jeremiahs could be right under their policy. However, that is only because they have their priorities all wrong when it comes to trying to increase productivity and trying to get a rapid state of economic growth. The economists of the world have been doing studies as to what the effect of education is on increased productivity and rapid economic growth. They have made some very interesting calculations. And do you know what they decided the position was? They decided that where you have increased productivity and higher living standards, 20 per cent is due to capital investment per worker; 20 per cent is due to better educated labour; and 60 per cent is due to changes in technology and better management techniques, both of which are the result of better education. The result is that for increased economic growth and greater productivity education is responsible for 80 per cent and capital investment per worker for only 20 per cent. For a rapid increase in economic growth a nation must invest in education. How do we compare with the other nations of the world when it comes to the investment in education? I have two sets of figures, one from the Franzsen Commission and one from an article written by Prof. Horwood. an honourable Senator in the Other Place. I give the House the choice to take whichever it likes.

According to the Franzsen Commission South Africa spends 4,2 per cent of its national income on education as against 7,9 per cent by the United States of America, 5,4 per cent by Japan, 7,1 per cent by Russia and 6,3 per cent by Finland. According to Prof. Horwood, South Africa only spends 3 per cent as against 4,6 per cent by the United States of America—as opposed to 7,9 per cent under the Franzsen Commission—5,7 per cent by Japan, 7,1 per cent by Russia and 6,3 per cent by Finland. Then he supplies the percentages in respect of other countries, for example, the United Kingdom, an estimate of 5,7 per cent and Holland, I think, 5,2 per cent. He is also at pains to point out how much better university staffs are paid in many of those countries than in South Africa. Obviously, if we want to keep pace we have to invest more in education in order to realize the full human potential of our people.

Sir, we must invest more in non-European education. Despite the fact that they outnumber us by nearly four to one, I think we spend on non-European education in toto about a third to a quarter of what we spend on all European education. Obviously you cannot get people developing to the full when that is the sort of situation. But not only that. We also restrict them in the exercise of their skills. It is not surprising that we are short of skilled workers in South Africa at the present time.

If we are to realize anything like our full economic potential and if we are to safeguard our future we will have to spend far more on education generally and far more on non-White education in particular, We will also have to make better use of the skills and the semi-skills of the non-White population. Only in that way can we get a growth rate of over 5½ per cent which will enable us to increase our living standards at anything like the same rate as they are growing in the Common Market countries in Europe at the present time. We require a growth rate of that kind if we are to bind ourselves firmly to Western society and its legal and moral norms in the Western world.

This is not enough; we have to go further. We have to strengthen the Westernized sections of our people in South Africa so that they firmly accept the free enterprise system and the Western way of life. I believe that certain steps must be taken which are absolutely vital in this regard. The first of those is that immigration from Europe must be encouraged and must be undertaken on a much larger scale than at the present time. If our growth rate falls below 5½ per cent while that of the Common Market countries stays above, we will not succeed in attracting immigrants to South Africa. The second thing that we have to do is to stop antagonizing and excluding from our national life the Westernized Coloured community. They must be given the opportunity to share more fully in the fruits of the Western world’s life in South Africa and the private enterprise system. In the course of this Session a little progress has been made in that the Government haltingly accepted certain minor facets of United Party policy. The whole blue print for the Coloured people is still something which is completely impossible and must lead to irritation and friction between the two sections of the population instead of drawing that section of the population to us as firm defenders of the Western way of life in South Africa.

In addition there is a third thing that has to be done. Steps must be taken to ensure that the South African Indian community is brought into a closer relationship with those accepting the Western way of life in South Africa. They must be given a greater opportunity to share in the fruits and to be prepared to defend it with us in times of danger. It is difficult to know exactly what Government policy is in respect of the Indian people. One hears that they must retain their own identity. Does that mean that they must keep closer contact with the emergent countries of Asia and with the troubled Far East? I would have thought that the only hope as far as they were concerned lay in the development amongst them of a common loyalty to South Africa and a common commitment to a Western way of life in South Africa at the present time.

There is a fourth thing we must do. We have to take another look at the urban Bantu who are permanently resident in the big urban Bantu townships in and around our industrial centres. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that we have tried on various occasions during this Session to bring the Government to debate on this issue. You know how unsuccessful we have been. I am afraid we are in a position that the Government is following a policy in that regard which is leading to insecurity, lack of home ownership, lack of executive and administrative responsibility, lack of adequate training for their work, seldom adequate schooling for their children and no security at the end of their working life with the prospect of returning to reserves which they never see. Is that the way to keep those people on our side in the event of trouble? Is that something to offer them for which they will fight in future in maintaining the Western way of life in South Africa?

When you see what this Government is doing you get the impression that they are deliberately trying to weaken the bastions on which the Western way of life is founded in South Africa. I do not know whether it is through ignorance. I do not know whether it is as a result of the lack of foresight and a misunderstanding of the foundations on which that society is based. But it seems to me that they go out of their way, wittingly or unwittingly, to alienate almost every ally of Western society here in South Africa, They do it for a policy which many thinking Nationalists admit today has no relevance at all to the Coloured people, the Indian community and the permanent urbanized Bantu. This will not do. If we are to remain part of the Western community and not sink back into Africa, there are certain immediate steps that we have to take. We have to improve the educational facilities and standards of all races and we have to use the resultant skills fully. As a result of this, and together with other sensible economic measures and more efficient State administration, we must stimulate a rapid economic growth above the 5½ per cent in the foreseeable future so that we can Westernize the emergent communities in South Africa, the Coloureds, the Indians and the permanently urbanized Bantu. Amongst them all, Sir, we must induce a common loyalty to South Africa, a loyalty based on the fact that they have an important stake in Western society because their happiness, their welfare and the dignity of their lives depend upon it. Sir, the question is whether we can achieve these aims under the present Government,

No.

I believe that that is impossible because the problem is that this Government has become an anachronism; its ideological obsessions have created an economic situation where the ultimate and basic need of the human being, the need for security, is not being satisfied to the extent that it should in South Africa. You know, Sir, people seek security of employment. This Government has a policy of deliberately separating employer and worker when there is a growing need for the two of them to be brought together. People seek security by way of shelter, by way of homes for themselves and their families, but as a result of the policies of this Government and as a result of its extraordinary labour policy, very few young couples today can afford to buy a home for themselves. Sir, people want to feel that their country is secure, but under this Government we have been vouchsafed very many enemies and very few friends. I believe that our people want to be citizens of a great country.

This Government denies us the opportunity to harness our resources so that we can be equipped for that progress human and material, which only expansion and prosperity can make possible. The trouble, Sir, is that this Government says that it is prepared to see South Africa poor, as long as it is White, but I think the people are beginning to realize that there will never be security in South Africa in the long term, until all the people of South Africa are advancing together towards prosperity. There is no real security, when there are a lot of desperately poor have-nots, prevented in many subtle ways from reaching their full potential, and a relatively small group of fortunate ” haves” whose attitudes are determined by ideologies which are long since out-dated.

Sir, the tragedy of it all is that it is this Government's vast bureaucratic machine which is not only supporting these ideologies, but is hindering the country’s progress. It is beginning to dictate to an ever greater degree to everybody in South Africa in every walk of life, every day and every week of every month of the year. Look what is happening. Sir, The Government is becoming not only one of the main competitors against private enterprise and business, but it has taken a stranglehold on decision-making in business today. As far as cultural affairs are concerned, there is a censorship based on archaic values and often incompetently applied, and great public utility corporations like the South African Broadcasting Corporation, are being used to brainwash the public of South Africa, and to stifle enlightened thinking.

What is happening, Sir, in the field of labour? The Government is steadily destroying the initiative of employer and employee organizations to progress by means of collective bargaining. What is happening, Sir, in the field of administration? Jealous as it is for power, this Government is trying to centralize everything in Pretoria. They are undermining the powers of the Provincial Administrations and the great municipalities, civil administration is becoming ever more remote from the people of the country and the amount of participation of the private citizen in decision-making is growing smaller and smaller and, with it, the sense of responsibility is growing smaller and smaller.

Of course, Sir, in this vast, cumbersome machine there are many intelligent and efficient people, but unfortunately they get lost in this machine because it is so big and so widespread. The result is that this machine is becoming known for ineptitude and inefficiency in many of its departments, I say “ineptitude and inefficiency”. Sir, we have had further evidence here this morning of how financial control appears to be slackening in certain areas. Vitally necessary services like telephones, roads, housing and transport are all falling behind the needs of the people. Bad planning is rife and people have to pay for it. Traffic congestion is throttling our cities and the Government is not helping enough.

So, Mr. Speaker, I could go on. This Government’s shortcomings are endless. I believe that if we want happiness for the individual, for every individual, a happiness inalienably associated with the Western way of life, which is so necessary in South Africa, which is so necessary for strength, then there must be very big changes. I do not propose to deal with all those changes.

I propose to deal with just a few which affect particularly the urban dweller in South Africa. I believe one of the main targets must be to limit and reduce this vast bureaucratic machine which is threatening to convert the majority of Whites in South Africa into civil servants in the very near future.

The problem is how to do it. We can only do it by restoring the freedom of the private enterprise system, by letting people do things for themselves to a large extent by making political and business decisions in their own towns, for their own people and for their own businesses, and by making the happiness of the individual much more an objective of government. Then I believe we have to have a more flexible system, with more efficient State services designed to help private enterprise and not to stifle it, to encourage and to suggest rather than to control and frustrate. Look at the blunders we have had in this Agliotti affair. That sort of thing cannot be tolerated. I believe we were right to propose a code to the hon. the Prime Minister which should be applied to Cabinet Ministers.

I believe that while we concentrate on education, we should give parents a choice of the type of school they want. They could have single medium Afrikaans schools, or single medium English schools, or parallel medium schools, as they choose. But one thing we have to insist on, and that is a very high degree of bilingualism and efficiency in both languages. Then I believe the traffic and the nagging parking problems in our cities and on our overburdened highways are not only leading to a lack of productivities, but they are affecting the people’s health They have become national problems. I believe it is necessary for the Central Government to accept the responsibility, both in respect of planning and in respect of a financial commitment, to deal with those problems.

I believe traffic congestion today has become a national problem which has got to be tackled on a national level. We must go further. We must carry forward those social welfare measures which this party has proposed from time to time. We must review the place of our womenfolk in South Africa who are playing such a big part in the progress of the country. Remember, Sir, only 35 per cent of our White population are economically active; in the United Kingdom it is 51 per cent. If we are to get more help from our womenfolk, we will have to revise the taxation system in respect of married couples. We will have to accept equal pay for equal work for our womenfolk far more generally, and we will have to see to it that they are given an honoured position in the industrial growth and the administrative structure of our country.

I have spoken about the urban Bantu. I do not propose to take that any further, except to say that it is no good talking about Bantustans and pie in the sky in the future. What these people want now is more housing, more efficient services, adequate police protection and wages and salaries which enable them to buy the food, the clothing and the shelter that they require at prices they can afford.

Lastly, if we are to have economic security in South Africa, we must use the talents of all our people. That means respecting and acknowledging the achievements of established business, and helping and not hindering. It means encouragement to emergent communities to progress up the ladder of civilization to strengthen the Western community. It means the destruction of poverty and the establishment of decent living standards for all. It means that by 1990 we could be among the 10 or 12 wealthiest nations in the world.

In conclusion, it is simply a question not of whether this country is rich enough, but of whether the White man has the richness of spirit, the generosity, the faith and the vision to embark upon a dynamic policy to strengthen the Western way of life in South Africa.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House I grant the hon. Opposition the right to call any Minister sitting on this side of the House to answer for his actions, but it is important to lay down a criterion for when a person must do this. The criterion laid down this morning by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that a Minister is responsible for his entire Department, for the negligence and dishonesty of his officials and for the operation of every possible aspect and facet of that Department. It is my opinion that that criterion which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated to this House is a criterion which is too exacting. It is my opinion that the criterion which should be applied, is that a Minister may solely be held responsible if he does not do everything in his power to cause his Department to function smoothly and efficiently. That is all a reasonable person can expect from him.

In that test he has failed miserably.

On this test he has not failed miserably. As I said, I grant hon. members on the opposite side the right to criticize any Minister, but, then, an Opposition party in a Parliament, also has a certain responsibility. If one wants to debate this matter one should not only consider the different responsibilities of a Minister, but also see what the responsibility of a responsible opposition is, I want to make the allegation that the Opposition which we have in South Africa is one which allows itself to be stampeded by the Sunday Times. The headline in yesterday’s Sunday Times was “U.P. to urge Uys’s dismissal over the land deal scandal”. Yesterday the United Party was taken in tow, lock, stock and barrel, by the Sunday Times. In fact they were taken in tow by the Sunday Times right from the outset of this Agliotti affair. They were taken in tow right from the outset and they issued statements to the Press in an entirely unbalanced way, made allegations which could not be fully substantiated, and have repeated them now in this House. If the Opposition wants to exercise its rights, we as members in this House are entitled to demand from them that they exercise those rights in a responsible way. In my opinion we find, with this Agliotti affair, that the hon. Opposition did not do that. The most important reason for my saying this was my complete amazement at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition blaming the hon. the Prime Minister for the role he played in this affair. If seen quite objectively—even if I had been sitting on the opposite side of the House—I do not think any responsible Opposition leader could in all honesty blame the Prime Minister for his actions in this affair. I really think the Leader of the Opposition owes the hon. the Prime Minister an apology. Personally I expected the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, after the attacks made by the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Zululand, to say that whatever criticism they had been able to level, the hon. the Prime Minister was in this specific case beyond all doubt and criticism. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition blamed the Prime Minister for the fact that the Cabinet did not act immediately. However, if he had listened to the speech made by the hon. the Minister, he would have known that at the Cabinet meeting it was decided that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture would institute further investigations into the workings of his Department. At the conference of candidates that Saturday, after the hon. member for Boksburg had informed the hon. the Prime Minister what was going on in Boksburg, the Prime Minister decided there and then that a commission of inquiry should be appointed. That Sunday evening, after the article had appeared in the Sunday Times, a commission of inquiry was immediately ordered.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

We must now consider this Agliotti affair for the hon. Opposition has nothing but gossip with which to go to the people.

The hon. member should like to put a question.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not have very much time. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister why the Minister had not given instructions to the effect that transactions above a certain amount had to be reported to him. On what level, at what stage must one now try to combat dishonesty? Only when it reaches a certain amount or must one try at all times to combat dishonesty? The hon. the Minister explained to the House, and in my humble opinion explained fully his modus operandi there. He explained that he is always in touch with his senior officials to whom he has delegated his powers. In fact, according to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, he supposedly heard of the Agliotti affair in a “casual conversation”. But surely it was not just a casual conversation. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should read what the Minister said. He said that he and Dr. Henning met, but that in fact shows the degree of co-operation between the Minister and his Department. Whenever they meet one another, the work is discussed. Let us consider the criticism levelled by the hon. member for Durban North. Let us see now whether this terrible attack was well-founded. He criticized the Prime Minister for supposedly having said in this House that the land had been purchased by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The hon. member has now found out that the expropriation is done by the Minister himself. In this specific case, in the Agliotti case, the expropriation was done after certain submissions had been made to the Land Tenure Board. The hon. the Prime Minister was quite right to give his reply in that connection. Is it really a valid criticism of the Prime Minister’s actions to say that he misunderstood the functions of the Board “in fact as in law”? Is it right that the hon. member should come and stand here and show off as if he was the only person who knows how this expropriation is done? This expropriation was done by the Minister, by the boards and through appraisers. This was followed by a long process of negotiations. Now it is being claimed that it was done quite arbitrarily. Now I want to point out to hon. members the type of criticism we get from the hon. member. The hon. member said that the Prime Minister had supposedly said in reply to a question that Prof. Lombard and the other person involved were professors at the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Pretoria respectively. I now ask the hon. member, in all honesty, whether that is well-founded criticism? Let us suppose for one minute the hon. member was correct. Surely this is not yet valid criticism of the actions of the Prime Minister. Surely it is childish and ridiculous and should not even have been mentioned in this House. The hon. member then asked here, as pious as he could be, why all of these people were not called to testify before the commission of inquiry. He then furnished examples and said that the Minister had not been called to testify before the commission of inquiry. He went on to say that Mr. Sias Reyneke could also have been called by the commission of inquiry. This criticism he wants to lay at the door of the Prime Minister. Surely it is ridiculous! The hon. the Prime Minister appointed a commission of inquiry with a chairman and two advocates to assist the chairman. There was an advocate representing Agliotti, and surely, between the three of them, they could have obtained all the evidence they regarded as being necessary.

Now the hon. member comes here, after he has been lauded by the Sunday Times, and tells the hon. the Prime Minister that he should also have allowed such people to testify. Surely this is absolutely ridiculous criticism. I want to proceed to deal with the statement made by the hon. member for Durban North. I made notes of his speech, and he asked why the hon. the Prime Minister had not ordered a police inquiry. Sir, can the hon. member mention to us a single reason as to why a Police inquiry should have been ordered at that stage? It was decided to appoint a commission of inquiry, and at that stage it was still possible that there was nothing wrong. Why should a Police inquiry have been ordered? The hon. member for Durban North criticized the Prime Minister and said that the Police inquiry had been ordered in September of 1970 while the commission was still proceeding with is inquiry. That is quite correct, but if the hon. members had listened to the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture they would have heard that this had been done after certain irregularities had been disclosed as a result of evidence before the commission. When the irregularities were disclosed, the Prime Minister immediately ordered a Police inquiry. This proved the bona fides and that the action taken by these Ministers had been correct.

It was also asked why Mr. Agliotti’s passport was cancelled and not Mr. Venter’s. Agliotti was the instigator throughout. He visited various persons involved, and the Department, and if any person presumably acted incorrectly, then it was Agliotti. Agliotti was the person who at frequent intervals pleaded ill-health before the commission of inquiry. He is the person who gave indications that he might possibly go overseas and so get away. That is why his passport was cancelled. After all, we did not know whether he was a citizen of South Africa; he had a foreign-sounding name. His passport was then immediately cancelled. For what reason could Mr. Venter’s passport have been cancelled at that stage? For what reason can Mr. Venter’s passport be cancelled today? We have no reason to do that.

The hon. member for Zululand then came forward with this kind of criticism: “Why was Mr. Viljoen appointed instead of Mr. Steyn?”

Why?

What does that have to do with the Agliotti case? Can hon. members tell me that? The Minister decided not to appoint Mr. Steyn, but to appoint Mr. Viljoen. If he made a mistake, he made a mistake. Surely he cannot stand in for the man’s good character. Surely he cannot stand in for the man's honesty. Surely he is not there as a guarantor of the officials’ honesty.

After that he asked what the qualifications of the members of the Land Tenure Board were. This Land Tenure Board, as it is now constituted, has been doing good work for many years.

Have they?

Yes. The right has always existed to institute court proceedings at any time. The Land Tenure Board is constituted to the best of the Minister’s ability. Criticism cannot be levelled in that regard. Hon. members may say that they should not do their work in a certain way, but surely they cannot tell us that those people are completely unqualified to serve on the Land Tenure Board. The hon. member for Zululand then said it was “another case of jobs for pals”. I think that that is a scandalous remark, and I challenge the hon. member for Zululand to tell us where we are giving jobs for pals on such a large scale. [Interjections] Yes, let us hear. If the United Party wants to discuss the question of jobs for pals with me, then I want to tell them that they should blush all over from shame. [Interjections.] I shall tell the United Party when there were “jobs for pals”. Under their regime there were no jobs for anyone but their pals.

Listen now to the criticism levelled by the hon. member for Zululand. He said that there had been other commissions of inquiry as well, and that the Prime Minister had on each occasion appointed a judge, but that in this case he appointed a magistrate. What was the hon. member insinuating with that? Was the hon. member insinuating that the appointment of the Chief Magistrate at Bloemfontein was an appointment which could benefit Agliotti? I should like the hon. member for Zululand to listen for a moment. Is that the allegation the hon. member wanted to make7 Why did he put such a question? He put the question: Why did the Prime Minister always appoint a judge to take charge of his commissions of inquiries, but in this case a magistrate? And now I want to know from the hon. member for Zululand whether he is alleging that the magistrate at Bloemfontein did not do a thorough job of work?

He did not say that.

Is he alleging that the magistrate for Bloemfontein did not do a thorough job of work? Why does he come forward with this half-baked criticism? Why did the hon. member ask a question like that?

He did say that he had done a thorough job of work.

Order! The hon. member for Albany knows the rules.

He is making a foolish accusation.

That hon. member also knows the rules. *

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I would say it was a matter of opinion whether that hon. member knows the rules. In my opinion I do not know whether he does know the rules. If we were to sum up the position, what did we have? The hon. the Minister of Agriculture delegated his powers. It is absolutely impossible for him to guarantee the integrity and honesty of every official. The negotiations in regard to the Agliotti affair extended over a period of months. There were independent appraisers, and a report from the Department of Land Tenure was submitted. We are dealing here with two senior officials who have delegated powers and who have always done good work. They had to make a joint decision and eventually submitted a report to the Minister. The hon. the Minister immediately said that the amount was too high and that the case should be considered by the Cabinet. The hon. the Minister then wanted to stop the cheque. The criticism of the United Party was that the payment of the cheque was not stopped in time. With this fact at any person’s disposal, on which grounds could the cheque really have been stopped? A proper purchase had been made. The Department of Land Tenure had ratified it. There had been appraisers and on what grounds could any person have stopped that cheque? After all, there was to be a commission of inquiry. The hon. the Minister knew that it would be possible to get that money back if we had to do so. And what does the Opposition say about that R5 million which was in fact repaid?

Guilty conscience!

It may be put down to a guilty conscience. The fact remains that it was paid back under pressure from this Government. It was this Government’s responsible actions which made that man pay back R5 million. Do you know what would have happened under United Party government? Nothing would have happened. There would not even have been a commission of inquiry. Quite probably an additional R1 million would have been paid out. That party would not have gone so far as to retrieve R5 million for the country through its actions. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central must control himself.

In all the circumstances of this affair I want to state categorically that if one adopts a balanced attitude in respect of the Agliotti affair, one cannot but say that the Minister of Agriculture is completely above any suspicion of negligence, and so on. The actions of the hon. Opposition were irresponsible. There is no reason why the hon. the Minister should resign. I also find it disgraceful that it can be alleged that the hon. the Prime Minister could have done anything more than he did. I expect hon. members on the opposite side to be grateful for what was in fact done in this case and for the fact that public money was protected to such a large extent.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prinshof is a distinguished advocate. He has not done himself justice today. One of the most extraordinary things that he said has been to reject the Leader of the Opposition’s test of the responsibility of a Minister. He says that the hon. the Minister’s responsibility is simply to see that the wheels of a department run smoothly. If that is the case, then many of the Ministers should not be in the Cabinet at the present time. Secondly this advocate from Prinshof says that the hon. the Prime Minister discharged those duties that he should have performed by going to a Nationalist Party conference and telling them that he proposed to appoint a judicial commission. This is not the first time we have heard that the responsibility of our Cabinet Ministers and of the Prime Minister is in the first instance to the Nationalist Party and secondly to the national interest.

*I am not apologizing at all this afternoon for again proposing to speak about the fishing industry and the damage that has been done to it. I would appreciate it very much if the hon. the Prime Minister would remain here in order to listen to what I have to say. I would appreciate it very much. The tremendous damage which has been done to the fishing industry with open eyes in a decade, is in certain respects much worse than the Agliotti case. The damage is of longer duration and both South Africa and South-West Africa will still have to pay a considerable price for it, because the fishing industry is of the greatest importance to both territories, In South-West Africa it is the second most important source of income, without which the proposals of the Odendaal Report simply cannot be implemented. Walvis Bay, Luderitz, Port Nolloth and all the West Coast towns are totally dependent on the fishing industry. My charges thus far during this session in this House have been that the Government and especially the hon. the Minister of Finance and the previous Minister of Economic Affairs, Mr. Jan Haak, are to be held responsible for the unbridled onslaught on our marine resources, which has had the most detrimental consequences for die entire country. My charge against the Government is that, in spite of warnings that over-fishing was taking place, they have with open eyes allowed this important economic asset to be exposed to the risk of complete destruction.

I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister is a very courteous man. Generally speaking, he has treated me very courteously in this House. He was appointed in May last year only. I know he is very concerned about the matter, because he has admitted that a mistake was made somewhere. He said: “I am deeply concerned about the fishing industry. No one can be more worried than I am.” After I had made my speeches in this House, the “offensive” —to use the word of Die Burger—came from hon. members opposite. First we had the chairman of Paternoster, the hon. member for Piketberg. He attacked me sharply and said: “I am deeply concerned about the to gossip in a reprehensible way in this House. He, the chairman of Paternoster, said emphatically that he already had a rock lobster concession when Paternoster took over. Mr. Speaker, I do not dispute that. I did not dispute it anywhere in my speeches. I am only sorry that this same member did not tell the full story in regard to the take-over of Paternoster, because it is a very interesting one. What I in fact said was that in 1965, after the Nationalist Party members of the House of Assembly had become directors of Paternoster, Paternoster, Orange River Fisheries and South Orange received fishmeal licences. They received them in spite of clear signs of overfishing. I said that at that time, in 1965, Nationalist Party members of the House of Assembly were directors of the company. Furthermore, I said that even today Paternoster does not have a factory. In other words, it has nothing but a paper concession.

The next Paternoster director was Piet Verlig. i.e. the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He said I was trying to break down the image of the fishing industry by gossiping against it. Let him take a look at the 1971 report of Fishcor and read about the state of affairs in the fishing industry of South Africa and South-West Africa today. The last report on the rock lobster reads: “The unhappy picture was little relieved in the past 12 months.” Concerning pilchards: “The downward trend in pilchard landings persisted as did the upward movement of anchovies.”

After that, the hon. member for Bellville came forward with the knockout blow or coup de grace. He was the one who had to deliver me the fatal blow. He said my motive was to get in a few digs and to spread some gossip about fish. But, after an exceptionally long introduction to his speech, in which he stated that he was going to expose my misrepresentations, he came to the first “misrepresentation”. The first “misrepresentation” was that I had referred to Mr. A. J. Marais as being Jan Haak’s attorney partner. I was wrong, of course. I should rather have referred to him as Jan Haak’s former attorney partner. But then die hon. member came to the “great untruth” which I had uttered, namely that I had accused Jan Haak of alleged over-exploitation of the fishing resources of South Africa and South-West Africa in that he had granted quotas. The hon. member for Bellville said:

Mr. Speaker, ex-Minister Haak himself issued a press statement, which appeared in Die Burger under the heading “Haak replies to Wiley’s allegations” (Haak antwoord Wiley se skimpe). In that report he denied that he had ever granted fishing licences in South Africa and South-West Africa. In my previous speeches I had said that when Mr. Haak was Deputy Minister, it was the time of the rock lobster concessions. In addition, I said that on 1st January, 1963, 21 rock lobster concessions had been granted, in spite of the fact that three years previously the rock lobster industry had voluntarily decided to cut its quotas. The hon. member for Bellville said to me that ex-Minister Haak had never granted any rock lobster quotas. The hon. member is either ignorant or had been misled and given the wrong information by others or, even worse—and I hope I am wrong— deliberately tried to mislead this House.

Order! Who deliberately tried to mislead this House?

Mr. Speaker, that is the alternative.

Order! To whom is the hon. member referring?

•Mr. J. W. E. WILEY The hon. member for Bellville.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker. I withdraw it. I have here a letter which ex-Minister Haak wrote to the Managing Director of Mid-West, Mr. A. P. du Preez. It is dated 10th March, 1964, and reads as follows: (translation):

At the end of the letter, which comprises a whole page, the following appears:

Mr. Speaker, I referred to this island concession as well. One of these islands was situated in a rock lobster reserve in South-West Africa, where South-West African registered boats may not fish. The allocation was also made without the approval of the South-West African Administration. Then I referred to the “compromise” which had been made, because after the allocation of this concession there was a big fuss. People, including representatives of the Executive Committee of South-West Africa, went to see Dr. Verwoerd. Dr. Verwoerd arranged the “compromise”. The “compromise” was that the concession of 80 000 cases granted to Mid-West be withdrawn and that an even bigger quota of 94 000 cases be allocated to Angra Pequena, another A. P. du Preez company, to which a fishmeal licence at Luderitz had been granted a year before, as well as a rock lobster concession of 25 000 cases in order to make the company’s activities profitable. The shareholders in Mid-West received preference shares in Angra Pequena as a quid pro quo. Sir, as far as my knowledge goes, this is the biggest allocation any company has received in the history of the rock lobster industry. Within the space of one year, the rock lobster production of Luderitz increased by 50 per cent.

I now come to the Minister of Economic Affairs. He was also going to expose my “misrepresentations”. He said that the hon. member for Bellville had given examples of them and that he wanted to give further examples, such as my allegation that Federale Volksbeleggings and Bonuskor at Walvis Bay and the Trust Bank at Luderitz had received fishmeal concessions. What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? In the case of SuidKunene, i.e. at Walyis Bay, there was a total of 2 million shares of 50 cents each. Three-quarter million of these shares were offered to the public, of which South-West officials. Nationalist Party Senators and members of the House of Assembly and members of the Legislative Assembly of South-West obtained 330 000 shares. The rest, i.e. 1,2 million out of the 2 million, went to Federate Volksbeleggings and Bonuskor. In the case of Angra Pequena there were 1,8 million shares, also of 50 cents each, and after the Nationalist Party members of the House of Assembly and of the Senate and members of the Legislative Assembly and officials of the South-West Administration had received a cut, 1,2 million out of the 1,8 million shares went to the Trust Bank. Sir, if these are not concessions for Federale Volksbeleggings, for Bonuskor and for the Trust Bank, I do not know! Mr. Speaker, in the light of that, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs will of course understand that I was entitled to ask whether the Paternoster concession was in fact a concession to the Nationalist Party, because the addresses are the same tool Now, Sir, I come to the factory ships. In this regard the Minister of Economic Affairs said “it is untrue that South-West Africa had not been consulted before Dr. Diederichs made his factory allocations”. Perhaps the Minister was not here: perhaps he did not listen, but in the same speech I said that Dr. Diederichs had recently risen in this House and said that he had gone to Dr. Verwoerd. “I then said to Dr. Verwoerd”, said Dr. Diederichs, “that South-West Africa was opposed to it. Then he said that I should go and talk to South-West Africa.” Now he must listen to what his Deputy Minister said in the Legislative Assembly in 1967 in regard to this Willem Barendsz licence (translation)—

Then Dr. Diederichs went to Windhoek. As hon. members know, the Deputy Minister said in this House after the Executive Committee had seen Dr. Diederichs—

You have read that speech here before.

Sir, before the commission had completed its work, according to the Deputy Minister, we read in the public press that two more factoryship licences had been granted to two concerns in the Republic, i.e. to the same Mr. A. P. du Preez and to the Ovenstones. To his regret they did not have time to lodge an objection.

I now come to the hon. member for Omaruru. He called me a fish vulture. He said I was against Suid-Kunene and the Angra Pequena concessions because the beneficiaries were Afrikaners. Sir, I want to make it quite clear that I am opposed to any over-exploitation of our natural assets by anybody at all, but particularly if it takes place as a result of the abuse of political power. The same hon. member asked why I had not objected to the allocations of 1968. I did object. It is recorded here in my first speech. I was as opposed to those allocations as to any other previous allocations when there were signs of over-exploitation.

I come now to a very interesting subject. This is the attitude of the hon. member for Omaruru towards the fishing industry of South-West Africa. I rose here recently and asked the hon. the Prime Minister for a judicial commission to inquire into the administration of the South African and South-West African fishing industry over the past 10 years, especially in regard to the issuing of licences and quotas. I did not go as far as the hon. member for Omaruru did, because he uses much stronger language. He speaks of curruption and bribery in the fishing industry of South-West Africa. I have here the minutes of proceedings which took place in March last year in Room No. 410 of the Forum Building. I should like to ask the hon. member now whether he was present at those proceedings. Those present were Mr. Jan Haak as Minister, Mr. Kitshoff as Secretary, Mr. Visser, his adviser, Mr. Botma, the present member for Omaruru, then the Mayor of Walvis Bay, Mr. Viljoen, Mr. Grobbelaar and Mr. Wilkens. What did the hon. member for Omaruru, a member of the Fishing Commission and the then Mayor of Walvis Bay, say? On page 3 he said (translation)—

On page 4 he said—

On page 5 he said—

The hon. member for Omaruru said that the State patrol service was almost useless. Then he said on page 8 that a compromise should be made, because—

At this secret meeting, the hon. member for Omaruru said there would be a reaction, as reported on page 24 (translation)—

Then, on page 11 of these minutes, the hon. member for Omaruru said he had a further request and addressed the following words to Minister Haak—

On page 20 the Secretary for Industries, Mr. Kitshoff, said in regard to this judicial commission which the hon. member for Omaruru had requested: “Does this not concern past history and can it still serve any useful purpose to dig up the matters of the past again at this stage?” On the same page, namely page 20, the hon. member for Omaruru said—

And then on page 21 he said…

Mr. Haak, the then Minister of Economic Affairs, said at the end of the proceedings that he would submit the minutes of those proceedings to his colleagues in the Cabinet as soon as possible and that the persons who had attended these proceedings would soon be informed of the decision of the Cabinet. However, Mr. Haak did not carry out his promise. The factory ships are still on the coast of South-West Africa. I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister today to terminate these activities of the factory ships.

In conclusion I want to address a few words to the hon. the Prime Minister himself.

†A short while ago I said that I believed that the hon. the Prime Minister, when he said last year that only the highest standards should be maintained in South African public life, was absolutely sincere and that he meant what he said. I still believe that. The country is, however, filled with rumours about fish concessions. A valuable economic asset is in potential danger as a result of over-exploitation and I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister again this afternoon to appoint a judicial commission to examine the administration of the fishing industry in South-West Africa and in the Republic over the last decade, and more particularly to go into the question of the issue of licences and quotas. I have complete confidence that the hon. member for Omaruru will be completely at one with me in making this request for a judicial commission which he himself made in March last year.

Mr. Speaker, the political fight in South Africa has undergone an important shift of emphasis. The United Party accepts and realizes that the National Party cannot be conquered if it is tackled on its principles, because it knows that the principles and the policy of the National Party are those which the people of South Africa want. The National Party’s principles, policy and history are very clear, and indeed that is why the National Party is also the party for the future of South Africa. The United Party is spineless, without principle and a party whose history counts against it. It is a party without a future. I want to say in what respect the political fight in South Africa has undergone a shift of emphasis. Because the United Party, its leaders and its propagandists realize that the National Party cannot be tackled on its principles or its policy, they have attempted in recent years to injure the National Party in another way. What is this other way? The United Party asked itself in what respect it lagged furthest behind the National Party, other than in its policy and principles. The answer was obvious. The United Party does not have the National Party’s leaders. The United Party does not have the John Vorsters, the Ben Schoemans, the P. W. Bothas, the M C. Bothas and all the others. The United Party is bankrupt as far as leadership goes; the United Party lags behind the National Party as far as leadership is concerned, and they know that if one is to win the political struggle, as is the case anywhere in the world, one must have the leaders who can carry one’s banners. [Interjections.] These people, who can only make a lot of noise and shout ” Oh! ”, can take note of the fact that they do not have the leaders who can lead that party to victory in South Africa. Because they do not have the leaders, they have, for the past few years, been engaged in a concentrated attack on the integrity of the leaders of the National Party. They are trying to attack the integrity and the honesty of the leaders of the National Party. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, may the hon. the Minister call another hon. member a “coward”?

*The MINISTER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; Mr. Speaker, I asked why that hon. member does not make an accusation against Senator Dirkie Uys.

Admit it.

I will not be dictated to by you.

Order!

Sir, I shall tell you exactly what I said. That hon. member said: “What of Dirkie Uys?”, or something like that. I then asked “Why do you not level an accusation at Dirkie Uys, you coward?”

Order! Yes, but the hon. the Minister may not say that.

Well then, I withdraw it.

The hon. member may continue.

The United Party’s attack has now shifted towards the integrity and the honesty of our leaders. What we now see here today, these attacks that are being made in connection with the Agliotli case, attacks that are unfair, unreasonable and unjust, are not isolated cases, but a part of an overall pattern throughout the years. Sir, I now want to give you a few of these examples to show you how the United Party’s pattern of attack has developed over the past few months.

We see, for example, a scandalous attack from the Leader of the Opposition, who published an article in the Sunday Times under the heading “Nat M.P.s made money in strange ways”. It is an article which, with simply one sweep, slandered everyone on this side of the House. It was an endeavour to sow mistrust in the people of South Africa with respect to the honesty of every member of the House of Assembly on this side. When the Leader of the Opposition was challenged, on more than one occasion by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, to support his accusation, he bowed his head and kept quiet, as he has done so many times when he should have spoken. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District to restrain himself. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give you another example of this pattern which is developing. I want to tell you about all this gossip that we had in connection with Land Bank loans, everything being aimed at attacking the integrity and the honesty of the Government. The falsity of every attack has definitely been proven in the past. There are the fish stories which we had recently, and had to listen to again today. The hon. member for Simonstown’s attack was analyzed by this side of the House, by the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. member was shown up as a person who made representations that are untrue.

Were they misrepresentations?

They were misrepresentations. The one statement after the other was analyzed and rejected by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

Just recently we had the question of Ministers’ shares. No specific complaint was made against any Minister. An impression was merely created. It merely had to seem as if there was something “fishy”. It must look as if there is something wrong. Whether they can prove their charges or not is of no importance; they are not interested in that. They just want to create the impression that there is something fishy going on. They are, as I said the other day, a party bent on striking a blow and then running away but the blow it strikes is not a blow to the chin of the National Party and its leaders. Each time it is a dirty blow, a blow below the belt, and then they run away.

Then we came to the Agliotti case. What is the position in connection with the Agliotti case, if we give a nice analysis of the matter? hon. members will know that in terms of section 14 of the Expropriation Act, the Minister of Agriculture has certain powers which he has delegated to the two senior officials of his department. Will hon. members opposite, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, tell us whether the Minister did wrong in that instance? Did the Minister do wrong in delegating the powers? That is what they must tell us. They must specifically tell us whether the Minister made a mistake there. Did he act wrongly in delegating those powers to his senior officials? Sir, he did not act wrongly is doing so. The law provides for the fact that he may do so. The law gives the Minister the power to do so. Then we must also remember that when this legislation was before Parliament in 1965, that side of the House supported it. I have their Hansard here. On that occasion, when the principle in this legislation, i.e. that the Minister may delegate his powers, was discussed, the hon. member for Durban Point said (translation): “The hon. the Deputy Minister’s wishes will be fulfilled; we shall support this Bill”. That was the standpoint of that side of the House. They supported it. They supported this principle. Now the Minister has acted in terms of that provision. He delegated his powers.

Whose responsibility is it?

The commission has now found that the persons to whom the Minister delegated his powers have been guilty of an irregularity. Where is the Minister’s reponsibility now?

Should he not have supervised the delegation of his powers?

Mr. Speaker, this hon. powderpuff from Florida must now give me a chance to make my speech.

[Inaudible]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Florida is sitting here and making interjections, and we cannot hear what the hon. member is saying.

Order! I would be glad if the hon. member for Umlazi would sit up straight so that I can see the hon. member for Florida.

Sir, the corpulent scope of the hon. member for Umlazi has always been a slight stumbling block in this House!

The Minister has now delegated his powers. Of course he supervised the delegation of those powers. It is because of his supervision that he discovered that there was something wrong. If he had not exercised supervision, if he had not been in contact with the department, and if he had not made sure that what they did was right, how would he have known about this transaction on 6th March? Surely it is as clear as daylight. Sir, hon. members on that side are fishing on dry land. This side of the House welcomes criticism, as the hon. the Minister of the Interior also said, because this side does not only want to govern in the interests of the National Party. This side of the House wants to govern South Africa in the interests of South Africa. Any constructive criticism is taken to heart, but what do we have here? Do we have criticism of a constructive nature here? Do we have here criticism that is well-founded? The hon. member for Durban North generally slandered the entire Public Service, and the Public Service officials must also take note of that. He said (translation): ” We have now had a look into one department. Now we see what is going on in that department. What is not going on in all the other departments?” The insinuation is dear, i.e. that the entire Public Service in South Africa could be corrupt. Is the hon. member not ashamed of such conduct? We on this side of the House want to take the strongest exception to the unjustified, slanderous, mendacious criticism we have got from that side of the House.

Sir, in this connection there is also another important aspect that should deserve the attention of this House. The hon. member for Durban North, and to a greater extent the Sunday Timas that was published yesterday, proceeds from the standpoint that the official, Mr. Venter, must be guilty of fraud or corruption. Mr. Chairman, here we had a judicial commission which arrived at certain specific findings. The hon. members on that side and the Sunday Times began to draw conclusions from those findings. In this connection I quote to you what the Sunday Times stated yesterday, inter alia—

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether Mr. Venter was dishonest or not. One thing I do know, and that is that it is improper of the Sunday Times to find him guilty before he has been charged. It is improper of the Sunday Times to say, as the hon. members for Durban North and Zululand said, that the “inescapable inference is this and that”. They are not judges. They are not entitled to do this. They must wait until this matter comes before a court.

[Inaudible.]

If you want to ask a question, stand up and do so.

What inference does the hon. gentleman draw from the conclusion of the commission of inquiry in regard to Venter?

I am very glad the hon. member is asking that question. I am not a judge. Neither am I prepared to assume the role of a judge on a political platform, because that is improper. The conclusions to be drawn here are conclusions that must be drawn by a court of law.

A week or two ago an article appeared in the Rand Daily Mail. I think it was written by one of their correspondents. Abater Spark. The Rand Daily Mail and this side of the House are violent political opponents, but there was a lot in that article that I could agree with. Criticism was expressed about the Trust Bank case, i.e. about the fact that certain newspapers had already adopted the standpoint that those people were guilty, and tried to create the impression with the public that the relevant persons were guilty of a crime. Perhaps they are guilty, perhaps they are innocent. We must wait until a court has delivered that verdict. We must wait until a court has decided whether a person is guilty or innocent. We do not know what explanation he has. I now trust that the Rand Daily Mail will apply to this case the standpoint which it adopted on that occasion, a principle that I can agree with, and also reprimand the Sunday Times about such a “trial by newspaper”. I again want to refer to the speeches of the hon. members on that side of the House, where the standpoint has already been adopted that the man is guilty of a crime. Inter alia, I want to tell the hon. member for Durban North, who ought to know better, that this is altogether the wrong way to behave.

If we see this matter as a whole, we reach a few conclusions. The one important conclusion is that the Minister of Agriculture took immediate action. The second conclusion is that the hon. the Preim Minister took immediate action. The third conclusion is that the hon. the Prime Minister was not afraid, for a single moment, to expose the matter in public even if something wrong had taken place. The hon. the Prime Minister’s standpoint was very clearly that if something was wrong, the cards should be laid on the table. But what more did the Government do? On the part of the Government two advocates were appointed to handle the Government’s interests with the commission. Before the commission these two advocates exhaustively cross-examined Agliotti and the other officials of the departments. Hon. members on that side of the House can take note of what was said about the actions of these advocates. In paragraph 17 of the report the hon. commissioner states the following—

They are the advocates who acted on behalf of the Government—

These are people who acted for the State, and to whom the State said: “You must expose this matter to the bone, because I want to get at the truth”. Are those the actions of a government that is trying to cover things up; are those the actions of a government that fears for its integrity; are those the actions of a government that is scared to look the people of South Africa in the eye; are those the actions of a government that is not worthy of the confidence of the people of South Africa? The actions of the Government have, of course, been an example from beginning to end of how a government ought to rule. I want to associate myself with previous speakers, who have already expressed appreciation to the Prime Minister for the decisiveness with which he acted, and with which we believe he will act in the future to eliminate any possibility of corruption and dishonesty in the Public Service, wherever it may rear its head. What is more, we believe that the Prime Minister would be prepared to do this irrespective of persons, This matter again shows that we on this side of the House, and the people of South Africa, can have confidence in the Prime Minister, the entire Cabinet and the Government. And that, too, is exactly what our position is—we trust them fully!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria Central was stating the obvious when he announced to the world that he was no Judge. The way he has handled his brief shows that he is not much of an advocate either. We have had two advocates now brought into put up a defence against the charges brought by this side of the House and neither of them has given any answer on the basic issues involved. They have fluffed, blustered, threatened and accused this side of the House of scandal mongering. They have drawn red herrings across the trail, but they have avoided the fundamental issues that are at stake. The hon. member for Pretoria Central said that the Government had appointed advocates. Of course he did not say that they were appointed by the Treasury to look after the interests of the Treasury, but not by the Department of Land Tenure.

Who is the Treasury?

I want to come back to the simple issue slated by the hon. member for Prinshof. He said that the test applied by my Leader is “too high”. I am quoting him correctly? He agrees. During a debate last week the hon. the Prime Minister accepted full responsibility for each of his Ministers for their administration as well as their integrity. Nobody on this side of the House has impugned the integrity of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. There has been no suspicion of corruption or anything improper in the actions of the hon. the Minister for Agriculture. But the hon. the Prime Minister accepted responsibility not only for the integrity but also for the administration of his Ministers. Our attack is on the administration of the Minister concerned. We have stated that he failed. Now there is a simple test and I put this to the hon. the Prime Minister; is he prepared to produce to this House the cheque for R 7½ million and to indicate all the persons by whom it was signed or endorsed and the date on which it was paid out by the Reserve Bank?

Yes.

Including the date?

Yes.

That question has been asked repeatedly.

You may have it now. The cheque was cashed on 7th March.

That was on a Saturday.

It was cashed on 7th March at Barclays Bank in Cape Town.

When did the Reserve Bank clear it?

No. I would not know that…

Mr. Speaker, unless my diary is wrong, the 7th March was a Sunday.

1970.

The 6th March was then a Saturday?

No, the 7th was a Saturday.

Mr. Speaker, these dates are very important. According to the hon. the Prime Minister, the cheque was deposited in Cape Town on 7th March, but when was it cleared by the Reserve Bank?

I do not know that.

That is the issue, because we have charged the hon. the Minister with failing to take appropriate steps after he heard by accident of the transaction. We have charged that he failed to take the necessary steps to stop it when he came beware of it. The hon. the Minister said that it was too late. But he knew about this on the Friday afternoon. The cheque was presented on the following day, the Saturday. Why did the hon. the Minister not act between the time he became aware of this and the time that that cheque was presented? He could have slopped it. If the Reserve Bank was open to pay it, then the hon. the Minister could have got in touch with them. If they were not open, as he claimed, then the cheque could not have been paid and he could have stopped it immediately when the bank opened. But whichever way it works, we charge the hon. the Minister with not having acted after it was within his knowledge that this cheque had been paid and after, in his own admission, he was not satisfied with the situation as he saw it.

It really is very difficult if one does not have a policy.

Mr. W. V. RAW; This is a question of administration. We have charged, in the first place, that the hon. the Minister did not maintain control of his department and, in the second place, that when he became aware of this, he did not act. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Defence has left. The hon. member for Pretoria Central quoted a speech which I made during the debate on a Bill passed by this House this year dealing with the delegation of power in the Armaments Amendment Bill. In that speech I stated, on behalf of this side of the House, that we were not entirely happy about the delegation of power. The hon. the Minister of Defence replied immediately that he would ensure by regulation that complete control over delegated powers was maintained and that there was a “report back” to the Armaments Board on all use of delegated power. He stated that and accepted it unequivocally as being essential in the delegation of powers.

In other words, he accepted that if you delegate power you must maintain control over the exercise of that delegation and you must have knowledge. Sir, this is a colleague of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. In another department there is another standard, a different standard, but the hon. the Minister says, “I can delegate powers and I am not interested in what happens after that. If they want to come to me, they will tell me if they think that there is anything wrong with the case”, but when there is a R7½ million transaction, then they do not tell him about it. He shrugs his shoulders and asks: “What could I do about it?” I do not know what he could do about it then; but I know that he could have maintained better control over his department. Sir, if this is the way in which the money of the taxpayer of South Africa is going to be handled then I, together with the leader of this Party, believe that that hon. Minister should resign. The taxpayers of South Africa deserve better control over the spending of their money.

Sir, we now have the date on which this cheque was deposited in Barclays Bank in Cape Town.

It was banked at the Reserve Bank on the Monday.

The hon. the Minister therefore had from Friday afternoon until Monday; he had Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and Monday morning. He had ample opportunity. I do not know what he was doing that week-end, whether he was fishing or golfing. But he was not looking after the interests of South Africa or the money of the taxpayers of South Africa, because on Saturday morning or on Monday morning he could have taken steps. Sir, by the hon. the Minister’s own admission he knew that a cheque for R7½ million had been signed; he was unhappy about the circumstances of it; he wanted to stop it and he did not lift a little finger to stop it. By his own admission he did not do a single thing to stop it and that alone. Sir, is reason for the hon. the Minister to resign.

May I ask a question?

No, Sir, when we wanted to put a question to an hon. member on that side he said that he did not have time but he sat down 10 minutes before his time expired. I am not going to waste my time on the hon. member for Rustenburg.

Mr. Speaker, then we come to an associated issue. We find now from the hon. the Minister of the Interior that he withdraws passports because of what he reads in the Sunday Times. When challenged and asked by the hon. member for Zululand: ” Why did you withdraw Agiiotti’s passport and not Venter's?” He got up and asked: “But was Venter’s name mentioned in the Sunday Times?” In other words, Sir, the hon. the Minister acts on a Press report in withdrawing one passport and because the other name is not mentioned he does not withdraw that person’s passport. But, Sir. what about joint Cabinet responsibility; what about the passing of information from one department to another? Not a word about that.

Sir, I want to come back again now to this question of the cheque. The hon. the Prime Minister has been frank in giving us the information. Can he Jell us whether there were one or two signatures on that cheque?

I do not know; I have not seen it.

The hon. the Prime Minister does not know and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture apparently does not know.

There must be two signatures.

May I ask the hon. the Minister then who the second signatory was. He has repeated three times that Todd signed it.

Will the hon. member give me an opportunity to reply?

I am sorry. I am not giving way to the hon. the Minister. All I want is the name of the other signatory.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE; Why do you not give me a chance? Two officials have to sign the cheque. The instruction to sign the cheque came from Mr. Todd.

Order!

Sir, the hon. the Minister says that there must be two signatures but that the authority came from Mr. Todd. I am only asking who the other signatory was. Was it one of the persons concerned in this investigation?

No.

Who was it then?

Sir, the hon. the Minister says that there must be two signatures.

The accounting officers sign the cheque on the instructions of the…

We now have it that the cheque was signed on the authority of the Deputy Secretary and that it was signed by the “Rekenpligtige beampte” that is to say, the accounting officer. But, Sir, the Secretary of the department is the accounting officer. Was this signed then by the Secretary of the department?

No.

But he is the accounting officer.

The accounting officers sign the cheque.

The accounting officials of the department.

All cheques are signed by them.

But Mr. Todd issued the instruction?

On instructions.

Mr. Todd issued the instruction, but he did not sign. Now we are getting curiouser and curiouser. Earlier on the hon. the Minister said that Mr. Todd signed the cheque; he said that directly and clearly and unequivocally. Now, a few hours later, when we start asking who the signatories are. he says that Mr. Todd only gave the instruction and two officials simply acted on those instructions and signed the cheque. It does make a difference, Sir. It makes a difference in regard to the sort of control the hon. the Minister exercises over his department. And we find now that he does not even exercise it directly or indirectly through the delegated authorities, but the delegate to whom he has had delegated the authority then simply issues instructions and other people sign the cheques; and having signed the cheque, we find it presented on a Saturday morning and only cashed on Monday, and the Minister did nothing at all to stop its payment.

Yet, Sir, we are asked to pay taxes. We will deal with another measure tomorrow where the public will be asked to pay another R42 million. For what? To be spent like this? No, I regret to say that we have received no satisfaction as to the background of inefficiency involving this whole case, the whole administration before and at the time of the case, the inefficiency of the hon. the Minister who is responsible to this Parliament and who is responsible to the hon. the Prime Minister. And the hon. the Prime Minister accepted and still accepts responsibility for his Cabinet. He then must accept responsibility for what the hon. the Minister of Agriculture failed to do, and that blows to smithereens the arguments of the two hon. members from Pretoria who tried to exonerate the Prime Minister.

We are also told that the case is proven because the hon. the Prime Minister acted before the Sunday Times was on the streets. In other words, what is important is whether the Government beat the Sunday Times. That is what is important to them. But this is what, I think is also important to the people. The Prime Minister knew about this for a week and he was waiting for a report from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, but when it became a political issue he acted. As long as it was merely a matter of maladministration. the Prime Minister was prepared to wait for a report, but when it became a political issue, when a candidate, the hon. member for Boksburg, got up and said that in the streets of Boksburg stories were flying around, it became a political issue which would cost votes. As soon as votes were involved, the hon. the Prime Minister immediately said he would deal with it and he would appoint an investigation. After he had given the assurance to his conference, he telephoned the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. In other words, when it became a political issue it became important, but before that it was going to take its course until the next Cabinet meeting.

Now we are accused of stirring up agitation and of sowing suspicion. The hon. member for Pretoria Central saved me the trouble, because he listed a whole series of issues about which the public are concerned. and not just the Agliotti case. He mentioned the Land Bank case, and he blamed the United Party. It was not the United Party which lent a Cabinet Minister R118 000. It was not the United Party; it was the Land Bank which did it. It was not the United Party which gave loans of R¼ million, R½ million, etc. It was not we who did it, but because we drew attention to these things we are then accused of scandal mongering. It was not the hon. member for Simonstown who issued fish concessions, but we are accused because we bring it to the notice of the public. It was not the United Party which issued diamond concessions. It was not the United Party which employed road transportation inspectors, where in Natal every single official was convicted, except the head official who got off on appeal. But every single official was convicted of corruption in one department in Natal. We are not in charge of community development where an official has now been charged with 117 charges of corruption.

What do you expect me to do about it?

I do not expect the hon. the Minister…

May I ask the hon. member a question? He talks about an official who is not being prosecuted for corruption, and I want him to tell me what he expects me to have done beforehand.

What I expect the hon. the Minister not to do is to complain when we raise these issues. What the hon. the Minister did, I assume, was to get the Police to investigate.

Who complained about it? Rather ask your Leader when he is going to accept my offer about the shares.

I am not dealing with the shares now. I am saying that we must not be accused of scandalmongering when we state facts.

How did you hear about it?

It was in the papers.

It happened in your constituency. Why did you not bring it to my attention?

Time after time we have asked for an inquiry into that department but the hon. the Minister says that when we can prove a crime he will go into the matter. The court is doing it now in respect of this official. This, however, is not the issue. The issue is that the people of South Africa see this happening all around them. It is not us who is doing it. What the Government want us to do is to draw a veil over these things, to hide them, to put a smokescreen over them so that the people will not see them. We are attacked when we speak about these thin-s and say that they are signs of maladministration.

All we ask is that you make specific accusations against us,

I have made a specific accusation against the Minister of Agriculture. He failed to act efficiently in maintaining control over his delegated authority; he failed as a Minister and he should resign. This is specific enough and one cannot be more specific than that. Last year the voters of South Africa who voted for this Government put question marks behind their votes in their minds. The question mark has two loops. They said “We will vote for you again, but where are you taking South Africa and, secondly, how are you governing South Africa?” The Prime Minister had promised them “opknapping”. He said that there would be an “opknapping” of Government administration and that the departments and the Minister would have to pull their socks up and that we would have efficiency. This session has now passed and in this session, as it draws to its conclusion, we have now had six months in which the hon. the Minister of the Government have had the opportunity to say to what extent this “opknapping” had taken place to improve the administration, But the record is a sorry one. It is a sorry one as you go down the ranks. Minister after Minister has shown that he has failed to streamline or to bring about the promised efficiency in his department. The only other thing that has become clear during this session is the answer to the question: Where was the Nationalist Party Government going after the general election? The answer is that it went back into the “verkrampte” fold, so much so that it is bringing into this House when we next gather here, one of the acknowledged leaders of the “verkrampte” movement. There are your two answers. Where are we going under this Government? Back into “verkramptheid”. Is the Government administering efficiently? The answer is “no” right through.

There is an alternative, with which I will not have time to deal. But I want to say that South Africa, when we have a change of Government, will look very different from what it looks now. It will look different, for this reason—I make no apologies for saying this again; I have said it before. At the end of the last World War, when South Africans walked down the streets of foreign cities, they used to do so wearing shoulder tabs with “South Africa” on them because they were so proud to show that they came from South Africa. When they walked down the streets of the capitals of the West. people stopped them and said “I am proud to shake the hand of a South African”. We were proud to be South Africans, so proud that we put the name of our country on our shoulder, so that every man could see where we came from. The hon. Minister of Defence has just come back from London, where they nut smoke bombs under his motor car and threw tomatoes. Mr. Speaker, we were proud to be South Africans, and that is the fundamental thing missing among the people of South Africa today— their pride in being a South African: their ability to hold up their head amongst all men and to say “I am proud to be a South African”. “I have nothing of which I am ashamed.” *

I am ashamed of your being a South African.

An hon. member there says he is ashamed to have me as a South African. I have always been proud of my South Africanship. I have never had to hide it. I have never had to use another country’s passport to do business overseas. Yet this Government allows it. It is pride in your country and in your nation which makes a people great. That will be the first thing the United Party will bring back to our people—pride in being South African. in being able to look every person, wherever he may come from, in the eye, and say once more “I am not ashamed; I am proud of being South African”. That is what the youth of South Africa want. They want pride.

Dennis Brutus will welcome you in London.

I would not run away from him, because I would be proud. Something else will happen under a United Party Government. We will maintain our way of life. It will not be, as the hon. the Minister says, “Verswart”. We will have our residential separation, each race in its own area; but we will govern the non-Whites of South Africa according to four fundamental principles.

You will see them here in this House.

The first is that we are prepared to make available to all races the fruits and benefits of the Western way of life. Secondly, we are determined to preserve the standards of Western life, and therefore we will maintain White leadership. Thirdly, we will consult with all races. Fourthly, and most important, we will respect the dignity of people. Because we respect the dignity of the individual, we will be able to hold our heads up wherever we go. People, when they look at us, will say “that is a South African”, not somebody to throw a tomato at, but a South African whose hand you can take and say “I am pleased to meet you; I am pleased to know you”. That is part of the vision which lies ahead for South Africa when this ossified, mentally crippled Government, unable to face up to this century, unable to face up to the challenge, is swept out and we get a Government able and willing and with the courage to face the challenge of the next 30 years.

Mr. Speaker I have risen merely in order to make a few observations in regard to this debate. I returned to Cape Town only this morning, and therefore I cannot and do not want to participate in a long debate. Before I come to the matter which is the reason for my having risen, namely the Agliotti case, I just want to mention a few general points. The hon. member for Durban Point, who has just resumed his seat, tried to create the impression that the National Party was to blame for the fact that communistic and other riff-raff in England and in other parts of the world were rising up against South Africa. I want to say to the hon. member that I am sorry he has found it necessary to use this type of argument for the purposes of party-political propaganda, because however much I differ with the hon. member for Durban Point, I have always regarded him as a good South African. For this reason I found it all the more shocking that the hon. member put forward that type of argument. Sir, it will be of no avail for us to debate this matter any further across the floor of this House. Surely the hon. member for Durban Point and every other hon. member on that side of this House knows that the problems facing South Africa, the problems of the hostile attitude of the communistic states and of the Afro-Asian states, did not start under the régime of the National Party. Surely the hon. member is aware that they already started when Gen. Smuts was our representative at the U.N. Surely the hon. member knows that as far back as the years 1945, 1946 and 1947, there were items on the agenda at United Party congresses in connection with these evil attacks on South Africa. The hon. member is shaking his head because he knows this is the case. Surely he knows it is the case that South Africa lost the struggle for South-West Africa against India in the U.N. in Gen. Smuts’s time already.

But the Western countries were on our side.

Sir, it does not matter whether the Western countries were on our side. Can the hon. member tell me why. when the matter of the incorporation of South-West Africa came up for discussion—it was the standpoint of Gen. Smuts that it should be incorporated—the Western countries would not grant it? At that time die Black states were not in the majority in the U.N. Surely the hon. member knows that the agitation against South Africa started in those years already and that in principle we lost the struggle in those years already and, furthermore, that we already lost that struggle on a numerical basis in those years, before all these Black states came into being. Surely the hon. member knows this. This is the background against which South Africa is still continuing its struggle. I have always believed and hoped that in our struggle against these powers in the world, we would have the support of those who think as the hon. member for Durban Point does. It would be an evil day for me if I had to admit that I could no longer rely on the hon. member for Durban Point in that regard.

Of course you can.

While speaking about the many matters he mentioned, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did us another injustice in passing. This was when he referred to the education which is provided to all colour groups in South Africa. The hon. member gave the impression to people outside that this was a matter we were neglecting, and that it was something with which we should be charged in the outside world. Sir, what we are doing in the interests of the education of white, yellow and black here in South Africa, provides South Africa with the strongest standpoint it can adopt in relation to the world and in relation to Africa. This is South Africa’s strong point. Do these figures not have significance for the Leader of the Opposition as well? We know we have compulsory education in South Africa as far as the Whites are concerned. I quoted the figures on another occasion, but in reply to the hon. member’s argument I want to place them on record. In the past 10 years, 155 000 more White children have been enrolled at schools. The argument can quite rightly be put forward that there is compulsory education as far as the Whites are concerned. But let us look at the others. Let us see what the position is in regard to the Coloured people. Over a period of ten years the number of Coloured children attending school has increased to 515 000, i.e. over a period of ten years 210 000 more Coloured children have attended schools in South Africa, and without compulsory education at that. Over the past ten years the number of Bantu children attending school in South Africa has increased to 2 700 000, an increase of 1 340 000. Surely this is a proud record which South Africa can present to the world. Surely this is a proud record which South Africa can present to Africa. Why must we belittle it in our own Parliament? I just want to put the record straight in this regard. Why, considering the knowledge which my friend the Leader of the Opposition has, did he belittle Senator Horwood for debating purposes in this House this morning? Why did he compare the figure given by Senator Horwood with that of Dr. Franszen? The figure given by Dr. Franszen is the present one. Surely my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition knows that Prof. Horwood quoted his figure from a periodical which appeared in September, 1964. The figure of 3 per cent which Prof, Horwood indicated in that article, is the figure of 1962 and not of 1970. [Interjections.] But the impression was given to the world that Senator Horwood had said that for this year, i.e. the current one, we were spending 3 per cent, while the figure quoted by Prof. Horwood was the one for 1962. But why did he not go further? Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to disparage Senator Horwood, why did he not quote what Senator Horwood had said in the Senate on 25th February, 1971?

I quote—

Then he quoted certain figures. This is not fair. If one wants to belittle an English-speaking person because he joined the National Party, then do so on the facts and not in this way. [Interjections.]

I now come to the Agliotti case. The first knowledge I had of this matter was when a report appeared in Die Beeld on Sunday, 8th March. In that report reference was made to valuable clay deposits allegedly contained in that land, land which was to be bought for extensions to the Jan Smuts Airport. But naturally, in the first place, I regarded it as a large sum of money. In the second place, because the clay was so valuable, I questioned whether one should bury that valuable clay under a tarred surface and thought whether one should not make some other plan. It is for that reason that the matter attracted my attention. I was aware that land was expensive. I was aware that if it contained such clay, it must naturally be much more expensive, but precisely how expensive I, as a layman, of course did not know. If it was true that the clay was so valuable, I was not keen that it should be buried. For that reason I asked the Cabinet about the matter on the Monday. It was election time. During that period the Cabinet met on Mondays. As hon. members opposite know, during the rest of the week we were dispersed all over the country holding meetings. I myself was away in the course of that week. Naturally I made inquiries, but the next Cabinet meeting would take place on the following Monday only. I want to repeat that the background to the case was that it was election time and that everybody was travelling because we had engagements which had been made long before. That same Saturday morning I had come from Pietermaritzburg and I went directly to the candidates’ conference. At that conference various matters were discussed and this matter was mentioned by the hon. member for Boksburg, Mr. J. P. A. Reyneke. As far as I can remember, it was amplified by the hon. member for Brentwood, Dr. W. L. Vosloo, who also comes from that area. After I had taken cognizance of the matters which Mr. Reyneke mentioned this morning as well, and of those which I had heard in the meantime, I said on that occasion that I would announce a commission to investigate that matter. I did in fact appoint the commission.

I found it interesting that this debate was opened by my hon. friend the member for Durban North. I found it noteworthy, but could understand it. After all, he is the bright boy of the Sunday Times. I remember that they described him as such on occasion. Therefore I can understand that the hon. member opened the debate. I do not mind what the hon. member said, but he should not speak without his book. He should at least first make inquiries about his facts. The hon. member said we had appointed judges in regard to other matters. I make no apology for having done that. Across the floor of this House I have already…

I did not say that. It was the hon. member for Zululand.

The question was asked why a magistrate had been appointed in this case.

I did not ask that.

If the hon. member did not ask that question, I apologize to him. The hon. member for Zululand asked why a magistrate, and not a judge, had been appointed in this case. There was a very good reason for that. I asked the Minister of Justice for a judge at the time. However, it was envisaged at the time that the Agliotti case would be very protracted. The Minister of Justice explained his difficulties in making judges available to me, and because it was expected that the matter would extend over months, the Minister of Justice recommended to me that I should not appoint a judge, but a senior magistrate. For that reason the senior magistrate of Bloemfontein, Mr. Lindeque, was appointed to conduct this inquiry.

The Press Commission sat for eleven years.

It does not matter to me whether the Press Commission sat for eleven years. The reply which the Minister of Justice gave me was that it would be very difficult for him to provide me with a judge. For that reason I was satisfied to accept a magistrate from him. I now want to test the honesty of the hon. member for Zululand, Does the hon. member want to insinuate anything on account of the fact that a magistrate was chosen?

I said he did the job very well under difficult circumstances.

The hon. member first makes an insinuation on account of the fact that a judge was not chosen. Now that I ask him what he means by it, he hides behind the fact that he said the magistrate had performed his task well.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does the hon. gentleman consider it proper that a magistrate should have to inquire into the activities of someone senior to him in the Civil Service?

I see absolutely nothing wrong in a magistrate investigating the case of someone who is senior to him in the Service. After all, he tries people who are senior to him in the Service and sends them to gaol. Why can he not report on their conduct?

Why then did the hon. gentleman try in the first instance for a judge?

Because I should have liked to have it that way. Because, in the nature of things, a judge has more authority than a magistrate. But as far as I am concerned, I want to say I have full confidence in every judge and in every magistrate sitting on the bench in South Africa. Therefore I was perfectly satisfied to accept a magistrate, considering the fact that the hon. the Minister could not spare a judge for such a long period. I could understand his difficulty.

On 24th March, if I have the date correct, the terms of reference were published in the Government Gazette and the hearing started. Hon. members will notice right at the beginning of this report, in paragraph 7, that on 21st April, 1970, a further proclamation was issued and that the terms of reference of the commission were amended in order to give advocates Strydom and Van Rooyen the opportunity to appear before the commission. I accept full responsibility for that because I personally instructed advocates Strydom and Van Rooyen to appear before that commission. I did so for very good reasons. The main factor in this case was the value of the clay in that land. From the course of the evidence it was clear to me that it was just possible that, considering the Behr-Lombaard Report, the commission would accept that that clay was in fact worth that amount of money. As a result of personal inquiries I made, it came to my attention that these two advocates had specialized knowledge not only of expropriation, but also of valuations in the case of expropriations. I felt that the commission should have the best legal advice available to it. I held consultations with these advocates and they told me that the basis on which the valuation had been made in the first place, was wrong. They satisfied me that the basis was wrong. Because they had satisfied me, I gave them the opportunity to appear before the commission in order to contest the basis on which the original valuation had been made. I now want to tell this House that if the matter had not been approached on the principle of attacking the basis of the valuation, the original valuation would have remained and the court would have had no option but to accept it. It would have remained. If one examines the evidence initially submitted, it is very clear that it would have been accepted just like that; in other words, if I had not intervened at that moment, this full amount would eventually have been paid for this land.

In talking about the original valuation, to which one are you referring?

As I have said, I am referring to the Behr-Lombaard valuation of this land, of the clay.

The valuation of the clay?

Sir. the ordinary person evaluating land has no knowledge of what lies beneath the surface of the land; he can evaluate only the surface. But because one had to deal with a highly technical matter and because two persons. Prof. Lombaard and Prof. Behr, both highly qualified geologists, were concerned here, it goes without saying that one would have to accept their valuation unless one contested the basis on which the valuation had been made.

They evaluated on two bases and arrived at two answers. Which one did you want to accept?

Sir, I did not want to accept either of them, because after I had held consultations, both were unacceptable to me. Because I felt the basis was wrong, I instructed Strydom and Van Rooyen to appear before this commission. As a result the regulations were amended and a particularly thorough cross-examination of all officials and witnesses who appeared there was conducted. As a result it appeared that everything was not in order and that there was room for a great deal of suspicion. I am purposely using the words “room for a great deal of suspicion”. When that suspicion arose, the police were instructed in September last year to investigate the matter because it appeared that everything was not in order.

But now I come to hon. members opposite. What is in fact their objection, as they argued here today? Their objection is that we have not already convicted and hanged Venter—hon. members opposite who continually base their arguments on the sacrosanct principle that a man is not guilty before he has been found guilty, hon. members who continually accuse us of violating that legal rule. Sir, what has been done in this regard? When it seemed as though something was wrong here— and at the start there was nothing obvious to indicate that a dishonest transaction had taken place here; there was nothing ex facie the documents which indicated that something dishonest had taken place here —a commission was appointed at the very first opportunity, because we wanted to make absolutely certain that everything was in order. Sir, the inquiry by the commission took its course, and even before the report was submitted the matter was referred to the police. When the report was received, it was immediately referred to the Attorney-General. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me for the dates. The commission was appointed on 20th March. 1970. The commissioner sent his report to my office on 14th December, 1970. I examined it on 22nd January, 1971, after the holidays, when we arrived in Cape Town, and on 25th January it was transmitted to the Attorney-General, At that same time I issued instructions that it be translated, and that translation was completed on 30th March, 1971. My department checked that translation and on 16th April, just after the Easter recess, they sent it through to the Government Printer, who in turn sent it to Cape and Transvaal Printers in Cape Town, which has the printing contract. They sent the printed report back on 1st June, and on 3rd June it was tabled. Surely, if I had wanted to keep this report away from Parliament, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to do. But these are the dates concerned. and at the very first opportunity I submitted it to Parliament. I therefore want to say that, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing I had to do that I neglected •to do. I want to make it very clear that I spared nobody in this process and would have spared nobody. What more could I have done? What more can any Government do than to give the police written instructions, the moment there seems to be any irregularity, to examine that irregularity in order to determine whether there should be any prosecution, because it is after all the duty of the police to investigate it and to submit the prosecution to the Attorney-General. Since it was suggested in the report that the report should be submitted to the Attorney-General, what more could I do than to submit it to the Attorney-General immediately on receiving it? Does this look like a case of people wanting to hide something?

But let us look at the Minister now. The Minister told us here that these officials had acted in terms of a delegation, and there is nothing strange about officials acting in terms of a delegation. Officials have been acting in terms of delegations in South Africa since 1910, and until this problem arose, it worked satisfactorily and no problems arose from it. Hon. members now adopt the attitude that in this case there are in fact officials who have been guilty of dishonesty. On what grounds can we say this at this moment? At this moment we can only say that there are many things that seem suspicious, but surely we cannot set ourselves up here as judges before the police have investigated the matter, before the Attorney-General has examined it and before the Supreme Court has indicated the guilty party.

But the R5 million was repaid.

Yes, the R5 million was repaid, thanks to the action taken by the Government, and thanks to the appointment of advocates Strydom and Van Rooyen, who destroyed the entire basis of the valuation before that court. Does the hon. member not understand this? Is it the task and function of this House to try people and to find them guilty? I am not prepared to say today that Venter is a rogue. I am not prepared to say that Venter enriched himself. The circumstances seem very suspicious to me.

Why did you not take his passport away?

We shall come to that. I shall come to the reason why we did not take away his passport. But all I want to say at this moment, is that I am not prepared to say that Venter enriched himself; this will have to be determined by the court when the police have investigated the matter, and if the police find that there is a case to take to court and the Attorney-General finds that there is a case in respect of which a prosecution must be instituted. I do not know what the investigation will produce. I only know that my instruction is that all matters relating to this case must be investigated, no matter who is involved. This is what I know, and if it becomes clear from that investigation that these officials or other officials of that or of other departments have previously been guilty of such irregularities, they will all be brought to book.

What did the hon. member for Durban Point do now? He mentioned the cases here of officials who had transgressed. Surely, like private people, officials have transgressed over all the years. That is not the argument. The point is not whether officials transgress, but what a Government does when it becomes aware of that transgression, whether it lakes action or not. Hon. members on that side of this House must not contrast their past in this regard. I need only mention Castle Mansions in Johannesburg in passing and hon. members opposite would know what I am referring to. It is a question of whether one covers up or takes action. I want to repeat very clearly that in every case where a transgression has come to our notice, the matter has been investigated, and this will be done in future as well and those people will be dealt with in terms of the law.

Then, as far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, the hon. the Minister made that delegation. This delegation system has worked well for years, but now, in this one case, it has not worked. I have discussed the matter with the Minister, and we have rectified the matter and implemented another system, as one would naturally do after one has found that something like this does not work. But what crime has the Minister committed? What action did the Minister take which suggests that he is not competent to act as a Minister in this regard?

May I put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister? If there was no supervision, how does he or the Minister know that this was the only case?

But I have just told the hon. member that this instruction given to the Police is not limited to this one aspect of the matter. Surely it is obvious that it will cover a wide field. An exceptionally wide field will be covered in respect of this particular official. What more can one do in that regard? I want to make it very clear that if the Minister was negligent or irresponsible in this regard or if he shut his eyes to this sort of thing, I would obviously have asked him to resign from the Cabinet, because I cannot allow something like that. Must I take instructions from hon. members opposite, merely on account of the slandering of people across the floor of this House for lack of other matters of discourse? I want to tell hon. members opposite that, as far as I am concerned, I am man enough to decide for myself whether or not Ministers are competent to serve in the Cabinet, In that regard I shall not allow myself to be dictated to by anyone on the other side. My hon. friend from Durban North again had his usual dreams today of his party coming into power. Since the provincial council elections last year, there have been eight vacancies, either in the provincial council or in the House of Assembly. Of those eight vacancies, the Opposition, who want to come into power tomorrow, chose to contest only two. They preferred not to contest the other seats. Of course, they have not put up a candidate in Waterberg either, but I do not blame the Leader of the Opposition in this regard. After all, one does not put up two candidates in the same constituency. [Interjections.] As far as this matter is concerned, I am perfectly willing to meet any of the hon. members on it before the electorate of South Africa.

But now we again have the question from the hon. member for Houghton: “Why did you not take Venter’s passport away?” The Department of the Interior acts on the advice of other departments in regard to passports. If they had had a request from the department responsible, namely the Department of Police, to withdraw Venter’s passport, they would have done so.

Why did they not?

Sir, I do not know. Let me just say this to the hon. member: I do not know for what reason the police did not recommend this, but the fact of the matter is that they did not recommend it. If they did not recommend it, they did so for a very good reason, although it may not be very clear to the hon. member at the moment.

Why did they take Agliotti’s passport and not Venter’s?

Because Agliotti, whether by birth or origin, is a foreigner and because he was specifically implicated, I assume, the police recommended that his passport be withdrawn. But take the case of Venter. Venter cannot stay there. He must come back. He was born here. He is an Afrikaner. He has no other place to go. Surely the hon. member knows this as well as I do. But whatever the position may be, the fact remains that the police did not recommend it. I assume there is a very good reason, because I know that they do these things for good reasons, I can think of a first-class reason why they did not do so, but it is something I do not want to mention across the floor of this House now. The fact of the matter is that this case and all its implications are being investigated. All the persons concerned in it are being examined meticulously. If there is anything wrong, the guilty parties will be brought before the courts of South Africa which will pronounce judgment in that regard. Then it will be as a result of the very fact that this Government is concerned that this sort of incident should not take place.

I conclude by saying that I have a clear conscience in regard to this matter and that the Government, after it had come to its notice, did everything that was necessary to protect the taxpayers and the public of South Africa in this regard and to promote their interests.

Mr. Speaker, I listened, as did we all, with special attention to the contribution of the hon. the Prime Minister to this discussion. What struck me was that the Prime Minister gave one the impression that he was defending himself, his Cabinet and the Minister in question against a charge that they had committed fraud. He became very heated. He became quite inflamed that anyone could think that they would do anything verging on that. The truth is that no such charge has been made. The charge that has in fact been made, and to which the hon. the Prime Minister has not replied adequately, is that the Minister and the Cabinet were negligent in their actions in this matter. Take for example the principal defence of the hon. the Prime Minister. It was that there was no proof, nothing but presumption or suspicion that this Mr. Venter had done something wrong, although it is stated very clearly in the report that he was guilty of mala fides of acting in bad faith in this matter. But that is not all.

But that is not a criminal offence.

Yes, Sir, but now there is something else. It is stated very clearly in the report that he was guilty of mala fides. The hon. the Prime Minister may say that that is not a crime. I maintain that when an official with that responsibility carries out an action involving the money of the people in a way which proves that he did so in bad faith, the people are entitled to demand more drastic, firmer and quicker action from the Government than there was in this case. Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from the report of the commissioner. I should like to quote passages from paragraphs 234 to 238 to refresh the memory of the hon. the Prime Minister. The English text of paragraph 234 reads—

In paragraph 235, the commissioner gives the reply. He says—

But. Sir, that is not all. In paragraph 236 he continues as follows—

That is what the Police investigated.

The Prime Minister must just give me a chance, before he makes his comment. The commissioner goes on as follows in paragraph 237—

Then he says, in paragraph 238—

But that has been done.

The commissioner was not talking about reference to the police. He finds that there was sufficient indication that fraud had been committed…

But it has already been referred to the Attorney-General.

Yes, I know, but the point I want to make, is that the commissioner was of the opinion that it had already been proved to such an extent that fraud was committed, and what is the definition of fraud? I should like to read out Gardiner & Lansdown’s definition of fraud, but before I do that, I want to remind the House of the words stated in the commission’s report. It must be remembered that the commissioner spoke of “material misrepresentation”, as a result of which almost R5 million was stolen from the State. Gardiner and Lansdown say—

As I said, there is enough evidence in this report to prove that a crime was in fact committed. I cannot understand why action has not yet been taken in, this connection.

Who must form an opinion on this matter? That is the question.

The Attorney- General…

But he is dealing with it now.

Yes, but I cannot understand why action has not yet been taken. What is more important, is that I cannot understand why the Cabinet and the Prime Minister himself were so slow in taking action.

When?

The hon. the Minister told us that he reported the matter to the Cabinet on the first Monday in March, but nothing was done. It was only on the following Saturday that the Prime Minister got in touch with candidates in the election.

That is nonsense. I did not say that nothing had been done. The Prime Minister said that the matter should be brought before the Cabinet and that he would then make a decision. He said that he would be prepared to appoint a commission if he was convinced that it was necessary. *

But the commission was not appointed immediately. [Interjections.] No, wait a minute. The hon. the Minister is only making his case worse. After it had appeared that the land had been purchased without authorization from the Treasury, without the Minister of Mines having been consulted, as is required by the Act in question and without the Land Tenure Board, which is involved in this matter, having done its work properly, was it still necessary to make a decision so that action could be taken? The facts could have been determined immediately. The facts could have been determined before the Cabinet meeting on that Monday. I maintain that the hon. the Minister acted negligently. We have now heard, as a result of questions put by the hon. member for Durban North, that the cheque was only presented on Saturday and only paid on Monday. In other words, if the Minister had wanted to take action, he could still have stopped the payment of that cheque on Saturday. [Interjections.] Of course he could. But, Mr. Speaker, the matter was not important enough to him and to the Cabinet to disturb the tranquility of a five-day week. He could not, for once in his life, go to his office for half an hour on a Saturday to do what any private citizen would have done if he had known that a considerable amount of money which he controlled in trust for other people had been spent erroneously or apparently spent erroneously by an official in his employ. He did not take the trouble to go to his office on a Saturday morning to stop the payment of that cheque. In spite of all the replies and attempts at replies we have heard so far, no one has been able to explain Chat away. All the hon. the Minister could say is that he heard about this after 5 o'clock on Friday afternoon and could do nothing about it. In other words, he would have done something if he had heard about it before 5 o’clock or before 3 o'clock. But he had the whole of Saturday morning. And he did nothing. But then he also told us that he tried to stop it on another occasion, but that it had by then already been paid out and that it was therefore too late. But Saturday would not have been too late; it could still have been done then. The hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister in question can talk and plead as much as they want to. there was gross negligence here. The more one ascertains what the facts are, the more shocked one is,

Agliotti’s passport is cancelled. The hon. the Prime Minister tells us this was because he was not born in South Africa.

I said that I suspected this to be the case.

I accept that you suspected it to be the case.

The hon. the Prime Minister suspects that this could be the reason. But the hon. the Prime Minister is now strengthening my case, because it is not even certain whether it is. But what is certain, is that the crime for which the commissioner found so much evidence that he was able to state it as a fact, that it could only have been committed if there had been collusion between Agliotti and this Mr. Venter.

Why do you, who have a legal background, say that he stated it as a fact while in his report he states it to be on a balance of probabilities.

He states it to be a balance of probabilities in one paragraph. But in the next two paragraphs which I read out he goes further and accepts it as a factual representation…

On a balance of probabilities.

No. it was in another separate paragraph. The difficulty with the Prime Minister is that he does not do his homework. Paragraph 236 reads—

On the balance of probabilities…

Where is the balance of probabilities in paragraph 237? This paragraph reads—

not, therefore, on a balance of probabilities. There is no qualification.

… to be the biggest and the decisive factor why such a fantastic price was paid…

That is a finding.

Yes, it is a finding. It is not a case of a balance of probabilities. The paragraph states, this is the greatest irregularity. Then I read the next paragraph as well—

These are facts and do not rest on the balance of probabilities.

Of which not one is a crime in itself.

I think that interjection by the hon. Minister is enough to establish our case. He is still being negligent. He does not want to recognize the actual facts. If there was justification for cancelling Agliotti’s passport, then there was the same justification for cancelling Mr. Venter’s passport as well. For the sake of argument—only for the sake of argument—I concede to the hon. the Prime Minister that on the balance of probabilities a crime seems to have been committed by Agliotti, or he should at least have answered for the balance of possibilities existing here. His passport was taken away from him, but not that of this Mr. Venter. Are there then two laws in South Africa? A foreign-born person may not commit crimes, but a born South African has better opportunities to commit crimes. Or is the law identical as far as crime is concerned for these two?

You did not listen to what I said.

And do you know what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs wanted to imply in this House by way of a question? It was that the reason why this Mr. Venter’s passport was cancelled was due to the fact that his name did not appear in the Sunday Times. Mr. Gerdener also said the following in regard to the cancellation of the passport—

I want to ask how Agliotti could have been involved in the matter if Venter was not involved in the matter as well. How can any person who read the evidence and findings of the commissioner conclude that Agliotti had committed this deed on his own?

It is a question of the recommendations of the Police.

This matter is becoming worse and worse. The Cabinet does not know what is going on. They have no supervision over their people. If a Cabinet Minister to whom the matter was reported, who read the newspaper reports and who knew whose names were mentioned or not mentioned in the Sunday times received a recommendation to the effect that Agliotti's passport should be cancelled, he should immediately have asked: “What about Venter”, who was just as deeply involved in the matter. But the hon. the Minister did not do it. He was fast asleep.

The hon. member is a better journalist than he is a member of Parliament.

I have never been ashamed of my profession as journalist. There is and there have been journalists in this Parliament, such as Gen. Smuts and Dr. Malan. The hon. the Minister with whom I am at present having this set to, was himself a journalist. In regard to stopping the payment of the cheque, and the question of the passports, there have been no replies whatsoever which could satisfy any impartial person.

There is something else I should like to know. I hope that I will receive a reply in this connection from the Minister of the Interior, from the Minister of Police, or from the Minister of Justice, or whoever was responsible in the first place. Do they know at this moment whether this Mr. Venter took any money with him and, if he did, how much, when he left South Africa? Have they made a special investigation into whether he acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the exchange control regulations and that he did not take more money over than he was allowed to do? Did they make certain whether his return passage or return flight has been booked? Are they taking any steps to prevent him going to a country from which he cannot be extradited?

You want to anticipate the Police investigation.

Here is a man who on the balance of probabilities was guilty of a serious crime, but he is travelling around overseas on a passport he should not have had if the Government had done its duty.

While the Police are engaged on their investigation?

This is not only a question of the Police, but also of the Government. A police investigation does not make anything sub judice. A police investigation does not prevent a State or Government from acting. The matter is not before a court. I want to know what the Government is doing or did do to make sure that Venter does not evade what is probably his just desserts. That is what we want to know. I do not want the hon. the Minister to give me any glib talk of a police investigation making a matter sub judice. Surely that is nonsense.

I did not say that it makes the matter sub judice.

I want to know whether something is being done while the police are engaged in an investigation, to make certain that Venter will return to South Africa. We have not heard a word in this connection.

Who do you want to go and tell?

I do not think the hon. the Minister has any concept of what is going on here. I still maintain that thanks to the vigilance of the newspapers, this matter came to our attention. In this connection I give credit to the Beeld as well. Although they tried to condone it, I think that they felt—as I know the Beeld —that the public should know about it. That is why they published it. Thanks to the vigilance of the Press, thanks to the political sensitivity of the National Party’s candidates, thanks to the conscientiousness of the hon. the Prime Minister, R5 million of the people’s money was saved. But it could have been lost. The people of South Africa are entitled to ask for stricter supervision over its assets than it received from this hon. Minister and this Government. It is no use saying: After it happened, I acted with dispatch. Things like this must not happen. In any department, in any business. undertaking where strict and regular supervision is maintained in the interests of the shareholders’ money or trust money that undertaking is handling, no subordinate would dare do a thing like this. No subordinate would dare to do that if he knows that he will be asked regularly and frequently to give an account of the money he is spending. This did not happen in this case. The people do not merely want to know that the stable door will he dosed only when the horse has fled. The people will want to know what precautions are being taken to ensure that unauthorized people do not gain access to that stable and get hold of the horse. No, we are dealing here with a Government which has, administratively, become lax and lazy and complacent. They are neglecting the interests of the people, in the numerous respects my hon. Leader mentioned today in the second part of his speech. As far as housing is concerned, as far as the cost of living is concerned, as far as transport and education is concerned, the Government is neglecting the interests of the people. It is lax and indifferent as far as control over the money of the people is concerned. It does not care what happens to that money. Its only defence is: ” I was not guilty of a crime, and when I discovered what was going on, I took action.” We are still waiting to hear what steps were taken in the past to ensure that the powers delegated by Ministers were exercised properly and under supervision. We have not yet received any reply. Laxity! Slackness! Indifference! It seems to us the Government is saying: “We who are the National party Government will govern forever.” The hon. the Prime Minister again tried to allege that today. “We no longer have to answer to the people” —that is the whole attitude and the failure of the Government They are arrogant.

Surely that is absolutely untrue and you know that it is untrue.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. the Prime Minister entitled to say that?

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly obey your ruling. However, the hon. member laid words in my mouth which I did not use.

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister must withdraw the words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them, but I request with all due respect that you request the hon. member, in the same way, to withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said and then you can have me withdraw it if you wish. I want to repeat that the hon. the Prime Minister, with his attitude in the last part of his speech, again implied that they cannot be ousted from those benches.

That is not what you said a moment ago.

Yes, I repeat it. The hon. the Prime Minister with much verbosity derided us for not nominating candidates in safe Nationalist Party constituencies. He said that he would meet us wherever we liked. He implied that we would not come into power because we are not fit to do so. I cannot understand why the hon. the Prime Minister is so sensitive that he cannot stand by his own words and his own attitude. But I prefer to say that that attitude which gave the hon. the Prime Minister’s game away today, lies at the root of the incompetence and the laxity of the Government. I repeat it. They feel that they no longer have to answer to the people. They feel that through the exploitation of prejudice and with the exploitation of attitudes on colour with which they came into power, they will remain in power. The people are suffering as a result of this. Efficient government is suffering as a result of this. As long as that is their attitude, the one Agliotti affair after the other, the one fish scandal after the other, will occur in South Africa. Unless the hon. the Prime Minister does what he promised to do after the election, which is to shake up his administration—and there have been no signs of this—these things will continue. We demand that this be done. We demand that the hon. Minister whose negligence, whose indifference, whose laxity these things have disclosed, leave the Cabinet and convince the people that the standards which South Africa sets for the administration of its affairs, are high and will remain high.

*Dr. W. D. KOTZÉ: The hon. member for Yeoville, and a large number of speakers before him, asked with great impetuosity why they could not obtain a reply to the question of why payment of the cheque, issued by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, was not stopped. Sir, on what good authority do they make such a request to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, because what are the facts? Before the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is a matter involving the cashing of a cheque. At that stage he only suspected that the price could be excessively high for the land, but on the evidence of his officials, senior, officials, and on the evidence of a reasonably authoritative report before him about the mineral value of that land, the hon. the Minister could well have accepted the validity of the price. For what good reason should he have, and could he have, given a decision, within the space of an hour, to the effect that that land had been purchased at too high a price and that he should immediately stop payment of the cheque? He had no authority to have dared do it…

But he says he wanted to.

*Dr. W. D. KOTZÉ: Imagine, Sir, what would have happened if the hon. the Minister had given instructions that payment of that cheque be stopped, if it was Stopped in time and if Mr. Agliotti then instituted proceedings, proving that that land was worth much more than the price for which we purchased it; if he were to have regarded our actions as breach of contract; if he then refused to sell the land and we then had to buy it at twice the price. What would the hon. members then have said about the hon. the Minister’s actions? They would then have said that he was some kind of tyrant who was trying to run his department accordingly. But, Sir, I leave this question at that, because I cannot see on what good authority hon. members on that side can insist that the Minister should have stopped payment of the cheque and that he could have made such a decision within the space of an hour. He was not able to do so, not on the strength of the evidence he had before him.

But he said that he wanted to do so.

•Dr. W. D. KOTZÉ: It does not matter what the Minister said.

Sir, I do not want to claim that there were no irregularities on the part of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Possibly a gross irregularity was perpetrated. If that is so—and according to this commission of inquiry that is probably the case—no one on this side of the House will try to excuse the actions of those officials, and no one has tried to do so. If that is so, then I believe that the rightful punishment should be meted out to them, and this the courts will probably do when they are found guilty, but that is only when they are found guilty, and this is very important, Mr. Speaker. But what we cannot do—and a responsible Opposition that is acquainted with the principles of public administration ought not to do so either—is to besmirch the hon. the Minister of Agriculture in connection with this matter. What is more. Sir, the Opposition and the English-language Press demand the resignation of the hon. the Minister in connection with this transaction, as if he is personally implicated in a crime.

But he is responsible for it.

•Dr. W. D. KOTZÉ: In this conduct on the part of the Opposition and the English language Press they do not even recognize the most elementary principle of public administration, let alone decency, or must one ascribe this conduct, on the part of the Opposition and the English language Press, to the fact that they have no knowledge of the principles of public administration. and that neither do they realize that most of the problems experienced in public administration every day throughout the world, concern the human element or factor which one cannot control or predict in advance?

There is such a thing as integrity and a sense of responsibility which the administrator of any organization must, of necessity, rely on, and these characteristics of integrity, and a sense of judgment and responsibility, the administrator of any organization cannot possibly pre-determine as far as his staff is concerned. He is simply not able to do so. This inability, which is recognized throughout the world, has already given rise to thousands of cases of fraud in the world’s history. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture would have been a superhuman being if he were able to gauge these characteristics of his staff correctly, and accordingly determine whether an irregularity would be committed or not. But instead of displaying a realistic attitude and political integrity towards the hon. the Minister in connection with this case, the English press and the Opposition, as is their custom, chose to play the role of political snipers. They did not try to determine what principles, as far as the Ministers relationship to this situation is concerned, were relevant, and then formulate their criticism accordingly. No, they just want to scavenge on fetid political scraps, and in the process they do not care what established and recognized principles they are violating.

The relevant principle here is the delegation of powers, a necessary and indispensible element in any organization’s administration. There is, of course, a great measure of risk involved in the delegation of powers. It is also a recognized fact that this risk, which is involved in the delegation of powers, cannot in practice be measured in advance, because the great problem involved here, is that the abuse of the delegation of power can only be determined after an irregularity has been perpetrated. That is inevitable; there is no way of pre-determining this. It is quite correct that the administrator, of course, accepts the fact that something can go wrong when he delegates his powers, because something may be wrong with the judgment, the integrity and the sense of responsibility of those to whom he dele- gales his powers. But one cannot blame him for that. He is not co-responsible if such a thing happens. But—and this is important—he does accept liability for the deed—that is correct—but then only for its correction, as far as this is administratively possible. But one cannot blame him for the deed itself, unless he is an accessory.

I want to give you an example. Sir. an everyday example. The board of directors of a newspaper is responsible for the reports appearing in that newspaper, but the task of writing those articles is entrusted to or delegated to the journalists. It has happened before that, as a result of a lack of judgment or a sense of responsibility, articles have appeared in the newspapers that cost those newspapers thousands and thousands of rand in libel cases and claims. But would you blame the chairman of the board of directors for it? Of course not, because although he accepts liability, he was not responsible for the deed itself. And who would slander him because his newspaper lost a great deal of money as a result of a claim for libel, who would think he was a bad chairman, or who would consequently demand his resignation? He may perhaps be the most competent chairman that board of directors has ever had.

In speaking of journalists, I am referring. of course, to the recent reports which I think are still giving the Opposition cold shivers, i.e. when journalists, with calm deliberation, completely discredited the Opposition, particularly the hon. the Leader, on the strength of the poor display against the hon. the Prime Minister when his Vote was under discussion here in the House of Assembly. The English Press has not written so effectively about the truth for a long time, except that they made a mistake in thinking that they were discrediting the Opposition, because there is nothing to discredit. Their poor display against the hon. the Prime Minister is their normal one; we see it every day. The only thing they excel in is the creation of gossip and suspicion, and this also with respect to the integrity and the competence of the leaders and the Ministers in this House of Assembly.

However, I should now like to come back to the principle involved in this case, and also to the sordid attacks by the English Press and the Opposition on the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. More specifically I also want to come back to the principle that we find in the delegation of powers, and the concomitant responsibilities, in any organization. The Opposition did not come along and attack this principle of the delegation of powers—a previous speaker has also mentioned the fact. They would have appeared ridiculous had they done so. But neither did they admit, and this is very important, that there is a great deal of risk attached to the delegation of powers. Had they done so they would have had to be honest with themselves and with the public at large. However, they are no longer able to be honest with themselves and with the public. True to their traditions, they immediately began to gossip and create suspicion about the competence and the integrity of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. If they do not attack the principle of the delegation of powers, they must admit that there is a great deal of risk involved. If they were to do this, they would have to stop slandering the hon. the Minister of Agriculture as if he shared in the liability and responsibility for the commission of an irregularity.

Of course he does.

*Dr. W. D. KOTZÉ: Is the hon. member saying that he shares liability and responsibility for the deed?

He is responsible for his department.

*Dr. W. D. KOTZÉ: My words were that they must stop slandering him as if he shares in the responsibility for the commission of an irregularity, and the hon. member said that he does. If that is the case, hon. members opposite must tell us what they think of the hon. the Minister. They must tell us that they think that he personally shares in the responsibility for the commission of that deed. They must tell us frankly, however.

As soon as powers and responsibilities are delegated, it can validly be expected that the person to whom those powers are delegated, will consult his superior as soon as he is faced with a situation which falls beyond the scope of the powers delegated to him. If he does not do so, this surely does not mean that the person in charge was lax, incompetent or negligent. After all, blame for maladministration and misspending cannot be attached to a Minister if an official is guilty of an irregularity and does not bring a matter to the Minister’s attention through the normal channels. If this happens it means, at most, that an official or an employee was guilty of an irregularity for some reason or other. The reason could be ignorance or incompetence. It could also be over-zealousness or neglect of duty, and it could also mean dishonesty or fraud, This report, however, also very expressly recognizes the fact that there is a risk attached to the delegation of powers. I should like to quote from paragraph 101. The Commissioner states— I

He expressly states that this person neglected his duties by not bringing this matter to the attention of his employer or his chief. In paragraph 115 the Commissioner states further that the result of neglecting to consult his chief was that the State had to pay out millions of rands on the strength of delegated authority that was exercised precipitately and without further independent investigation.

That is the point —precipitately.

*Dr. W. D. KOTZÉ: The hon. member says “that is the point”. I agree with him. The fact that a person, to whom powers are delegated, takes a matter of this scope into his own hands, for whatever reason, is the point. As an employee he should have consulted the hon. the Minister, or whoever the case may be. He did not do so. Now we surely cannot blame the Minister for that,

Of course.

*Dr. W. D. KOTZÉ: On what grounds? The hon. member says “of course”. How can we blame the Minister? I gave him an example of what happens every day in practice. The hon. member claims that the Minister can be blamed. Well, he accepts liability, as I have said, for the actions of his department. I agree with that. But there is quite a difference between liability and responsibility. The Minister accepts liability for restoring the situation, as far as this is administratively possible, but not for the deed itself. After all, he did not commit it. He was not an accessory. How can we now claim that the hon. the Minister is responsible? He is liable—quite correct—but not responsible. I now leave this matter at that.

In the short time I still have at my disposal. I want to touch on three general matters. I am sorry that these hon. members are not here. I should, firstly, like to refer to the remarks and behaviour of a lot of boisterous back benchers on that side of the House. I want to refer, in particular. to a remark that was made in this House last week by an hon. member, when another hon. member on this side asked, on a point of order, whether an improper remark was permissible. I want to state this case for three reasons. It is an indication to me of a lack of party discipline, but that is their affair. But, as far as I am concerned, it is also an indication of a lack of respect for the dignity of this House. Thirdly, I saw in the Sunday Times yesterday that under a banner headline they give recognition to the hon. member’s ” contribution” in that relevant debate, as if this were a tremendous achievement. Sir, I now want you to know what the achievement was, because according to the Sunday Times he made a big contribution in the debate about the shareholdings of Ministers. His “contribution” was an improper interjection, which he was too ashamed to repeat, and which would not have been permissible. That was his contribution to that debate. Then the Sunday Times gives strong recognition to the participation of the hon. member for Florida in the debate about the shareholdings of Ministers. But that was not the only incident. Today, again, an hon. member has to stand up here before me and ask you please to maintain order amongst these hon. members. All they came here to do was to sit and make a noise. One really gains that impression, here where we are sitting amongst them at the hack. I should like the hon. member for Florida’s voters to note this deplorable contribution which he made to that debate.

Mr. Speaker, there is another matter to which I briefly want to refer. I have already done so in passing. This matter concerns the thrashing the Opposition received this year at the hands of the English Press and that after the Prime Minister had warned them this Session that those same newspapers which lauded them last year after the general election would, in due course, destroy them. That process has begun. If one looks at what the newspapers had to say about that poor display, one finds the following statement, for example, in the Rand Daily Mail (translation)—

United Party.

What a desolate statement to make, i.e. that you despair of the party to which you cling. They go further and state—

In other words, even the Rand Daily Mail acknowledges that the public has never seen that party as an alternative Government. That is why that newspaper said that it was an opportunity the United Party could have used to kindle the public's belief in them as a party which could compose a Government. Sir, what a sorrowful phenomenon this is for people sitting in this House!

The last statement to which I want to refer, Sir, reads as follows (translation)—

We still find, Sir, that these people are at their most brilliant when they are indulging in virulent, dirty attacks and gossip. When one policy or standpoint must be matched up against another policy or standpoint, or when they are challenged to answer “yes” or ” no” to a question…

For example?

*Dr. W. D. KOTZÉ:… then they are silent. Hansard is teeming with such examples. Sir, they will also keep silent in future, but the people of South Africa believe in the National Party as the party that will rule this country.

Mr. Speaker, I should very much have liked to reply to the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, because normally he makes a contribution to which everyone can listen, but today I must state that the hon. member said very little to which a person could react without some difficulty. The hon. member says that we cannot blame the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for what happened in the Agliotti case. He says the hon. the Minister is accountable for what is done in his department, but that he cannot be held responsible for what is done here.

*Dr. W. D. KOTZÉ: I said that he is not responsible for the deed itself.

Yes. That statement which the hon. member makes obviously sounds logical, but if the hon. member’s statement is analyzed, it simply means that no Minister can be held responsible for anything that goes wrong in his department, because then it could simply be said that the deed had been carried out by an official and that the Minister is accountable, but not responsible for it. If the hon. member’s statement is analyzed, it means that the entire Parliament as such and the country’s administration become a farce, that is to say, if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept responsibility for what takes place in his department. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus is definitely right about the Minister of Agriculture. I want to indicate as much to this House this afternoon. For as long as he has been Minister of Agriculture, this hon. Minister has never accepted responsibility for anything. He has never accepted responsibility for his policy or lack of agricultural policy in South Africa. Nowhere has he ever accented responsibility. When the hon. the Minister stood up here today, adopting that attitude of his, it did not surprise me in the least. This is how we have come to know him over a period of 13 years during which he has been head of this department. His attitude has always been to try to argue his way out of a matter. Eventually the agricultural industry of South Africa stands alone while the hon. the Minister laughs up his sleeve and says: “Now I have shown you a thing or two.” That is the attitude the hon. the Minister has always adopted. This afternon I am just going to prove it with a few examples.

But before I come to that. I also want to mention a few aspects of the Agliotti case. I think that there is a question that ought to be asked under the circumstances. Why is Mr. Venter now enjoying a vacation overseas and an apparently well-earned rest? I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister, or any other responsible Minister, who is prepared to accept responsibility, sent Venter a cable to say that his leave had been cancelled and that he should return to South Africa immediately. Such questions are of great importance under the circumstances. The hon. gentlemen have now tried to escape the fact that a passport was granted to him. Mr. Agliotti’s was refused, it is true, but Mr. Venter was given one. The hon. the Minister, or any hon. member who speaks after he does, can give us a reply to this.

Then there is another question I want to ask. Today the hon. the Minister said that he and Mr. Hendrik Schoeman. the Deputy Minister, held discussions with Dr. Henning, the chairman of the Land Tenure Board. These discussions took place on the Wednesday.

Friday.

Very well, on Friday, 6th March. Dr. Henning then told them that when the Board had convened on the Wednesday, a case had come before them showing how expensive land in South Africa had become, and that they had to approve R6,3 million for that project. Then the hon. the Minister told us that he had told Dr. Henning that he would like to take the case to the Cabinet. He immediately requested the relevant documents. Those are the hon. the Minister’s words as I wrote them down.

I then told Mr. Viljoen to come along.

Yes. Mr. Viljoen had to come along and give him the documents. Dr. Henning told the hon. the Minister that they had to pray R6,3 million. I now want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he could then immediately see, when the documents of Mr. Viljoen were put before him. that there was a big difference between R6,3 million and R7,5 million, which was to be paid out by the department? When the hon. the Minister saw the considerate difference which Dr. Henning had mentioned, was it then not absolutely necessary for the hon. the Minister, as the hon. member for Yeoville has said, to have taken all possible steps to stop that payment? I think that the fact that there was a considerable increase from the R6,3 million, which Dr. Henning told him about, to the almost R7,5 million, which was paid out, was another reason why the hon. the Minister should have taken immediate action.

There is a second question I should like to ask. In the report on page 31, paragraph 155, in the cross-examination of Mr. Vilioen by this commission, a member of Parliament’s name was mentioned, i.e. that of Mr. Van der Merwe, M.P. of Meyerton.

Who is he?

Yes, I find it strange that in the report they use the name “Mr. Van der Merwe, M.P., of Meyerton”, but that no mention is made of his constituency or his initials.

He is probably that Van der Merwe.

I found it necessary to consult the list of the names of the M.P.’s and to determine which Van der Merwe this was by means of the addresses. It appears to be Mr. Willem Lodewikus van der Merwe, 61, Rietfontein, Meyerton. who is the M.P. for Heidelberg. The hon. member is sitting here in the House, and I should like to know what role he played in this. Apparently the report is not quite clear. The hon. member for Heidelberg ought to tell us what it is all about. According to what the commissioner says in the report, Mr. Viljoen endorsed certain of Mr. Van der Merwe’s correspondence, i.e. “Hier is iemand wat met ons saamstem”. In paragraph 156 I read the following—-

I am entitled to say that I think that the hon. member for Heidelberg implied that Mr. Agliotti was paid too little for this land? In other words, is it actually wrong of Mr. Agliotti to have repaid almost R5 million to the South African Government “as a public-spirited gesture”? This matter is not quite clear to me in this report. It appears to me as if there is one certain M.P. who at that stage thought that Mr. Agliotti was not paid enough for his land.

What do you want to imply by that?

The hon. member for Durban North pointed out that there are certain matters that are not dear, In this connection we do not have the evidence. The report was drawn up, and paragraph 156 is an important paragraph, in which a portion of the hon. member’s letter to Mr. Hendrik Schoeman, the Deputy Minister, is recorded. I think the hon. member for Heidelberg owes this House a reply. He must tell us why he wrote: “Dit lyk dus vir my asof Agliotti nie eers gekry het wat sy eiendom werd is nie”. The State does not want to do anyone down. Neither do I think that this Parliament wants to do anyone down. If Mr. Agliotti was paid too little, if his land is worth much more, I think it only right that someone should tell us that the report is wrong and that Mr. Agliotti should actually have been paid more for that land.

But I said that I would come back to the hon. the Minister. I want to say why I think that the hon. gentleman never accepts responsibility for anything.

That is just a false statement.

What must a man do wrong before he answers for his attitude?

How far must he go?

Yes, how far must he go? Under this hon. gentleman’s guidance more fanners have left the platteland of South Africa in the past 13 years than ever before in South Africa’s agricultural history. Under the guidance of this hon. Minister, as Minister of Agriculture, a price policy was pursued which forced more farmers out of their farming than it enticed into the farming industry. Under the guidance of this hon. Minister the farmers’ burdens of debt increased as never before. But when it was pointed out to him that the debts of farmers had increased considerably, that they amounted to about R1 300 million, it was this same hon. Minister who said that we should nevertheless remember that all their debts were not specifically agricultural debts. Now that the South African farmers are in difficulties, it is this same hon. Minister who claims that a great deal of that debt is to be ascribed to the fact that they have beach cottages, boats and special light trucks with which to tow those boats. It was this same hon. Minister, together with his former colleague. who a few years ago told fanners that they were in that position because had built houses on their farms that we too expensive. It is the same hon. Minister who stood up in this House and told us that he personally had a much better meat scheme than the one being applied in South Africa today. When we asked him why, if he had such a better meat scheme, he did not apply it, he said: “No, the farmers of South Africa, organized agriculture, want the present scheme and therefore I am not prepared to change it”. When last October I sent him a “reply paid” telegram, asking whether they were going to increase the price of bread, it is that same hon. Minister who replied to me that the Cabinet had not yet decided upon the increase in the price of bread.

•Mr. H. VAN Z. CILLIÉ: Before the provincial election?

Yes, it was just before the provincial election. On 1st January of this year this hon. Minister, in his wisdom, decided that he was not going to increase the subsidy on bread, but that he would rather increase the price of bread for the consumer in South Africa. When for years, with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District as spokesman, we advocated to him that changes must be forthcoming with a view to encouraging our dairy farmers to produce more milk, butter and cheese in South Africa, because we would soon be faced with a shortage of these commodities, this fell on deaf ears. But this is the hon. the Minister who is today responsible for this mess we have today in our butter situation in South Africa. When these questions about butter were put to the hon. the Minister he said: “Just keep a stout heart, the ship is coming one of these days and then we will no longer have a butter shortage in South Africa”. Sir, this is same Minister who is at the moment making nearly R3 million profit on the importation of butter. This is the same Minister who is responsible for the fact that butter for the South African housewife has increased to a price as high as 54 cents per 500 grams for 49 cents per lb.

May I put a question to the hon. member? He refers to the profit which the hon. the Minister makes on exporting butter. Is he opposed to South Africa retaining its butter market overseas? *

Sir, the hon. member has the whole story wrong. I am referring to the profit the hon. gentleman is making on the importation of butter. The hon. the Minister is importing butter at about 23i cents per lb. That profit he is making he could just as well have used to subsidize the butter price in South Africa.

What is the subsidy on butter?

It is about R26 million.

What is the subsidy on butter?

R5,7 million.

Well, you know all the figures. What is the subsidy on butter?

The hon. the Minister is probably worried about what the subsidy is. His dairy subsidy is approximately R5 million, but let us say that it is a few cents a lb., whether it is 7 cents, 14 cents or 20 cents per lb., I want to say this to the hon. the Minister: If they say they are also concerned about the outside situation, why are they not prepared to use this profit he is now making to subsidize the butter price for the South African housewife.

But we are doing so.

The hon. gentleman says “we are doing so”. Of course he is doing it, but why is he not prepared to do it to an even greater extent? Why is he not prepared to take it further in the case of bread, for example?

Why do you not ask us to give butter away for nothing?

Sir, if the hon. gentleman is concerned about the cost of living in this country, if he is concerned about the standard of living of the ordinary South African, he would not adopt this attitude. The hon. gentleman knows that this request I am now making to him does not only come from this side of the House: it is a request that comes on behalf of the housewives of this country.

Since you are coming along with requests, why do you not simply ask us to give butter away for nothing; then you surely have better propaganda?

That is an irresponsible statement.

Why should I make such an irresponsible suggestion? Sir, the only thing that we on this side want is this: We do not want the cost of living to increase as it is now doing. A while ago the hon. the Minister of Finance said that we would have considerable increases in the cost of living in the first half of the year, and how right he was! But, Sir, is it going to end after these first six months? I think we can continue to expect the cost of living to increase further in the next six months, and that hon. Minister of Agriculture is responsible for it as a result of the attitude he adopts. The result is that the hon. gentleman has to import butter today, and this has happened before, because there was a lack of planning and, in the second instance, because they do not listen in good time to the warnings given them by the dairy farmers and by organized agriculture in this country. Because you see, Mr. Speaker, at a time when they should have reduced prices, only one thing happened, and that was that more and more dairy farmers were not prepared to produce at that price. That was the reason why farmers were forced out; that is why they sold some of their herds; and that is why they are today trying to find every conceivable reason for the butter shortage in South Africa except that relating to the lack of a price policy on the part of the South African Government. If they had followed the correct price policy, it would not have been necessary for South Africa to have this butter shortage today.

What of the production costs?

Exactly. Production costs have increased and because they have increased, the Minister ought to have helped the farmer. But when he did not do so, there was only one thing for die South African dairy farmer to do, and that was to leave the farming industry. That is why our local production of butter is not increasing. In 1969 our local production was 122 million lbs. In 1970, last year, the production was only 104 million lbs. There was consequently a considerable decrease of almost 15 per cent in our butter production in one year, and it is expected that in this dairy year, 1971, our production will be only about 95 million lbs., a further decrease of about 8,6 per cent in comparison with 1970. If the Minister had taken these facts into consideration, as the dairy farmers warned him to do, he would have given timely encouragement and South Africa would not have been faced with this present-day butter shortage. If he had been at all worried about the ordinary man in the street, if he had been at all worried about the housewife who is today struggling to make ends meet, he would have been prepared to advocate to the Government that the subsidy on butter be increased.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister this question. Did he think the only way of saving the situation would be to increase the price of butter?

He is not even listening.

I want to ask the Deputy Minister of Finance whether any representations were made to the Cabinet by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture about the State increasing its subsidy on butter rather than increasing its price. Would the hon. the Minister tell me?

Where must he get the money?

Now I have the answer. The request was not made, because if it had been made the question about where the money must be found would have been asked. Consequently there is only one way to put things right, and that is to make demands on the consumer. You would not have had that kind of thing under a United Party rule, because we would have ensured that the farmer got his rightful share. When there is an increase in production costs, he would have had an increase in price. But one cannot allow the consumer to pay this considerable increase in the price. That is why this side would have found the solution in ensuring that the money was obtained from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Just to get the hon. the Minister out of trouble, that money that Agliotti paid back could have been used to subsidize the price of butter, and then we would have had no further problems. Thus, for the hon. the Minister to ask where the money would come from, is nonsense. He surely still has a certain amount of money in the Stabilization Fund. It has surely not all been used up by the Minister of Finance. But when this Government is in trouble, there is only one way out, and that is to ask the consumer and the taxpayer to pay their share to balance the Government’s finances. We say that the Government will not be successful with this policy, and that the South African taxpayers and consumers will only become more dissatisfied, until they are relieved of this Government and the United Party comes into power.

Mr. Speaker, today I am very grateful for two things. Strangely enough I owe the hon. member for Newton Park a debt of gratitude because he has given me the opportunity to speak and put forward a matter that I should like to put forward. Since I have not yet been a Member of Parliament for five years, but have been in public life for a long time, I am secondly grateful this afternoon for the fact that it has always been a golden rule, as far as I am concerned, that when I do, say or write anything, I do so in such a way that I shall also be prepared to make my words or actions public, as I am now being given the opportunity to do, without the need to keep anything back.

Because the Opposition is dealing with an honest and courageous Government, they have this opportunity this afternoon of conducting this debate. I am sincerely convinced that if the hon. the Prime Minister and the action begun by the Nationalists, by the hon. member for Boksburg, had not given rise to the appointment of a commission of inquiry by the Prime Minister, the Agliotti case would long ago have been forgotten. I am speaking today as someone who has been in the brick industry for many years. This is an industry that I know and a subject I see my way clear to debating with any hon. member opposite. If the hon. the Prime Minister had not appointed that commission of inquiry, people throughout South Africa, who have the necessary knowledge of clay and the manufacturing of clay products, as I do, would have accepted what was written in the newspapers, i.e. that that property had rich clay deposits. The other 99 per cent of the public would have argued that they knew nothing about the subject, and they would have argued that experts had carried out the valuation. They would then have accepted the situation as such. It is for this reason that I say with great certainty that by taking this step the Prime Minister certainly foresaw that it could perhaps involve inconvenience for him in the future, as was apparent this afternoon. He knew that if the commission's findings were those they actually gave, he, his Government and the Minister would have to answer for it. I want to repeat that if he had not appointed the commission, this case would have been forgotten long ago, and no one would have been the wiser.

I want to acknowledge this afternoon that it is an unfortunate case. It is a case that all of us would probably not have wanted, if we had a choice in the matter. However, I want to say in all reasonableness this afternoon that I cannot place the blame for it at the door of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I also had a look at this report. It shows me two deviations from the norm by an official or officials. Normally in such a case, where minerals or subterranean riches are involved, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure requests a valuation of that land by the Department of Mines. In other words, a valuation is done by people who have a knowledge of minerals. However, this was not done. The second big shortcoming, in my opinion, is the fact that the official did not refer this case to the Treasury either, which is normally also done. I choose to believe that if these two steps had been taken, or if only one of them had been taken, we would not have had this case before us this afternoon.

I now also want to say a few words about part played by the National Party’s in this matter as it developed. I also played a part. On 14th March, 1970, I attended the conference of National Party candidates in Pretoria where our colleague, the hon. member for Boksburg, broached this matter. I now want to be very honest with you this afternoon. I know that some of my colleagues would perhaps not like it if I say this, but I want to do so. I am an honest man. That is why I do not hesitate to say it. If one has worked over the years with something which has brought one prosperity, one develops a respect and a love for it. While the matter was under discussion I felt that morning, because I have a knowledge of clay, that the people who were speaking did not all realize the possible value of clay. I would have liked to take part in the discussion, but I did not get the opportunity. I then drove back to my constituency, because that afternoon I had a church function that I had to attend. After the church function I had to attend a school function. That evening I did not get the opportunity to do what I should have liked to do either. I say again: I did this because I realized the value of good clay, regardless of whose clay it is. If Sir de Villiers Graaff or anyone at all were to tell me this afternoon that he suspected that he had valuable clay on his property, it would stimulate my interest, and I would immediately be prepared to go and have a look and pass a judgment. I was not concerned with whose clay it was, but with the possible worth of valuable clay, such as that discussed at the time. Early Sunday morning I therefore did what I wanted to do on Saturday evening. I picked up my telephone and phoned Deputy Minister Schoeman at his farm, I told him that if there was valuable clay on the property, there was a big possibility that too much had not been paid for the property. Perhaps even ton little had been paid if it were good, valuable clay. I then told him that in a short memorandum I wanted to slate in writing what the value of clay could be. I then did so.

The following evening, Monday evening, there was a further development. The hon. the Prime Minister was addressing an election meeting at Springs, Before the meeting the hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. Jack Steyl and I held a discussion. There was a quick review of the Agliotti matter. I gave the hon. the Prime Minister my opinion of the affair. At the time the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned two very important facts, which I should like to have recorded. He said feat the commission would be appointed. If it appeared that there had been irregularities he, the Prime Minister, would take action and immediately invalidate the entire transaction. We place this to fee credit of the Prime Minister. In the second place the Prime Minister said something that delighted me. He said that if it were found that there was good clay on the property, the airport would have to make other plans, because then it would not be a good thing for South Africa to bury this under an airport. I confirmed this and agreed with the hon. the Prime Minister. That night, when I returned home, I felt that I should write fee hon. fee Prime Minister a short letter, because he and I had discussed fee matter and I wanted to convey more of my views to him. I said in that letter that I was enclosing a copy of the memorandum which I had sent to Deputy Minister Schoeman. I wrote to him as follows (translation)—

The tonnage I could more or less calculate exactly.

Sir, for the sake of interest I should like to just tell you and fee hon. House something in passing. Looking at this council chamber, and I would estimate it to be 25 years in length, 20 yards in width and 20 yards in depth, I calculate a capacity of 10 000 tons. 10 000 tons can be extracted from a mine as large as this council chamber, and if it is a reasonable type of clay, suitable for face bricks, such a mine would yield at least R10 000. I continued by writing fee following to the Prime Minister—

I now want to read to you what I wrote, inter alia, to the hon. Deputy Minister Schoeman. The letter to him is dated 15th March, 1970, and it was written early in the morning on which the report appeared in the Sunday Times. My letter to the Deputy Minister reads as follows (translation)—

I do not want to bore fee House with this, but I went on to explain and I had made a calculation of what the yield would be from a morgen of a poor type of brick day 10 feet thick would be. and what its monetary value could be, in terms of the raw product and a processed product in the form of bricks. In the second place I also made a calculation of what the yield would be in the case of a morgen of good clay, suitable for face bricks and, thirdly, what the yield would be from a morgen of very good clay, suitable for ceramics. I emphasize again that my calculations were based on the supposition that the property had good clay deposits, and after I had made this calculation, I concluded with these words which appear in the report—

[Interjections.]

He is not a vulture like you. [Interjections.]

Order! hon. members must not try to perform the Speaker’s functions. I am warning them now. I have already said this before. The hon. the Chief Whip must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it. Sir. *

Sir. at the time that was my view and my conviction, and it was based on the supposition that there was valuable clay on the property. Today this is no longer my view, because no one ought to know better than Mr. Agliotti whether there is clay on his property or not. I want to say this afternoon that Mr. Agliotti knew that there was no clay of that kind on his property. Why do I say this? I say this because he gave back that R5 million. If he had been convinced of the fact that there was valuable clay on his property, he would not have paid back that money. Had I been in his position, I would not have done it, because I would have known that if assessors were to be appointed as, I believe, they would have been appointed, they would have been able to furnish the necessary proof of what the value of the clay and of the land was. He knows his own property, and I believe that he knew that the clay, which he professed was there, was not present on his property, and that is why he paid back the R5 million. I say again that this was my view at the time. It is no longer my view today. It would have been another matter if the clay had been there. But I do not believe that there is clay there. He admitted as much himself. and that is why he paid back the money. I thank the National Party, my colleague for Boksburg and in particular the hon. the Prime Minister for having taken the courageous step for the sake of South Africa, and having run this risk in the full knowledge that it could bring possible criticism and scorn raining down upon him. He saved the South African taxpayer R5 million.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments of the hon. member for Heidelberg are really very difficult to follow. He is, he claims, an expert in clay and this we readily accept. We accept that he is a day expert and we listened with great interest to his explanation of what the clay might have been worth if it had been there. He started off, when the whole matter was first being discussed, on the assumption that there was clay and that if it was there it was of a certain value. He was even prepared to go so far as to say that if his assumptions were correct, then Agliotti was getting at least as much as he deserved. He is now prepared to deduce ex post facto, because Agliotti felt obliged to refund a certain amount of money to the State, that in fact the clay could not have been there, that the original assumption was incorrect and that the Nationalist Party therefore comes out of this affair with flying colours. This is an absolutely brilliant argument. It does not affect the case at all.

I should like to refer to one further point. It has been averred by that hon. member and by one or two other hon. members that because an inquiry was instituted into this question of clay, this gave rise to a new valuation or a corrected valuation being made which in fact led to the whole case being thrown open. Therefore, it was those who instituted the late inquiry who actually managed to save the State some of this money.

This I think does poor justice to the watchdog of our public finances. We have a Controller and Auditor-General who is to be commended for the vigilance which he exercises in the control of our public accounts. If hon. members would look at the report of the Controller and Auditor- General for l969-'70, they will find on page 417 a reference by the Controller and Auditor-General to the effect that an irregular payment was made. He draws attention in this report to the fact that a cheque was irregularly issued for an amount of approximately R7½ million. He referred to this amount as an unauthorized payment. He says that the Department of Land Tenure then applied to the Treasury for ex post facto authority to make this payment good. This request was refused. It was only after the whole matter had been sorted out and a refund had been made that Treasury then gave ex post facto approval for the payment of the R2½ million to which the purchase price had by then been reduced.

To allege that it was the vigilance of the Government which led to the exposure of this scandal is absolute nonsense. It is the duty of the Controller and Auditor- General to supervise the finances of the Government departments and even if the Government had not stirred a finger I am confident that the Controller and Auditor- General would have duly brought it to the notice of Parliament and the whole thing would have been blown wide open anyway.

I now come to the speech of the hon. member for Odendaalsrus. I should perhaps start my remarks by saying that the nature of the argument conducted by members on that side of the House is rather extraordinary. They take the view that because they took quick remedies and did the best they could to repair the damage as quickly as possible, they therefore have no responsibility whatsoever for the damage done. This is rather like my saving that that member over there is a negligent driver; that he drives negligently, has accidents and causes a great deal of damage all around him; but in his favour one must say that, the accident having been caused, he is very quick to come to the aid of the injured. He is a good man for repairs. Arguing along these lines, the hon. member for Odendaalsrus has in fact praised the actions of the Government in relation to this affair. He cannot see, therefore, that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture really has any responsibility at all for what happened.

I would like to trace some of the hon. the Minister's responsibilities. It so happens that normally appointments of heads of departments are done on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. In the case of the appointment of the head of the Department of Land Tenure, although the Public Service Commission duly submitted a very strongly motivated report for the appointment of a Mr. Steyn, who had in fact been earmarked for that job, this was overridden by the Cabinet. The report of the Public Service Commission for 1969 says on page 9, paragraph 81—

And so on. He therefore intervened. Then the report goes on—and this is a pregnant sentence—-

I repeat “the Cabinet also held this view”.

We had the same last week with regard to sport, don’t you remember? Last week you wanted me to resign.

If the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation has finished disporting I will be glad to continue. We here have a case where the Public Service Commission, after due consideration, recommends a man for a post. It is their job to do so. It is rare for their recommendation or opinion to be overruled. In this case the hon. the Minister of Agriculture did so overrule their recommendation and the Public Service Commission reports that he did so repeatedly and with the knowledge of the Cabinet. When this happens one would argue that the Cabinet in general, and the hon. the Minister in particular, who has insisted on this particular appointment, should bear a very special responsibility for the behaviour of that senior official whom he has appointed. If, for example, a head of a department had been appointed on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and the hon. the Minister had not intervened he would still have borne a responsibility to ensure that that department, from its head down to the very bottom, was operating in an efficient and proper manner. Where he intervenes and overrides the Public Service Commission, however, and appoints a man who in the view of the Public Service Commission is not considered on merit or seniority to be the right man for that post, he bears a very special responsibility. The hon. the Minister now has his own man as head of the department and he obviously delegates to him a great deal of responsibility. He is entirely satisfied that everything is operating in the best possible way in the best of possible worlds.

He then goes on to his second mistake, namely the question of delegation. The whole matter of delegation has been argued and I would like to lay down this essential principle which I think is recognized in the field of public administration. It is entirely permissible for a Minister to delegate some of his functions. But a Minister can never delegate his responsibilities. This is the point. If the hon. the Minister delegated certain functions, then it is a matter for his discretion how far he should go. If he feels that he is delegating a wide discretion in regard to functions, then he must provide his own checks and balances and he must remain satisfied that this delegation will not be abused. What he cannot delegate, is his responsibility. Our charge against the hon. the Minister is that he also delegated his responsibility. It is not good enough to stand up in this House and say: “Because I delegated my functions to a civil servant, I also absolved myself of all responsibility.” He is doing nothing more than hiding behind that civil servant.

It is the duty of a Minister to maintain vigilance over his department. This is the whole basis of our democratic system. You have a bureaucracy. You have an executive. It is right that Parliament should hold Ministers responsible for the actions of that executive. The Minister who is responsible to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the people of the country, must be held responsible for everything that is done by the executive branch and the administrative branch. If that Minister is not vigilant, then Parliament and the nation rightly call him to account. I should like to give an example of what is meant by vigilance. I, myself, had the privilege of serving under another Minister, Mr. Eric Louw. I can assure this House that Mr. Eric Louw would not only have exercised vigilance over such matters as R7½ million, but that he would have exercised equal vigilance over such matters as R750. It was unthinkable in his department that anybody would spend money unauthorized, that anybody would take decisions affecting the finances of his department without referring that matter to him. Practically the only matter he overlooked—perhaps he even went too far—was the purchasing of pencils, erasers and fountain pen ink. However, beyond such minor matters, he was interested in every aspect of his department's administration. He would not let a thing pass without being informed as to what was going on. It was because of the climate which he created, because of the atmosphere of vigilance and interest which radiated from him, that abuses could not take place in that department. We say that that kind of climate did not exist in the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. If it had, these officials would not have dreamed of taking a chance as they did. It would then have been unthinkable to do these things because they would have known that their vigilant Minister, if he had been of the kind which I have described, would have caught them out the very next day. It was because their whole action was preceded by a climate of indifference and carelessness that these officials thought they could get away with it. These officials were senior officials, men of experience. They were not children. They are not fools. They did not think they were dealing with a matter of no importance. They knew very well that what they were doing was a matter of the highest importance. R7½ million is a very large chunk of the country’s finances. They knew this perfectly well. They nevertheless believed that the climate of indifference, indolence and inefficiency in their department was such that they could pay out R7½ million in this way without authority, without proper consultation, and get away with it. It is no good saying that after this happened, various steps were taken, that the hon. the Minister was vigilant and active and effective, because as soon as he found out it happened, he tried to do something about it. We are not even convinced on that score, Sir, but what we are convinced of is that before the thing happened the climate in that department must have been one of complete inefficiency and complete carelessness towards the expenditure of public money.

Sir, I would like to make one more point on this subject, before I go on to another one. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in his Administration. It is all very well for hon. members on that side of the House to say that he knew nothing about it; that when he learned about it, he did what he could, and certainly no one is accusing the hon. the Prime Minister of any kind of impropriety of conduct in relation to this affair. But, Sir, the Prime Minister does bear responsibility for the manner in which his Administration conducts the affairs of this country. The Prime Minister shrugs off responsibility in this matter. The Prime Minister must take his choice. He can either ask for the resignation of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and in so doing admit openly and frankly to the public that a grave mistake has been made and that he is prepared to take the necessary steps to show that this kind of error, this kind of misconduct, will not take place again. This would be the proper and normal way for a Prime Minister to act when one of his Ministers is shown to have conducted the affairs of his department in such a way as to bring about this kind of public scandal. He can take that course, Sir, and he will then convince the people that although a great mistake has been made in the administration he is prepared to take the responsibility for it. The alternative. Sir, is to condone what has happened. He can say, “I am not responsible; my Minister is not responsible; it is an administrative error and it is too bad”, and condone what has happened. But then, Sir, he will be seen by this Parliament and by the public of South Africa as being tolerant of inefficient, extravagant and incompetent administration. Those are his choices.

Sir, I would like to come now to another topic, the question of the Common Market. It is over 20 years since the Treaty of Rome was signed. This was a treaty whereby countries of Western Europe decided to form a common market for their common good. It is 20 years ago since that took place and many things have happened since then. It is at least ten years ago that the intention of the United Kingdom to join the Common Market became clear. It has always been clear to us, I think, what the impact of United Kingdom membership of the Common Market would be in broad terms. It was clear to all of us who were interested in South Africa's economy and in South Africa’s trade position that if Britain were to join the Common Market, this would be highly detrimental to those special trade links which South Africa always enjoyed with Britain. It was obvious that South Africa would lose her preferential tariffs in Britain and that eventually, in respect of the whole of the Common Market area, that is to say, in Britain and Western European countries, South Africa would face uniform E.E.C. tariffs.

Sir, behind this broad and somewhat obvious fact, there are many matters of detail which have been closely studied by our economists and notably by our officials, both at home and abroad, for a great many years. It has been their duty, in the first place, to identify the commodities which would suffer in consequence of Britain joining the Common Market. It is quite clear what these are: They are mainly the products of the South-Western Cape, such as fruit, fruit juices, wines and liquors. There is a further commodity affected by this, notably sugar, because a great many of the fruit products, particularly canned fruit products, carry an element of sugar and this is at present taxed in Britain at a special preferential rate. On entry into the Common Market, on crossing the tariff frontiers of the Common Market, this sugar also would attract a much higher rate. The present position is likely to be reversed. From where we enjoyed the special tariffs, an advantage which was calculated to be worth at least 6 per cent on price, we now have to sell in a Common Market where the disadvantage in relation to the other producers of these particular products may be as high as 50 per cent if the sugar content of these products is taken into account.

We have identified the commodities and these are known. Attempts have also been made to identify the time factor, namely when Britain will be admitted as a member of the Common Market and how long it would take Britain to align her tariffs with those of Common Market countries, in other words when the full impact will take place. We have studied, or should have studied, the problem of the processing industry. It is said that some R60 million is invested in the fruit and liquor processing industry in the Western Cape. This is obviously a major investment factor which needs the most careful study and investigation in order to ensure that the impact on this very important sector of our capital equipment is protected.

It is quite clear that if we lose these large and important markets—Britain takes about a third of our exports—one of she things we would have to do is to study the possibility of finding alternative markets. One alternative market is the South African market itself. At the moment the South African market takes only about 10 per cent of these products. What should have been done and what must be done is that far more attention be given to the development of the South African domestic marketing of these products. This is not the whole answer, and is only a very small part of it, but it would make a contribution. We still need to find markets which will earn us the foreign exchange which we are likely to lose when Britain enters the Common Market. There is the whole question of the exploration of foreign markets. We must look at our own productive economy in this field. We must also study what can be done to adapt ourselves to this new challenge. There is. for example, the case of the Citrus Board which, while its actions have not been without reproach in every respect, has in fact had the good horse sense to develop its markets in Europe. It has gone out of its way with some most imaginative schemes and has secured allocations, with the help of the Government, for the sale of oranges in Europe in their off-season. This kind of aggressive action has in fact assured that in the case of citrus the damage done will not be nearly as great as would be the case with deciduous fruits. We have deciduous fruits, such as apples and pears, which are highly vulnerable to Britain’s entry into the Common Market. There are other fruits, such as peaches, apricots, grapes and so on, which might in fact through the same sort of action as has been undertaker by the Citrus Board, namely by the judicious exploitation of the seasonal differences, by the development of new markets, by advertising, and by initiative, be marketed by action of this kind. All these studies have to some extent already taken place and officials are to be commended for the industry with which they have tackled these problems.

But what has been done actively and effectively to prepare our way for this almost certain event which is due to take place? It is my charge that South Africa and this Government have wasted a great deal of time. It is a fact that Ministers have repeatedly visited Europe purporting to be studying the problems of the Common Market. What they have done is to ask repeatedly and to the embarrassment of our embassies abroad the same questions year after year. The study has continued year after year and they have received the same answers, slightly up-dated year by year. But what have they in fact done? It is for those people to make the studies and to inform the Ministers. That is fair enough, but it is for the Ministers to act. What I am asking tonight is what effective action has been taken in preparation for what is to take place.

I would like to read, in case anyone should think that I am exaggerating, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs’ own words describing his previous visit to the Common Market countries, and his intentions for his more recent one. I am quoting from Hansard, column 7850—

Now, “frank discussions” had been going on for ten years. He went back for some more—

That is first, second and last. He then goes on to discuss the purpose of his most recent visit. He said he would have a conference with our Ambassadors in the E.E.C. countries and with our Ambassador in London. Now, Sir, these very same Ambassadors had been reporting on these very same matters for the past ten years, and I have no doubt, they still do. Nevertheless, a discussion was necessary. He goes on in column 7856—

That is a good formula!

Ten years have passed, and this is how far we have got.

It is quite clear that we should seek out other markets. We must develop new markets urgently and we have to find the right places for them, I suggest, for example, that Africa and the Far East offer better possibilities than some other areas. We must exploit the possibility of seasonal markets. We have the great advantage of being in the Southern Hemisphere. This is something which, with initiative, imagination, and advertising enterprise, can be exploited to a large extent. We must adapt our local production in respect of processing, if necessary. We must develop our South African markets We must ensure that, if we have to give relief and subsidy, these are of a temporary nature and do not become permanent. South Africa cannot afford to subsidize these industries forever. We must take effective action, which we have not seen and which we hope to hear more about from the Minister. We do not want to hear about the talks which have taken place. We know they have been going on for ten years.

Suggest something constructive. Tell us what would you do.

The whole of this Common Market episode has been a long story of delay and dithering, of incompetence and confusion. We are waiting for action. We want to know what is going to be done for this most important sector of our economy. If the Government is not up to the task of planning for this important change which is to affect an important area of South Africa, they must give way to another Government. We want a Government which can lead, adapt and inspire. We want a Government to whom economics is not a closed book. The Common Market may hold the possibilities of a grave crisis and certainly a great challenge. In the face of crises, this Government tends to vacillate. In the face of challenge, it tends to surrender. In respect of the Common Market, we wish neither to fear this crisis nor do we wish to evade the challenge. We believe it is most important for the economy of South Africa, particularly at this time of growing trade deficits, that this problem, this challenge, this conflict has to be met and defeated. We have heard all about these meetings, about the studies, difficulties and problems. Let us hear now about the solutions. Let us hear about the way in which we are going to solve this problem to the benefit of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, what struck me during the past session was the fair degree of unanimity displayed by the United Party on two occasions. In the first instance, at the commencement of the parliamentary session at the beginning of this year, it was stated with great acclaim that the United Party would make short shrift of the National Party in the no-confidence debate. This was announced with great acclaim because this matter enjoyed great publicity in the English language Press. Sir, you know what the outcome, on a subsequent occasion, was of that major attempt the United Party was supposed to have launched.

The second occasion on which I noted a fairly large degree of unanimity among the members of the United Party, was towards the end of the session when a hue and cry was raised once more in an attempt to close on a high note. We have seen in this debate so far that this hue and cry has abated and died away. As I say, there was a fair degree of unanimity on those two occasions. As far as I could see. those were the only two occasions on which the United Party reached unanimity. This was so because the newspapers, in both cases, told them what to do. As far as the second occasion is concerned, one was able to read in the Sunday Times yesterday in great detail the entire speech made by the hon. member for Durban Point. The speech the hon. member for Durban Point made this morning was given to him word for word in the Sunday Times. As a result o£ the things said by that newspaper every member on that side of the House had the opportunity of studying those statements and these points of attack and they were consequently able to display a fair degree of unanimity in this House this afternoon. There was unanimity among the members of that Party because they were able to attack the National Party. This Party, which has done nothing but good for South Africa over the past 23 years, must now be belittled and these Ministers, as well as the hon. the Prime Minister, have to be attacked and belittled.

Throughout this session hon. members on that side of the House failed to come forward with positive and productive criticism. Not one single matter has been raised in this House which one could listen to in order to ascertain what it is the United Party has to offer. But when it comes to criticism, one finds that these people present a common front, because their actions then are the same as those of the gossip-mongering little party which is now putting up a candidate in the Water berg election. Their method of action is to speak derogatory from and cast suspicion upon leaders. As far as the Agliotti case is concerned, the true state of affairs have been stated quite clearly by the hon. the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and other members on this side of the House.

But, Sir, this did not satisfy them. The people of South Africa must know that we have a United Party in this country and we must go from here with the same hue and cry that was raised in coming to Cape Town. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave us a code of behaviour as far as the Ministers are concerned. He said he was prepared to ask his Ministers for a balance sheet in respect of their shares, and so forth, if he were to come into power one day. The Leader of the Opposition committed himself in this regard. The Agliotti case has been discussed here throughout the afternoon and the question of the delegation of the powers of Ministers, something which has been applied through the years, has been raised. I now want to ask the Leader of the Opposition what he is going to do in this regard. Is he going to allow his Ministers to delegate their powers, yes or no?

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

Evening Sitting

Mr.

Speaker, I was dealing with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when the House adjourned. I referred to the code of behaviour the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was going to lay down for his Ministers if they were to come into power again one day. He said he would demand from each of his Ministers a balance sheet showing his shares and assets in order to judge whether such a person would be able to handle the interests of the country. Furthermore, I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question in regard to the delegation of powers. It is a pity the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here to reply to those questions. I take it the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not think it necessary to furnish me, as a banckbencher in this House, with the replies to these questions. It may also be that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not see his way clear to furnish replies to these questions. The fact of the matter is, or I would rather say I presume that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will also allow powers to be delegated through his Ministers. Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition called upon the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to resign for not having correctly delegated or used, according to the Opposition, the powers he had delegated, I take it that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when he delegates powers, will also call upon his Ministers to resign. In other words, what we have here is a completely clear code of conduct laid down by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in which he tells us how he is going to act when they come into power one day. I now want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if that is the attitude he is going to adopt towards his own Cabinet, towards the people in whom he puts his trust, it reflects, in my opinion, the same altitude this Opposition Party displays through its leader and the policy it advocates in regard to the people of South Africa, i.e. a lack of confidence, because how can one possibly have confidence in people who have constantly been letting you down over a period of 23 years? When listening to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition it is quite clear to me that he suffers from a complete lack of confidence and that is why he is trying to make out a case by laying down such a code of conduct in order to get at the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Let us look at the position of agriculture in 1948 in pursuance of what was said by the hon. member for Newton Park here. He said that this Minister of Agriculture never wanted to accept any responsibility and that when one wants to try and argue with him, he always tries to get out of the argument. Consequently, he says, the farmer in South Africa stands alone. When we look at Hansard, column 2515, of 2nd March, 1948, we will see what the attitude of a previous United Party Government was towards the farmer of South Africa. When the question of the bywoner and sharecropper in this country was discussed at that stage, it was said that they had become a tradition and that these people were happy and content. It was also said that these people preferred to remain bywoners instead of buying land. That was the attitude their Minister of Lands at that time displayed towards the farmers of South Africa. I find it reprehensible of the hon. member for Newton Park to say that this Minister has never accepted any responsibility towards the farmers of South Africa and that when one argues with him he always tries to get out of the argument, while the farmer of South Africa stands alone.

What was the position in 1948? When the National Party came into power in 1948 we had meatless days. We had to inquire at every little shop whether it had a piece of organdy to sift flour with The flour had to be sifted to get rid of the bran and rubbish it contained so that one would be able to bake a loaf of bread. In those days it was impossible to bake a cake for a wedding or an occasion of that nature. There was no food in South Africa. We can still recall how we had to buy petrol with coupons and that we had to produce coupons with which to buy half a bag of mealie-meal. That was the position. In those days we had 125 000 farmers on the farms.

I want to ask the hon. member whether the sacrifices he mentions were not essential to ensure the freedom of being able to sit in a free Parliament as he is sitting over there now… [Interjections.]

The hon. member has put a question to which I want to reply by telling him that the flagrant irresponsibility on the part of the United Party Government towards the farmers of South Africa was responsible for the fact that there was no food in this country. Those are the facts of the matter.

On 2nd March, 1948, (column 2515 of Hansard) the hon. the Minister of Lands replied saying that every farmer now had his bywoner. He said that almost every farmer in South Africa had his bywoner. In other words, if my calculations are correct, it means that 50 per cent of our people belonged to the bywoner class. This is a word this side of the House detests. That is why the National Party tried to give co-ownership of the land of South Africa to the people of South Africa who were interested in farming. Everything possible was done to give these people a piece of land.

We are tackling major projects at the present moment. We are tackling water projects in this country in order to exploit and irrigate our country to provide a livelihood for those people who are interested in farming on organized irrigation lands. Now that we have fewer farmers in South Africa the United Party blames the Government for having ensured that the farmer of South Africa is economically independent and sound. I should like to quote a few figures in regard to maize. When this figure is calculated on an average five-yearly basis, the production of maize in South Africa dropped from 5,6 bags per morgen to 5,5 bags during the 20 years preceding the coming into power of the National Party. During the first ten years after the National Party had come into power production increased from 5,5 to 9,5 bags per morgen. In addition, the land under cultivation increased from 3,4 million morgen to 5,4 million morgen. This should be viewed as a whole. Up to the present production has increased to 14,9 bags per morgen. Land under maize at present totals 6,2 million. I challenge the United Party and the hon. member for Newton Park to tell me in which part in the country, where it rains, one will find a lack of confidence in agriculture. It is a different matter in those parts where it did not rain and where one may find there a temporary feeling of despondency amongst our people. But then the National Party has made arrangements in various spheres. I do not want to waste the time of the House by mentioning them, but the National Party has rendered substantial aid in order to help these farmers to overcome their problems in the transitional period.

The hon. member for Newton Park once again raised the question of the debts of the farmers. When the hon. the Minister told him that he should bear in mind that the entire burdens of debt of the farmer could not be attributed only to agriculture but that other goods were bought as well, he was the one who mentioned Cadillacs. On a subsequent occasion the hon. member tried to make us believe that the hon. the Minister said that the farmers had bought Cadillacs. In this way the United Party always tries to distort the truth.

In regard to the meat position, we know that the increased production in this country was such that the existing facilities are inadequate to handle this amount of meat. Furthermore, the hon. member spoke about bread. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that bread is being subsidized by this Government to the extent of R29 million? This is an enormous amount. But when the prices of produce were increased this year as a result of the fact that this Government showed a great deal of sympathy towards the farmers of South Africa, the United Party was most unwilling to express its gratitude. Not one of them was prepared to thank this Government on behalf of the farmers of South Africa, a few of whom are represented by those hon. members. However, these are the people who at election times, want to make the fanners of our country believe that they are the champions of the farmer in this House. That is not so. The farmers of South Africa, under this Government, had their share of the prosperity which was possible in this country.

What we had from the hon. the Opposition was a little brochure. They speak about production costs, as did the hon. member for Newton Park tonight. He said that the production costs of the farmers would be taken into account and that their profit would be added afterwards, Those of us concerned with agriculture, who live on the farms and who get up there in the morning, who have a love of the land and who want to farm, and who will not be dependent upon dole-outs but who want to do our share and carry out the traditional task of the farmer in South Africa, can see through this bluff of the United Party. Owing to the climatic conditions in South Africa it is simply impossible to say that the Government would be repaired every time to guarantee the farmers their production costs plus their profits. This is simply impossible.

Every time important matters were discussed in this House during the past session the United Party kept silent and refused to adopt a standpoint. That was the code of behaviour adopted by the United Party. I have indicated the hue and cry they and their newspapers raised before the commencement of this session. It is quite clear to me that, through their newspapers which tell them what to say and do and which published word for word the entire speech made by the hon. member for Durban North yesterday, they have been trying to leave this House with as much acclaim at the end of the Parliamentary session. This would be the only way in which they can let the people of South Africa know that the United Party still exists. But this United Party wants to get back into power. They have repeatedly told us that they want to get back into power. From all the arguments they have advanced it was quite clear that they do not care what kind of arguments they advance, as long as they can get back into power. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said on occasion that 70 per cent of our people have to live on 13 per cent of our land. When an Opposition, of whom it is expected to act in a responsible manner, advances arguments such as these it places South Africa in an embarrassing position. This confused standpoint adopted by the United Party in respect of a people consisting of a population of 20 million, as they say we have in South Africa, is not only confusing to the people in South Africa who listen to them and who believe them, but it is particularly confusing to the outside world against whom South Africa has to make out a case every day.

The hon. member for Durban Point said this afternoon that, in 1948, he was proud of being called a citizen of South Africa; proud to display the orange flash on his shoulder.

I am still proud.

In other words, what the hon. member for Durban Point implied was that he is no longer proud to be a citizen of South Africa.

That is untrue,

That is so. Every time this United Party has to advance arguments they do not care to what extent they embarrass South Africa. The National Party Government is governing this country in a highly responsible manner. The National Party, unlike the United Party, is not prepared to bruit abroad popular and cheap stories throughout the country and in the rural areas in particular when it comes to election times. This Government is prepared to develop the country systematically and in a balanced way within the growth rate that has been laid down.

Against the background of this picture I want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park that this Government will look after the interests of the farmer of South Africa because this Government knows that, when a strong economy has to be built up in a country, when such a country has become an industrial country, when a strong Defence Force has to be established, when one has to have huge food supplies for emergencies, it is essential for such a government to look after the interests of its farmers. For that reason we, as farmers, are confident and we know that we have in power in South Africa a Government which is not only prepared to show towards the farmer the same respect the farmer shows towards the Government, a Government which is not only prepared to show respect towards every inhabitant of this country, whether White. Brown or Black, but a Government that will see to it that the farmer of South Africa will never become dependent upon the United Party,

I want to quote one figure in respect of the income earned by our young people last year. An amount of R555 million was earned by our young people between the ages of 18 and 23 years last year. This is equal to approximately twice the value of a normal maize crop in one year. What we are dealing with in South Africa, is relations between the peoples, and the future. And because we have to build a future for this country, we should ensure that the relations between our various national groups here in South Africa is such that there will be harmony, co-operation and mutual respect. What this Government is doing, is building a future not only for that for which we accept responsibility today, but also for our young people who have to develop this fine land of ours even further. When we consider the capabilities and the income of these people with a view to what is held up to them in the future in a country which enjoys peace and prosperity, I am convinced that we can leave here and go back to our homes knowing that our young people will also support the policy of this Government.

In conclusion I just want to say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition holds a record in that he has been moving motions of no-confidence in this House for a period of 19 years. It is only in that respect that he beats the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture has been the Minister of Agriculture for 13 years in this country and through these years we have come to know him as a person who is honest in his dealings with our farmers, a person who does not bruit abroad popular stories, but who knows the agriculture in South Africa better than any of his predecessors did, a person who knows the farmers of South Africa, who knows agriculture and who will develop agriculture in a manner that will redound to the honour of the National Party and for the benefit of all of us; not only of those who are concerned with agriculture, but also those concerned with the other sectors.

On a point of personal explanation. Sir, the hon. member who has just sat down accused me of having stated this afternoon that I was not proud of being a South African.

He is right.

I wish to place on record, Sir, that that is totally untrue and that what I said was that at the end of the last war we walked with pride as South Africans in the capitals of foreign countries. I did not say, and I wish to record it, that I was not proud to be a South African. I am proud to be a South African even if I am not always proud of my Government.

Sir. the hon. member for Heilbron made an interesting speech. He started with Agliotti and then he veered further and further away from Agliotti until he eventually ended up in 1948. And when he came to 1948. he veered back, and the strange thing is that the hon. member ended with Agliotti again. It seemed to me as if the hon. member had the name “Agliotti” on the brain. I do not blame him for that, because it is an interesting case.

Sir, the second point I should like to make with reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Heilbron is this: He probably mentioned the name of the Sunday Times ten times. The Sunday Times is a newspaper, and I can fully appreciate that the hon. member for Heilbron and other hon. members on that side are extremely uneasy when it comes to newspapers, of both launguage groups, for was it not in fact a Nationalist newspaper that blazed this matter abroad? It was Die Beeld, not so? Let us rather leave that matter at that. Sir, I am very glad that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is present, because I have an idea that not very long ago a certain case in South-West, which also fell under his department, was also made public by a newspaper. This was the case of the renowned, or famous, Mr. Strauss.

Are you gossiping again?

They are touchy.

Sir, the hon. member asks whether I am gossiping. If he thinks I am gossiping, I want to remind him that the gossip campaign was started by the Press of that side of the House and not of this side of the House. It was leading newspapers of that side of the House that started pointing out to the people the rumours which were going round, because those newspapers, which have their ears to the ground, knew that it is these rumours which in fact do such tremendous harm to that party.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. With all due respect, Sir, that hon. member cannot corner me with any question of his. I come back to the hon. the Minister. A high-ranking official in his department allotted himself a farm in South-West at a very reasonable price, and after having allotted himself the farm at a very reasonable price, he obtained a mortgage bond on the same farm, a bond for almost three times the value of the farm.

But that is a Wiley story.

No, Sir, it is not a Wiley story; it is a newspaper story which happens to be the truth. That hon. Minister then took action and declared the transaction null and void, but only after having read about it in the newspapers. *

No, not at all.

If the hon. the Minister did not read about it in the papers, it is strange that it took him months to become aware of the position and to find out about that story. I say it is strange that the hon. the Minister found it out shortly after reports about it had appeared in the newspapers.

I should now like to deal with the Agliotti case for a moment. I also read the report and I remember thinking that we were dealing here with a department which was engaged in the biggest single land transaction in its history. The question that occurs to me is how it is possible that the biggest land transaction, amounting to R7½ million, did not even come before the Cabinet, while a case such as that of a Japanese jockey was indeed discussed by the Cabinet. The matter did not even come before the Minister, but when a Chinese schoolchild takes part in a game, a Minister is quick to act. However, when the department is dealing with the biggest transaction in its existence, i.e. one of R7½ million, the hon. the Minister does not know about it and has to learn of it by chance. I want to repeat that this is the strangest and most unbelievable case I have ever come across in my life.

The hon. member for Heilbron asked how we could blame the hon. the Minister and why we paid attention to gossip. Does the hon. member really think that we must keep quiet when this kind of thing happens? Does he expect an Opposition which is worth its salt to keep quiet when the Department of a Minister makes such blunders? [Interjections.]

Order!

This side of the House has a duty to fulfill towards the people outside, and we shall not ask that hon. member whether we may do so or not. We shall do it as we think fit. The hon. member also spoke about the delegation of powers. The hon. member for Von Brandis stated the matter very clearly this afternoon.

To what people are you referring?

I am referring to the people who will oust that hon. member at the next election. [Interjections.]

Order! hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech. If they do not want to do so, I know what to do. I have been calling for order all evening. The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. member for Heilbron spoke about the delegation of powers, and now he is again looking to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for guidance. He wants to know what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would do under certain circumstances. I now want to tell the hon. member that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would expect Ministers to delegate their powers as it is done in any country. But the hon. the Leader would not expect his Ministers to delegate their responsibilities as well. This is precisely what the hon. the Minister wants to do. How far must a department go wrong and to what extent must a department blunder and muddle before this House can say that a Minister is not doing his work? How far must an hon. Minister go wrong before the hon. the Prime Minister will tell him to resign? When do we reach that point? How far does the hon. the Minister think things have to go wrong first? We are now told that they have learned a lesson and that the matter has been rectified. However, this is an expensive lesson for South Africa, costing R7,5 million…

We retrieved R5 million of that.

Order! The hon. member for Welkom must contain himself. *

The hon. member says that a certain amount was retrieved and I know that the Sunday Times and the Government are now competing as to who retrieved that money, but I do not pay any attention to that. The Government may compete with the Sunday Times if it wishes to do so, and I have an idea that the Government will lose, but I leave it at that. However, this is an expensive lesson for any nation, and I want to return to the cardinal question, i.e. how many mistakes of this nature must be made before an hon. Minister will have the courage to say: “I have bungled and I now resign from the Cabinet, because I am responsible for this department”.

Hear, hear!

The hon. the Prime Minister is always very quick—and I say this with respect—to say: “I have the courage of my convictions”. I do not blame him for saying that; but I wish he would imbue his hon. colleagues with that courage, so that the hon. the Minister will also say: “No country can afford this”. The hon. member for Durban Point said this afternoon: “I am proud of being a South African”. I submit for the consideration of this House that a people and a country cannot be proud of this kind of action. One cannot be proud of being a South African while in other Western countries a Minister resigns for something far less serious. Then my own hon. Minister tells me that he need not resign. He, and he alone, is to blame for these things having happened. If his department had known that he was exercising the necessary control. they would not have dared to do such a thing. But it is because they know that they may possibly get away with this kind of thing that they did so. Now the question occurs to me—are there not perhaps actions with which they do in fact get away? How do we know? Only the tip of the big iceberg has come to light. Where are the other matters which do not come to light?

What are you insinuating?

I say there has been negligence of the highest order in that department. One of the examples has come to light, and one cannot blame the people for asking: “Are there not more such examples of which we do not know?” No one can blame the people for that. The hon. the Prime Minister says that the crux of the whole matter was the valuation, the clay content of the land. Everything hinged on that. If the valuation had been correct, no problems would have arisen. Why did the hon. the Prime Minister have to find this out? Was it not the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture to establish this very point? Why did the hon. the Prime Minister concern himself with these matters? Up to this evening, after all the talk by Ministers and hon. members, we are still looking for the cheque. Where is it? What has become of it? I know that up in Kimberley there is a cheque of Rhodes for £5 million; it is framed. It is strange that we cannot find the R7½ million cheque to frame it. This is the kind of cheque that should be framed in South Africa.

Now the hon. member for Heilbron put the following question to my hon. Leader. He told my Leader; ” You now want to lay down certain limits as far as shareholding is concerned.” “You want to do this,” he said, “because you do not have confidence in your people.” Sir, that is not the point. The point which my hon. Leader has in mind is that he wants to show the people outside that they can have confidence in the people sitting in the Cabinet. That is the point. The people have to know. They must be able to see from the actions of the Cabinet that they are worthy of their trust. That is why my hon. Leader raised the point.

But I want to deal with something else. The hon. the Prime Minister recently made the closing speech at the Republic Festival. There he raised a few illuminating points, which may perhaps be mentioned here this evening. He said the next four, five years would be decisive in the history of South Africa. When I heard those words, I asked myself, if the next five years are going to be so decisive, what is the human material, particularly in the Cabinet, which the hon. the Prime Minister has at his disposal and with which he has to lead South Africa in the next five decisive years? The hon. the Minister of Agriculture, must we say more than has been said already, except that he is trying to disguise and sell margarine as butter?

I have a record which you will never achieve in your whole life.

Thank heavens I shall never achieve that record. I accept that the United Party is not a party which disguises. That is the point. Let us leave the hon. the Minister at that now and come to the hon. the Minister of Finance. Let us go down the line. Which hon. Minister of Finance has ever taxed the people of South Africa more cold-bloodedly—and I say this with respect—than this hon. Minister has? I am a representative of a constituency in which there are many people who are not rich. I am in a constituency…

They already rejected you once.

Yes, but they took me back because they know that I look after them. I represent a constituency in which there are poor people and I want to tell this House this evening that the people are perturbed about the fact that the ordinary salaried men and the wage earner simply cannot make a living anymore today. There is no doubt about that. I see that there is talk of petitions in the North. Things always start on the Rand, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister today that he is not far from petitions here in the Peninsula as well. Does the hon. the Minister know who the leaders of that petition will be? They will not be United Party supporters, but Nationalists! Yes, Nationalists will head those petitions, because they have to take such a beating from that hon. Minister.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No.

Does the hon. member live in that constituency?

Order! The hon. member is not prepared to reply to a question.

I almost answered that question.

Answer it.

The hon. member asks whether I live in my constituency. Why does the hon. member not ask where the hon. member for Moorreesburg lives? Does he live down there among the fishermen? No, he may have fishing shares, but he does not live among them. Hon. members may just as well forget about questions of that kind. One need not live among people in order to be able to serve them. We no longer live in the days of the ox-wagon, when it took three hours to trek one mile. We have motor-cars now, and it takes me five minutes to get there and to render good service there. The people will not easily forgive the hon. the Minister of Finance for the last Budget.

The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs said this afternoon that it really is very nice if one does not have a policy.

it is not nice, it is difficult.

For the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs to say such a thing, goes beyond my comprehension. He talks about a roof knowing full well that there is no roof. He talks about a house with a policy roof, but there is no roof. He talks about full human dignity, but he knows for a fact that his party has placed the Coloured population on the road to nowhere.

We discussed that matter fully last week.

He explained it to us a few days ago, but that party has no policy for the political future of the Coloured people in the Cape and in South Africa. They know it too. We now come to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, not even to mention the hon. the Minister of the Interior, Oh, I do not think I should talk about him. He will probably have read the Sunday Times over the week-end. Where can the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development find a department which runs away faster from the crux of the problem than his own department? They are the ones who are building a sham political house behind the mountains while they are running away from the Bantu in the cities. They have no solution and the hon. the Minister knows it. Why is this the case? We have migrant labourers, but they do not exist.

No, they do exist.

Yes, they exist only as numbers. They are just like pawns in a game of chess and the hon. Ministers move them about. What is the crux of the problem? It is not a problem of the Bantu behind the mountains, the Bantu who are being hidden there; the problem is where the Bantu find themselves together with the Whites. The Nationalist Party has no solution to this racial situation and to this relationships situation.

Let us take a look at the Minister of Economic Affairs and at the Minister of Labour. What is the labour policy of the Nationalist Party? How do we ascertain that?

It is migrant labour.

Migrant labour— that may be the policy, but on the economic level we know that the Nationalist Party is damping the natural growth of South Africa as a result of its ideology. They are doing this, and they are damping it at a time when South Africa needs all its growth to contend with the problems of this country. My Leader has made this matter so clear.

You can easily improve on that.

Sir, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am not going to try improving on that, but I challenge him to do so. He cannot improve on what my hon. Leader said. The fact of the matter is that we have reached an economic situation which was planned in advance by the Nationalist Party. It is a situation we have reached as a result of deliberate planning by them. They do not want to grow too fast…

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir. The Minister of Economic Affairs knows he advocates a policy which is curbing the growth rate of South Africa, because if he does not do so, it means they will have to throw their entire ideological Bantu policy overboard, because they will then have to bring in more Bantu. Sir, the hon. the Minister and his party may choose now. As far as the future of South Africa is concerned, the position seems clear to me. The young South African people have been sick and tired of the old history for a long time. They no longer want to listen to the story of 1948. They only know that South Africa has a capacity few other young countries in the world have. All that the young people of South Africa ask the Government, is to take its foot off the brake, because South Africa wants to move forward. All they want is someone else at the helm in South Africa. The young people of South Africa know no fear.

I now return to the point put so ably by the hon. member for Durban Point this afternoon; it is exactly what the young people are looking for. They say: “We want to go into the outside world and look it in the face, not only as proud South Africans, because we are that in any case. We are all proud of being South Africans.” The young South Africans, both men and women, want to move in the outside world, not only with pride in themselves but also in the knowledge, that they command the respect of their fellow peoples. Whether he is in Tokyo, London or New York, the South African wants to know, as he knew years ago, that he is not only a person with self-respect, but that he is also a member of a people which is respected by the other Western nations of the world. As long as we allow the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs to apply this empty policy of his, as long as the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development builds his tower in the Bantu territories while leaving the Bantu in the urban areas in the lurch, and as long as the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Finance allow the wonderful growth potential of South Africa to be restricted, I say, the young people of South Africa will not succeed in looking the outside world in the face with self-respect and in commanding the respect of those people. I think the day will come, and it is not far off, when this state of affairs will be changed. because the more the hon. the Prime Minister says he has confidence in his Cabinet, the more the people are beginning to believe that that confidence no longer exists.

Now, the newspapers may write and hon. members may talk about gossip but it is not gossip that will kill that party. It will be the facts that are revealed in the Press. Those facts and a lack of policy, in the first place, will kilt that party. In the second place, maladministration and a lack of proper control, as revealed to us so tellingly this afternoon, will also contribute to it. These are the causes which will force this Government to its knees, and the sooner the better for South Africa,

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland, who preceded me, acted tonight like a real potpourri speaker, or, as we would say in colloquial language, a Jack of all trades and master of none. He elaborated on all sorts of things, and ventured to say, as his Leader also said in error while labouring under a delusion in a previous debate, that this side of the House and I were running away from the topic of the urban Bantu. The previous time this was said in this Chamber by the Leader, he spoke immediately after me, and in my speech I had confined myself to the urban Bantu. I want to give the hon. member for Maitland the assurance that tonight I should very much like to confine myself to the urban Bantu only.

And it is high time!

I have already discussed this matter on dozens of occasions. I must disappoint you and hon. members on the other side of the House beforehand, in that what I am going to say tonight, has already been said on numerous occasions. It has not only been said by me. It has also been said by other members on this side of the House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and all members on the other side of the House always refer to the urban Bantu only. Have you noticed that, Sir? They never refer to the Bantu in the White area. They only refer to the urban Bantu. No mention is made of the Bantu on the farms, and they represent roughly one-third of the Bantu population. Why not?

Priorities.

No, Sir. They seek their voting allies in the cities. We know what the United Party wants to do.

You are making your own deductions now.

Order! [Interjections] Did the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District hear me?

If I am supposedly talking nonsense, as is being grumbled in this direction by an hon. member opposite, why does one hear all that howling and whining on the other side? After all, if I am talking nonsense, there is no need for other people to drown my speech by their shouts. I know what the United Party’s policy is in regard to the Bantu. I shall come to that, for that is my object tonight. The hon. member for Maitland said that to us urban Bantu were merely phantoms beyond the mountains, and numbers. Far from that. To us this matter is a very real one, as I shall demonstrate to the hon. member.

Earlier in this debate, this morning, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again referred cursorily to the so-called urban Bantu. I should like them to speak in future about the Bantu in the White area as well. They should not forget that one- third of them are in the rural areas, outside the cities. What I want to say about this matter tonight, will to a large extent be a repetition of what I said in this Chamber on 19th May.

However, I want to say in advance that nobody in this Chamber, not even the most optimistic member on my own side, should even entertain the idea that the two sides in this Chamber will reach agreement on this topic tonight or any other day. Therefore I want to say in advance that the next speaker or one of the other speakers on that side of the House who will follow me in this debate, will probably say that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development did not satisfy them at all with what he had said. And we know this. I do not strive after satisfying them. As regards policy in respect of this matter, there is a huge gulf between us.

My object tonight is to point out the basic differences that exist. If the hon. members would allow me to speak and do not refuse to listen to me I should like to point out the basic differences between the National Party and the United Party. I want to point out the unrealistic and extremely dangerous policy of the Opposition as compared to National Party policy, which offers a reasonable basis, with safeguards, for the continued existence of the Whites as well as each of the Bantu peoples.

In my speech tonight I shall deal with the relations aspect, only in respect of the Whites towards the Bantu peoples. The first statement I want to make here, is one which I made before. I just want to repeat it, namely that to the National Party the Bantu in the White area—as you can hear, I am not referring to the urban area—are, just as are the Bantu living in the homelands, people who exist, live and are born within a national context. They exist within the national context of their own particular Bantu people which is linked with the particular Bantu homeland of that people. Here we have a fundamental and deep-rooted difference between the two parties. We say that every Native in the White area, even if he were born here and did not know the chief of his ancestors in the homeland, knows of what people he is a member and what his language is. Hon. members may ask any Bantu from Cape Agulhas to Messina about it, and every Bantu will immediately tell you what his language is. That is the indication of his national context. Therefore, to suggest that the Natives in the White areas have become detribalized and alienated. Westernized and are ready for being absorbed along with the Whites into one whole, is rubbish, ignorance and wishful thinking on the part of people who are seeking support beyond the colour bar between Whites and Blacks. The Natives have retained their tradition and their distinctive national character, even here in the White area where they are living. That is why it is true that a Bantu, whether he is living in or outside his homeland, is nevertheless a member of a particular people. If they have become detached from the tribal authority of their chief and councils, it still does not mean by a long chalk that such Bantu persons have become detached from their people.

These views which I am putting forward here, are not only held by me. They are not phantoms on this side or that side of the mountain. These are the hard real facts, which I heard in my chambers in Pretoria as recently as 25th May, when my officials and I were deliberating with nine or 10 members of the Tswana Government. On this occasion their chief executive councillor, Chief Mangope, told me inter alia the following—and I am going to read his words as I wrote them down there (translation)—

hon. members should also pay particular attention to the following statement he made—

Those are our views, just as they were stated by that Bantu leader. Nor are these views only held by that Bantu leader. In a moment I shall deal with others in order that I may help that hon. friend out of his wishful thinking and delirious dreams when he says that we are dealing with phantoms.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, I shall give the hon. member an opportunity at the end of my speech, which is limited to 30 minutes. If there is a minute left, I shall remember his question, but I cannot reply to it now. What is the United Party’s express object? It is the exact opposite of what Chief Mangope said. The United Party wants to cut every Bantu people precisely in half, if not perhaps in three parts, namely those living in the homeland and, cut off from them, those living in the White urban areas. As I have said, they may just divide them into three groups, with the Bantu living in the White rural areas representing a third group. They want to divide the Bantu peoples into two parts. They want to build a real East Berlin wall.

National separation is the policy of the United Party. Why? We shall see why this is the case. They want to denationalize the Bantu living in the urban areas, and through a process of Westernization they want to incorporate them into the White community. What I am saying here, is not an imputation; these are words that were used by the hon. member for Mooi River. Earlier in this session he said that they were to be incorporated or absorbed into the White community by way of Westernization. I repeat that the United Party wants every Bantu person to live in two worlds, namely, firstly, his own world, in which he has to live by nature as the creature of his Creator and, secondly, the strange world of the White man, into which the United Party wants to force those Bantu persons. *

Not force into.

Yes, they are forced into it. The Bantu are not living in two worlds. I shall now repeat what practical steps we have taken to ensure that the Bantu live in one world, namely the world of their national context. The United Party, with that policy of cutting the Bantu into two nations, as Mangope said, wants to do something which, in essence, amounts to committing genocide. It wants to cut the child in half because it does not know who its mother is. The United Party will not succeed in dissociating the Bantu from their national context and traditions, for over a period of almost a century, during which the Bantu very intensively came into contact with the Whites and all the privileges of White civilization, the Bantu who were away from their homelands, did not lose themselves The United Party has a much smaller chance of doing this now, in view of all the means they now have at their disposal for uniting themselves. The United Party’s policy actually implies that an injustice will be done to the Bantu in the sense that they will he torn loose from their own traditional anchors and their own national ties, that they will become displaced. From that side of the House we always hear the refrain about a “rightless, rootless” Bantu. If there should ever be “rightless, rootless” Bantu, Bantu without rights and without roots, it would be the Bantu who, under the policy of the United Party, are to be absorbed here into the White area along with the Whites. Our policy is aimed at anchoring in every respect the Bantu’s rights and roots to their homelands, where their national membership and citizenship have their origins and anchors, and not here where we as Whites have ours. It is impossible for the United Party to think that it will Westernize the Bantu in this way, not only because, as I have said, they are very different from the Whites by nature, but also because their system of values and their way of life are so very different from ours.

I want to make a second statement, namely that we should, by way of keeping the Bantu in the White areas in touch with their homelands, promote in every possible way the reinforcement, consolidation and intensification of the bond between the Bantu in the White area and the Bantu in the homelands. It is for that reason that we have introduced many measures and are implementing many of them. I want to mention these measures cursorily. Firstly, I want to mention the very important Citizenship Act, which was passed by this Parliament last year and which we are implementing at the moment. In this legislation provision is made for the citizenship of every individual Bantu people in order that Bantu individuals, no matter where they may find themselves outside the homelands, may remain culturally and nationally connected with their respective peoples in their respective homelands. Secondly. I want to mention the existing institution in the Bantu homelands of chiefs, who appoint representatives here in the Bantu residential areas of Cape Town and all the other cities and towns to look after their tribal affairs here. Thirdly, I mention all the other very important developments, with which good progress has been made, particularly over the past few years, under the very capable administration of Deputy Minister Koornhof, namely the appointment of deputies or representatives of the territorial authorities and legislative councils in the homelands here in the White areas. We have already progressed to such an extent that as many as eight Bantu territorial authorities and legislative councils have proceeded to appointing these representatives. This is not being done by us. Those governments appoint them. Why? Because they believe in them. The Tswanas and all the others who have been granted legislative councils or territorial authorities—it is unnecessary for me to name them all—have already appointed them, and the two peoples that have not yet made those appointments, have representation by chiefs and will make these appointments before long. Sir, we know that almost 40 of these councils have been established, with their deputies and their assistants as well, and the number is increasing day by day and week by week. In this manner a large number of these councils will be established in all the White areas in South Africa. These deputies will look after the interests of those governments and those peoples here, not only in respect of the urban Bantu or the town Bantu, but also in respect of those in the rural areas themselves. In this way we are making it possible for the homeland government itself to maintain contact with its people here, to look up its own strayed members here and, in that way, to retain the context. Sir, this is the kind of thing which the United Party opposes, for it is ridiculed and disparaged wherever it is implemented.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon. member is raving here about Broederbonds. He is very welcome to tell us about all the Broederbonds he belongs to; I have my suspicions.

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove must stop making interjections of that kind.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention another example to you. This is, therefore, a very real example— for the information of those hon. members who have been referring to phantoms—i.e. that under our policy in the urban areas and in the rural areas we are giving the Bantu a link with their homelands by way of the franchise, as we have had it in the Transkei over the past eight years. [Interjections.] The hon. member who is drooling over there, does not even know how that system works, for these are not postal votes; they are real votes cast inside a polling booth or in the presence of the Bantu Affairs Commissioners. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. Sir, two general registrations have already been carried out in respect of the Transkei alone. I want to ask you: Would 247 000 adult Transkeian voters in the White area have themselves registered if they did not see any value in retaining ties with their homelands? General registrations have already been carried out on two occasions, and the votes were also cast in that manner. This is a system which is going to be followed by all the other Bantu governments as they change over to self-governing territories within the Republic. In fact, even before they changed over to self-government in the Bantu areas themselves, two of these people spontaneously asked for this, namely the North Sothos and also the Zulus. May I read out to you, Sir, what no less a person than the present chief executive official of the Zulu Territorial Authority, Councillor and Chief G. Buthelezi, said about this matter in the speech he made last year when he thanked me and commented on my opening address in June, 1970. At the time he said the following about this very matter of liaison between their people in the White areas and their people in the homelands. I shall read his own words—

He wants them to be integrated, and one of the methods is the franchise. The other method is these councils and deputies, to which I referred, and there are others as well.

But, Sir, there are, in addition, many other methods whereby we are bringing about this liaison, and one of these methods is that regular visits are paid to the homelands and that, as far as possible, there should be people who live in the homelands and are working in the White areas. In this respect I want to repeat the phenomenal figures with which this House was furnished on a previous occasion. In respect of the near future, in cases where the homelands are situated close to places of work, we have the position that there are almost 175 000 Bantu persons who are travelling to and fro every day, from their homes in the homelands to places of work in the White areas. Is that nothing?

It is only Rosslyn.

It is not only Rosslyn.

It does not matter whether it is Rosslyn. Should this only take place between places situated remotely from each other? Surely, that is foolishness. Secondly, we are making visits possible, not only in respect of places situated nearby, such as Rosslyn, Umlazi and others, hut also in respect of places situated more distantly. In this way we have this striking figure with regard to people who cannot travel such great distances between their places of work and their homes every day, i.e. that over the past Easter weekend, for instance, there were more than 45 000 Bantu passengers from distant places who paid visits just for the weekend. *

How many went to the Transkei?

I shall be able to furnish the hon. member with particulars about individual places. At the moment I am speaking broadly.

Do they go to Leganyane?

They also go to Leganyane, in their tens of thousands. That hon. member has only heard of Leganyane. They go there in their tens of thousands in their own buses and by way of other bus services. [Interjections.] That hon. member should restrain himself; he can speak once I have finished. But what is the United Party's attitude in regard to these matters? They reject the idea of citizenship for those people. Tonight we heard them mocking at and rattling about this citizenship and whatever we do. To them only one thing is right, namely to Westernize the Bantu and to absorb them here into the White area, with the White community.

We know what the attitude of the United Party is in this regard; we know that in 1961 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition very explicitly said in this House that the Whites and the non Whites here had to be one national entity. We also know what the United Party's attitude is, as expressed by the hon. member for Durban North, who said the same thing, namely that we formed one nation, the Bantu and the Whites with one another. I want to repeat that it is for this reason that they do not want the Bantu here in the White areas to have any contact with the homelands, be it traditional, cultural, or on any other basis. They want to absorb the Bantu here in the White jurisdiction area and form an entity with them. The hon. member for East London City is another one who said such absurd things in the past.

It is also for this reason that the United Party envisages franchise for the Bantu which will bring them to this Parliament and this is in contrast to what we say, i.e. that the Bantu should have the franchise in their own homeland and to their own parliament, even if they do live here in the White area. The Transkei has proved that this is practicable, and the other territorial authorities which are still to be established, will also prove this.

Thirdly, I want to make the statement that because of this unity and bond between the Bantu in the White areas and their fellow countrymen in the homelands, they are, in our view, present in White areas in a casual capacity. Therefore, they are not integratable with the Whites into one unit. The National Party’s policy is that the Bantu are here in the White areas for the sake of the employment they want here and for the sake of the employment we can give them in a properly, statutorily ordered manner by way of the exemptions granted to them under the labour laws. Here the Whites have the exclusive right in every sphere, just as the Bantu, in turn, have it in the Bantu homeland areas, where the Whites do not have it. This holds good in respect of the extremely important question of labour, with which our measures for influx control go hand in hand. Here the Bantu only get such exempted labour as we may give them, and by those means tht Bantu are not put on a par with the Whites in the sphere of labour. They may not compete with the Whites in the high ranks until they eventually hold positions equal in rank to those of Whites, positions such as that of a foreman, manager or owner of a factory.

The Bantu get such employment as may be exempted for them, and that is why this is not integration, as is so often being said in error by members opposite, and as is also stated by other people in newspaper articles which we read. That is why we have influx control, which is also in the interests of the Bantu, and not only in our interests, because it protects their spheres of employment, because it is a guarantee to them against excessively low wage structures, and because it is also a guarantee to them in order that they may retain their employment.

Then I want to mention to you, Sir, the question of land ownership and residential facilities, on which we differ. Since the Bantu are here in a casual capacity, there will be no land ownership for them here, but they will in fact have residential facilities here and land ownership in the homelands. Then the Leader of the Opposition also said this afternoon that we were not providing the Bantu with proper housing. Does the hon. the Leader not know that at present there are in the urban Bantu residential areas in South Africa almost 400 000 houses for Bantu families to live in? Does the hon. the Leader not know that on the Witwatersrand alone there are almost 190 000 houses in Bantu residential areas, for families, about which they say at the same time that we usually disrupt and divide them.

The next aspect I want to mention, is that as far as politics is concerned, the attitude which is of course upheld in respect of the Bantu is that they are here in a casual capacity; in other words, that the Bantu do not have a share in the politics of the Whites, as they culminate in this Parliament. Of course, it is United Party policy that they will in fact have such a share. As far as that matter is concerned, we say that the aspirations of the Bantu culminate in their homelands, and we are making this possible along the lines I have already mentioned to you. As far as all these matters are concerned, the United Party stands for absolute integration, which means that the Bantu and the Whites will be integrated with one another in one context, on an equal footing, that along with the Whites they will acquire rights of citizenship here in the White area, that it will therefore be possible for the Bantu to settle in the White area, not only, as we say, primarily for labour purposes, but also for any social, economic, educational, civic or any other purposes-which is so different from our policy. Why? Because the United Party wants to throw open the spheres of employment without restrictions, merely for the purpose of getting more and more workers, for that is all they see in that Bantu person. To that hon. member who said tonight that we saw phantoms in the Bantu, I want to repeat this: In every Bantu person in the White area and in the whole of South Africa we see the human being who is a member of some Bantu people or other. We want to protect him and promote his interests; but those U.P. members only see the Bantu as tools for us in the industries in the White area. They only see workers. They only see labour units.

That is not true.

That is definitely true. That is why such rights of citizenship as they may offer the Bantu here in the White areas, are all spurious rights.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite always have so much to say about this matter. I just want to point out that none other than the Leader of the Opposition, and also the hon. member for Yeoville, amongst others, have already admitted, by way of their statements, that the policy of the United Party, i.e. to integrate the Bantu with the Whites politically and otherwise, will lead to our being faced in South Africa with all sorts of situations which will become more and more critical. For instance, years ago the Leader of the Opposition admitted, and amongst other things the hon. member for Yeoville also admitted this in his famous “television speech”, that in terms of the policy of the United Party it would in the course of time be possible for Bantu to enter this Parliament. Now I want to say that this will not be the only sphere they will enter. The moment one enters Parliament, the highest institution in the country, one also has a right and a claim to all the other facets and spheres in society. Then we shall have what is called an Africanization of all our various spheres of life. We shall have an Africanization, an inundation by Blacks, of our Public Service, our system of education, our Parliament and our entire society in South Africa. What are the consequences of that?

Black danger.

Yes, Black danger that United Party’s danger. What are the consequences of that? enmity, clashes, conflict.

To summarize, the United Party holds out no guarantees to the Whites or the Bantu in South Africa. As against that the National Party guarantees security, a future of their own and a sovereign White authority to the Whites in the White areas, not only to the urban areas. Consequently the Whites will have exclusive rights here, and there will be no integration with the Bantu. As against that the National Party also guarantees to the Bantu peoples, in a similar manner, security, a future of their own and sovereign authority over themselves in their Bantu homelands. There they will have exclusive rights, and we, the Whites, will have no such rights in their homelands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to see that when the Government has taken a battering, as it has done today on the mismanagement issue, somebody is thrown in against the trend of the debate to beat the tribal drum. As an exercise in semantics and in make-believe, this was really a tremendous performance. Surely, this hon. Minister must be in orbit, because he cannot be here in South Africa. He cannot be living here, because he is obviously somewhere else. He told us recently that when he spoke to Chief Matanzima, he did all the talking. Well, certainly I can accept that! He talks about a dialogue, but all that hon. gentleman is capable of is a monologue. He says that we want to split these people, to split their rural personality from their urban personality. However, have hon. members noticed the important difference this evening? The hon. the Minister talked about all these highfaluting concepts of citizenship and everything else, but he never told us once where they are earning a living Where are they working? Whose economy do they keep going? Is it not ours? Is this not introducing a split personality? He wants them to come and settle here, but he wants them to do this on a migratory basis. This is something that has been condemned by all thinking South Africans, including our Afrikaans churches. This is a cancer in the soul of South Africa. This shows that we have not succeeded in creating and shaping a cohesive economic society.

What does this hon. Minister really hold out to us as a solution? He denies the fact that these non-White peoples are living here and that they are earning their living here. He denies the fact that Soweto exists. It just is not here. But in the mean time he is creating all sorts of political trappings for them in their homelands. He is giving them flags, anthems, and all sorts of things, but the fundamental question as to how they will eat is shied away from. He has not even begun to give us an answer to that question. The mind boggles even at the ultimate solution if his is achieved. Can hon. members imagine the veritable tower of Babel that will be created here in South Africa if we have 22 independent Black nations? We shall have, in a microcosmic form, all the problems of the world. We shall have a United Nations right here in South Africa. The hon. the Minister said that he gives us a guarantee. If we follow that kind of policy I guarantee that it will be a short cut to political disaster.

What is happening here is that the Government cannot deal with the realities of the South African situation. Therefore they are escaping into something that does not exist. They cannot deal with the situation as it exists here today; therefore he and his department are spending all their time in creating elaborate blueprints for the future. They are trying to diffuse the reality of the present by building pies in the sky for some age that is only going to come later on.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is happening? This Government is blowing up a new Black nationalism in South Africa. They are creating a platform for these African leaders. One need only look at the latest pronouncement from Chief Matanzima, when he made certain specific demands for his people, I now want to warn those hon. members that history one day will show that that speech of Chief Matanzima’s was as important as Gen. Hertzog’s famous speech at De Wildt. If the African leaders continue with these requests, and if they become more extravagant in their demands, I also want to warn that this may well trigger off a white backlash which can wreak havoc with race relations in South Africa.

Then he wants to know what our point of view is. Our point of view is simply this: We accept differences where they exist, but we will not make differentiation our single goal, and turn separatism into a State religion. We know, too, that we shall all have one common destiny in South Africa, and from this amalgam of diversity which is South Africa today, we shall have to create a totality that will be stronger and bigger than the sum of its parts. That is the difference between us.

*Mr. Speaker, I actually wanted to refer to another matter. My hon. Leader initially showed today that there were three bases on which the Government could be attacked. One of them, of course, is the circumstances of life in South Africa. We are now engaged in the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. In the Second Reading debate I tried, just as my colleagues on this side, to draw the attention to certain shortcomings in the Budget. I tried to point out specifically that this Budget gives no indication of the Government’s having formed a cohesive long-term economic strategy for South Africa. I tried to point out that it will do little to increase national productivity. I tried to point out that it will not stimulate the export of our goods. In the fourth place I tried to point out that it will make personal saving difficult, but that at the same time it condones increased expenditure on the part of the Government, and in the fifth place I tried to point out that it will affect our economic growth rate detrimentally, and that the cost of life will continue to increase. Absolutely nothing has happened since to make me change my point of view. I have even had all kinds of indications since that the diagnosis I tried to give of the factors which led to and which served as preliminaries to the drawing up of this Budget was right and correct.

But, as so often happens these days, there was no reaction to my arguments. On the contrary, I was subjected to a vehement personal attack. I know that when people resort to personal attacks, their own image will be harmed much more in the process than that of the person they attack. I also know that when it is necessary for someone to resort to personal attacks, he only shows his vulnerability in the personal as well as the political sense of the word. Sir, I have never been personal, and I will never want to be either, because I cannot think of a more obvious way to show one’s own shortcomings. I will therefore not react to those personal arguments. I just want to say, however, that if the aim was to try to discourage or to silence me, it will of course not succeed, because as long as I have the honour to serve in this House, to represent voters here, I will say what I sincerely believe should be said, and I will do so to the best of my ability. I also know that my contribution will be judged not only by those who sit opposite, but also by the general public, and to that I will submit myself.

†*Mr. Speaker, it is now two months since the Budget was introduced, and I think it is now possible for us to make an assessment of its effects. I noticed recently that the hon. the Minister, in an interview with an English-medium Sunday paper in Johannesburg, expressed the position thus: “At this stage things are difficult, but they are not desperate.” I can think of few statements less likely to instil confidence in South Africa. And then he went to town on this and condemned the newspapers and all sorts of other people for creating an air of pessimism. If this kind of statement does not trigger off pessimism I wonder what will. We must not close our eyes to the facts of the situation. There is an all pervading sense of pessimism in the business world. Nothing confirms it better than the recent survey by the Bureau of Economic Research of Stellenbosch. They found there is a lack of confidence and that this is brought about because there is a lack of certain essential materials, a lack of labour, lack of credit and because there is lack of confidence in the Government’s ability to handle the economic situation. This lack of confidence stems fundamentally from two issues. To begin with there is uncertainty as to the Government's policy on certain important economic aspects. Secondly where there is in fact certainty on these issues, to put it mildly, businessmen and entrepreneurs regard these as decidedly unwelcome and undesirable.

Without a favourable business climate, without confidence there will not be investment at the rate required. Unless you have that kind of investment then obviously you will not have the necessary expansion in domestic production. These are the things we said at the time of the Budget. There is every indication now that our point of view is completely vindicated. At the moment our rate of growth is beginning to slow down. Nobody can deny this. This stems very largely from the Budget and the provisions of the Budget. I was interested to see what Mr. Mabin of Assocom had to say. This is a gentleman which the hon. the Minister frequently quotes with great satisfaction. Mr. Mabin now says—

The Minister has obviously lost a friend in the process. What is clear is that a slowing down in the growth rate in South Africa is not leading to a slowing down in price increases. In fact, the opposite seems to be happening. What is quite clear too is that a slowing down in growth is not leading to a belter balance of payments position. In fact the opposite is happening. We are still running a massive current deficit. The key to this situation is that if your rate of production of goods and services are slowing down and this is coupled with high expenditure and high demand, due to excessive Government expenditure, you create an imbalance between supply and demand. Under these circumstances your price increases begin to accelerate. This is quite obviously what is happening here. Inflation tends to feed on itself. Again if I may borrow from Mr. Mabin, he puts it this way—

That is the point of view we have taken up consistently and that is what is happening at the present time.

To most people the Government's motives in this whole matter are completely obscure. It would seem to us as though the hon. the Minister is engaged in a kind of economic bloodletting exercise. You will remember in days gone by, if ever a person got sick the quacks immediately brought on the leeches and they had to suck his blood. Invariably this left the patient in a weaker condition than before. It seems to us that with this present approach the Government is in fact engaged on a massive sort of blood-letting exercise. If you continue with a situation where you have a credit squeeze together with high taxes, then one or both of two things must develop. You will either create unemployment or have general insolvency. Both of these are taking place in South Africa at the present time on an increasing scale. Once you have set this pattern in motion, you must either stop right away before you damage the economy or else you must be prepared to go all the way. If you do not do this you are beginning to play a dangerous game of economic blind man’s buff.

Everybody is confused about the present position because they can see the Government syphoning money out of the pockets of the public and out of the business organizations and they can see this Government taking the money and spending it. The public and everybody else are conscious of this kind of economic double talk we get from the Government. What is worse, they are beginning to suspect some kind of sadistic motive. There is no point in denying that many people are getting hurt at the present time. It would also be idle to pretend that they are not beginning to resent this. The large organizations with massive liquid capital reserves are in a position to ride out the storm, hut the smaller organizations which do not have the reserves or the staying power, must bear the full brunt of the Government’s economic mismanagement. If organizations are suffering, the plight of the man in the street is infinitely worse. Every day now we get reports of people who are engaged in a tussle to make ends meet. To enjoy a decent standard of living in South Africa has become a luxury which fewer and fewer people can afford.

As my hon. leader said today, take a simple issue such as housing. What percentage of young couples in South Africa today can afford to acquire their own house? I suggest that, if you relate it to the growth of our national income you will find that that percentage is decreasing alarmingly. How many of our people to day can save for their old age? This proportion too is dwindling. Even if they do save for their old age, when they get to the stage when they want to use their money, they find that it is virtually worthless. Many of these essential things one has in all other modern communities, are denied to our people. The waiting lists for telephones are getting longer and longer. Our road systems are choked up. Our transportation systems are inadequate; there is a danger of a breakdown in essential services in South Africa. All these factors are symptomatic of the Government’s “poor but White” plan for South Africa. Certainly, only the first part of this plan is being fulfilled. The more ideology they give us, the fewer the basic comforts we can enjoy. There is a well-known adage which says that the people get the Government they deserve. I think in South Africa one must add to that and say “we also pay for the Government we have”.

As part of all this ideology, a vast bureaucratic network is being built up. As my hon. leader pointed out today, where you site your factory and whom you employ are no longer business decisions, but are subject to the dictates of the ideology. Which school one sends one’s children to is no longer a question of parental choice. It depends on what the machine demands. There seems to be a crisis of confidence developing in South Africa. As the people are losing confidence in the Government, so the Government manifests its own lack of confidence in the people by imposing further and further controls.

Look at the session we are coming to the end of now. Nearly 80 Bills have gone through this House. How many of them extended any sort of new freedoms or new privileges to our people? I can think of only one, the Sectional Titles Bill, which in any case was inspired by this side of the House. All the others have one purpose only, namely to put more power into the hands of the Government.

Look how glibly the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration and Development talks of what he is building up for the Black people in South Africa. Why does he not tell the House that as far as the Black people are concerned at the moment, there are more than 80 laws and hundreds of regulations which determine practically every single aspect of the daily life of the African? That is the kind of freedom and the kind of guarantee he holds out for them. I want to say Chat there is this danger too: If you begin to impose restrictions of that kind on a section of your community, you put your whole society in chains. As Abraham Lincoln once said: “No nation can endure being half slave and half free”. What we are doing here is to sign away our own individual freedom.

To indicate how Government control is growing, let us just look at the growth of the Civil Service. In 1910 we had 12 State departments in South Africa. Today there are over 40. This is more than they have in France and in the United States of America where they run highly complicated and sophisticated societies. Between 1937 and 1966 the total South African population increased by less than 100 per cent. But those on a fixed establishment of the Government service increased by 276 per cent. Ten years ago, in 1960. 30 per cent of the Whites who were economically active in South Africa, worked for the Government. Today that figure is reaching up to 40 per cent. Prof. Ben Roux warns that if it is not stopped now, quite soon it will pass the 50 per cent mark. But the Government has built up this massive machine. It is becoming an economic dinosaur, sluggish and cumbersome. At the same time, the brains, as represented by the Cabinet, is becoming more and more effete. We see less and less signs of long term planning. There is more and more rigidity of behaviour. All these are inevitable precursors of extinction. These are obviously some of the things that Mr. Dirk Rezelman assessed when recently he was appointed with great fanfare to build up the image of the Government. But he is a shrewd salesman. He took one deep and penetrative look at this Nationalist Party and realized that it is not salcable.

That is the situation of South Africa as it is today. And the situation could be so different. All that stands between us and a better tomorrow is this Government. As my hon. Leader indicated today, the only barrier, the only obstruction we must remove is this Government and then South Africa could advance anew to what he indicated as the beckoning green fields out yonder. It is so easy if you can do away with all these pies in the sky and thest high faluling concept. Why does the Government not concentrate on the simple issues, the issues that people want? Think of our ordinary people—they are not selfish, they are not crying for the moon. They are entitled to and they deserve certain things. They deserve decent housing. That one can give them. They need security for their old age. A country like South Africa with its bountiful resources, should be able to ensure that. They want security of employment and security of income. All this they can have provided all our people were to advance towards a new and a better life. We have all the ingredients for rapid noninflationary growth in South Africa. All that we must do is lake off the shackles and we will be astounded by our own strength. If we have a bigger cake, we can give everybody a more adequate slice of it. The whole system of Government must change. This remoteness that we notice now must be changed because the Government has grown away from the people who put them there. The longer the Government remains in power, Sir, the more it begins to try to preserve itself in that position and to safeguard itself. Sir, we would have a completely different approach. We would reaffirm the kind of participatory democracy that the old Voortrekkers introduced in South Africa, and we would disregard and discard completely the kind of plebiscitary democracy on which the Government is so keen.

Sir, as far as our young people are concerned too, we would hold out a completely different message for them. We will not try to isolate them from the rest of the world as far as cultural and other matters are concerned. We want them to he part of the world. We see our young people in South Africa richly endowed with idealism and they are so anxious to bring it into play. We would create a situation for them where they could do so, and is the fact that the young people of South Africa sit here on the back benches of our side not a visible manifestation of this? We invite them, Sir, and we give them an opportunity to help us to shape their own destiny. As far as the broader South Africa is concerned, we will restore to our people their pride in themselves and in their country. It is not nice for any South African to go around in the outside world and to be harassed wherever you go. At the moment when South Africans go abroad, all they have to do is to try to apologize for the stupidities of their own Government. Sir, that situation we must change and we will do so because we believe that South Africa is entitled to its rightful place in the sun. Above all else, what we will do is to create a new image, a new vision, a new set of values for South Africa. We will place hope where at the moment there is despair; we will have compassion where presently there is greed. We will substitute faith for fear. Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that the day will dawn soon when we on this side of the House will have an opportunity to put these and all the other many things that I cannot deal with now, into effect.

The hon. member for Hillbrow, who has just sat down, really treated us to a variety concert here. I think that hon. member would have been very suitable for many other things as well; there is not the least doubt about that.

Sir, in pursuance of that accusation by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we refuse to talk about the so-called urban Bantu or about the Bantu in the White area, the hon. the Minister rose here and spoke about the matter, after we had spoken a great deal about it in previous debates as well, and what did the hon. member for Hillbrow do? He simply made a few vague statements at random about the urban Bantu and immediately left the matter at that. Sir, I want to issue a challenge now to hon. members opposite. This debate will be continued tomorrow. The Opposition has made the accusation against us in season and out of season that we do not Want to talk about the so-called urban Bantu. My challenge to them is this…

We are determined that we will run the debate, not you.

Let them reflect on this matter this evening and then talk about the urban Bantu tomorrow. Or are they going to run away again as the hon. member for Hillbrow ran away from this subject this evening?

The days when you dictated to us are past.

You will dictate nothing to us.

Sir, this session has revealed a few interesting things.

Yes. many.

The Opposition has once again excelled itself here by failing to make any statement of a policy of their own. Sir, we have been sitting here for live months. The reporters in the Press gallery may judge on how many occasions in the course of those five months the Opposition has come forward with a statement of policy. A very serious question arises in this regard, and that is why this is so. Surely there must be a reason for it. I want to ask the English- language newspapers, which, after ail, are competent, too. to form an objective judgment in respect of these matters, whether they cannot carry out some investigation into these matters and determine why, session after session, the Opposition fails to state their policy here, is it because of the presence of a left or a right wing in the Opposition? Is it because of an inherent weakness and inability to analyze a matter to its core and to indicate a clear course? Is it because of an inherent weakness in the quality of the United Party members of the House of Assembly silting on that side? The English-language newspapers hinted in that direction when they wrote recently that all the United Party’s ideas came from the newspapers and that very, very few ideas originated from those benches. Is that perhaps the reason? Sir, this is a serious question. Is it perhaps because of the lack of a leader with true vision? I do not know what the reason is. Is it perhaps because of the fact that Colin Eglin has appeared on the horizon now? Sir, they are going to have much difficulty with the Progressive Party in future, but I shall leave it at that. Is the reason perhaps that Prof. S. P. Cilliers and a few of those intellectuals are bringing so much pressure to bear on the Opposition that it is incapable of adopting a real standpoint on cardinal, burning issues in this country? I should very much like to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether, for example, he and his party accept or do not accept this scheme of Prof. S. P. Cilliers which has received such widespread publicity. We should very much like to know that. Will any of those hon. members please give us an answer? Will the hon. member for Transkei reply to this?

May I put a question?

Will the hon. member reply to this question? Does the Opposition agree with Prof. Cilliers’s scheme or not?

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why, when his Vote was under discussion, and we were discussing the urban Bantu, both he and the Minister ran away from it and why, now that we are talking about bread and butter matters…

Order!

… he suddenly wants to talk about this matter?

Order! When I call the hon. member to order, he must listen.

Sir, the hon. the Minister—you may consult Hansard if you wish—devoted his entire speech in the debate on his Vote to the so-called urban Bantu. This was on 19th May. I made two speeches in that regard in this House—Hansard is my witness—and every word I spoke, was about the so-called urban Bantu. In the one speech I spoke about the question of transport and in the other speech I spoke about the question of national representative councils. In the debate on that Vote, I spoke about no other aspect but the so-called urban Bantu. Sir, the point I wanted to make is this: In this session of the House of Assembly the Opposition has not performed like a lion party; in fact, it has shown itself to be the scavenger party. In season and out of season it has acted like a hyena: this it did very well. In this regard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition set them a brilliant example. What happened in the debate on the Bantu Affairs Vote was in fact the best example of this, because after the debate on that Vote had been in progress for more than seven hours, and the lions had participated in it, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rose here, ten minutes before the end of that debate, and made for the bones of that Vote like a hyena. Throughout this session we have found— there are several examples of this—that the Opposition has come here with a programme of character assassination and defamation on the Ministry and on virtually every member on this side of this House. [Interjections.] Sir, they can say what they like about it now, but this has been one of the features of this session.

When the dust of this session settles down, one thing will stand out as a mighty feature, and that is the brilliant performance our leader. Adv. Vorster, gave in the debate on his Vote; that will always stand out. Sir, as far as this aspect is concerned, I want to conclude by saying that as long as the Opposition cannot find a reason for its failure to put forward a policy, it may act as it did in this session, and it will have no future in South African politics.

Many other interesting things were revealed in the course of this session; it was the session in which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout distinguished himself here when he called the Immorality Act “the pettiest of petty apartheid”, and when he greatly embarrassed his Leader about the question of petty apartheid and its definition. This was the session in which the hon. member for Johannesburg North requested a referendum in Soweto. On what? On Bantu Administration in respect of the Bantu in White South Africa. I put very pertinent questions to the hon. the Leader about this matter and I do not want to repeat them now. To date, however, the hon. the Leader has not tried to reply to any one of those questions. Furthermore, this was the session in which the United Party conducted a long debate in the Other Place, and on what? As they expressed it: “Give the Bantu labour force of South Africa voting rights in respect of these administration boards in White South Africa”. This is the expression they used. This is the session in which the hon. member for Transkei moved the amendment in which he requested that the urban Bantu be given representation on these administration boards dealing with Bantu administration in White South Africa. Furthermore. this was the session in which it became very evident after the United Party’s statement of policy in regard to sport, that the young members of the United Party outside were in favour of integration in sport from club level up to the top.

That is nonsense.

It is true. It was reported like that in the newspapers and we know it. In this way the United Party has distinguished itself on these levels during this session. Now, however, also the question of the so-called urban Bantu, the Bantu in the White area, is a point at issue. I want to say at once that in respect of this matter, the National Party Government has always upheld a principle. What is this principle? This also provides the reason why the Opposition cannot come forward with a real policy. They do not have a principle. If they consulted a dictionary, they would see that a principle is defined as a basis, a fundamental source, a conviction of a fundamental truth. Our principle is very clear and the hon. member need not laugh. This is a very serious matter. Our principle is founded on the belief and conviction that the White people or nation in our multi-national country has the right to an identity of its own as, in fact, all other peoples have the right to an identity of their own, and consequently to a continued existence as a White people apart from the other peoples here.

This is our principle and in respect of this principle we have a policy. Policy is the science of government, and the establishment of a programme of action. For that reason it applies also to the implementation of this apartheid principle which determines the Government's strategy and its modus operandi with regard to the application of this fundamental principle for the maintenance of a separate White people. White South Africa is the only place in the whole wide world where a separate South African White people can be maintained. There is no other place. We want to carry this fundamental principle into effect under all circumstances.

Changed circumstances in respect of the policy bring about changes in approach, but never in principle. The way to maintain that principle in the light of changing circumstances and changing situations, is to determine the strategy or the policy by means of careful, circumspect, considerate and wise planning and action. The strategy must be revised from time to time and the programme of action must be adjusted. This is what is meant when it is said that in respect of the maintenance of this principle, the policy should be and is a flexible one. A policy in South African politics and also in the politics of any democratic country which does not have this quality and which does not make provision for an alternative action, if changed circumstances and situations demand it, is a useless piece of dead wood; this also applies to the apartheid policy in South Africa where we are competing with the master chess players of the world.

Having said this, I now come to the next point. In spite of the people of the Opposition and many uninformed people in South Africa, this Government is establishing a changed South Africa and creating a new dispensation in its dynamic third decade, to use the words of the hon. the Minister. In this dispensation, the question of the relations in South Africa between White and non-White, and not only with the Bantu, will be placed in a dimension from which we shall be able to continue looking forward more fruitfully to ever- improving relations in the Republic of South Africa. This is the most important guidance this Minister, our Prime Minister and the whole National Government on this side of this House are giving South Africa.

I have a suspicion that because of the very fact that those hon. members are recognizing the first signs of this new dispensation, these changed circumstances which are developing with the creation of these improved relations of which I am talking, there are hon. members opposite who are recognizing the signs of the fruits of this, and that that is the Cause of a new sound we have heard from them this session. We have heard of a new sound from their side, against which we have warned very seriously—I want to do so again this evening—which I can describe in no other way than by saying that it is creating the impression that that side of this House is not even averse to calling in and involving non-Whites if only they can get rid of the National Government. They do not mind if in this process they cause misery in South Africa, if only they can succeed in their goal. Against the background of this mighty principle of the National Party and against the background of this programme of a policy which is flexible in order to create this new dispensation in South Africa, on which I want to elaborate now, the Opposition’s programme is as clear as crystal: Slander and discredit the leaders on this side of this House into the ground. They obtained that advice from the Americans who were here. They are following it slavishly. One despises it with all one’s heart. An Opposition which actually cannot do any better than that, is not worthy of even being called a good Opposition, let alone an alternative Government. In that respect I can honestly say that in that case one can even take the Progressive Party as an example. At least they have a policy and a principle: “Equality in South Africa and everything it brings about in the process’’.

The second leg of their programme is also as clear as crystal to me. The first is “discredit” like the hyenas I mentioned earlier on. The other is to drag in everything which can possibly be dragged in—it does not matter what the consequences are— just as long as an early election can be forced on this country in an attempt to get rid of this Government in the climate they are trying to create in this process of discrediting It is impossible to rob a woman of her intuition, because it is an inborn characteristic. I believe as firmly that one cannot rob the people of South Africa of its inherent intuition either, so that it will be unable to see through this despicable action of the Opposition. Of this sort of action, we have never before in this House, and certainly not since I have been here— and that is quite a few years—had a more striking or better example than this morning from 10 o'clock to this evening at 10 o’clock as that clock indicates. We could not possibly have had a more striking example! This has happened in spite of the fact that we on this side are engaged in matters of great magnitude, i.e. with the creation of a new dispensation in South Africa whilst we are competing against the master chess players of the world, a third dynamic decade, with deeds, with an exceptional network of transport which was announced on the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. A situation has now been created that in one single month more than 4 million daily trips are made between the homelands and the White area.

*Mr. W. T. WEBBER; Which homelands? Where are those homelands?

When we talk about these things and about the national representative councils, hon. gentlemen opposite laugh, and we get a question like that from one of their frontbenchers, who does not even know that reference was made to that and that it was discussed on the Vote of the Minister. That is the trouble… [Interjections.]

Order!

I have very little time at my disposal. In pursuance of what the hon. the Minister said here earlier this evening, I want to state our policy. It is very clearly based on a certain principle, while the United Party has no principle. I shall tell hon. members why the United Party has no principles. I listen very carefully when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaks. He speaks time and again of a community of South Africa, and then he includes Whites and non-Whites, that is to say, Whites, Coloureds, Bantu and Indian. He speaks time and again of South Africa as a plural society. It is on record that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said:

The point to which I should like to draw the attention of the hon. members is that it is very clear that the Opposition lump all the Bantu in the Republic of South Africa —in the White area as well—into one category. They then want to give those Bantu in White South Africa full rights. That at least is the direction in which they are moving, and this has also led to my mentioning these signs we have come across during this session of the House of Assembly. To test the morality of that is very easy. I want to do so by asking a number of questions. Since they do not want to lead the Bantu in the Bantu homelands to independence, we declare that we shall do it, and we are doing it in this third dynamic decade. We are creating a new dispensation in South Africa. We declare this and we are in earnest about it. What those hon. members do not realize is that they, as we are, are bound to the declaration of the Government that it is doing this. They will discover this in future if they are at present still too dense to do so The hon. members on that side of the House are not prepared to do so. Since this is the case, I want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. They proceed from the assumption that Whites and Bantu in South Africa must have rights of citizenship here and that the Bantu must be a permanent part of the so-called community or plural society, call it whatever you like.

I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader, on the basis of morality, because the young people would like to hear the replies. They would like to hear these replies, because their future is very closely bound up with it. They want to know on what moral grounds and on what principle that party’s policy is based. I want to allege that that party is lacking on that score, and that it has no such thing. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell me in terms of his policy in respect of the Bantu in White South Africa whether he will accord the Bantu language its legitimate position alongside English and Afrikaans. Is he going to do that? Is he going to accord the Bantu language that recognition? If he does not, surely he cannot talk here about rights for the Bantu in White South Africa. Surely he is then merely saying things for the sake of piety. Whom can he convince on the grounds of principle if he sits there like a sphinx and does not even try to reply to a perfectly simple question?

I want to put a second question to him. The hon. members on that side are forever getting excited about labour in White South Africa. If those hon. members are honest in respect of the Bantu in South Africa, as we are with our creation of better attitudes, and that is what the future of the young people depends on, he will reply to this question. If the Bantu are to be part of the permanent plural society of White South Africa, are the Bantu able to make progress in the labour sphere until they attain their legitimate share to which they are after all entitled? Is he going to do that? After all, it is quite simple to answer yes or no, I now want to ask him: Would a Bantu be able to become a secretary of a department if he is regarded as a citizen of White South Africa? If he cannot, surely they are merely uttering pious platitudes and the young people cannot, surely, take any notice of them. If he cannot do that, surely they are dishonest, and the hon. members at the back there are the epitome of dishonesty, for where is their morality then? [Interjections.] Do not tell me where your morality is. Go out, tell the young people of South Africa, who want to know what the future holds for them. I say now that those young people would ten times rather listen to the Progressive Party, which at least has a principle, even if it is miles removed from the principles of the National Party.

May I ask a question?

No, I do not want to reply to questions now. My time is very limited. They are continually attacking us on this question, and then they say that we are running away from it Now you will see who is doing the running away. When I asked them a question in regard to languages, they were as silent as a tomb, Now I ask them: Can a Bantu become Secretary of the Department of Bantu Education in the Republic of South Africa? If they do not want to or cannot reply to that, surely they are like whited sepulchres. I ask again: Can a Bantu become a general in the South African Defence Force? Can he become commissioner of Police? Sir, I must be able to look a Bantu leader squarely in the face, and it does not make any difference whether that Bantu leader is in the homelands or in White South Africa. If I cannot look him squarely in the face, surely I am not a worthy White leader, and I am not even a worthy White citizen, for then I am cheating him, if I may use that word, Sir. This is what those hon. members have apparently never considered fully. We on this side of the House are honest with the Bantu…

Then you are cheating the Coloureds. *

… because we wanted to leave our children an inheritance and a future here, and now we say that this can be done in one or two ways.

Order! Could the hon. member for Turffontein not keep quiet for a while?

Sir, I said that this could only be done in one of two ways. One must be honest and then say, as the Progressives say: A Bantu can become a general, a secretary of any State department in South Africa and even Prime Minister, or otherwise they must say what we say, namely: “No, they cannot do that in White South Africa, because here they are regarded as temporary inhabitants. They can only occupy those posts in the Bantu homelands. There they can become Prime Minister, of whom we already have eight, or they can become ministers, of whom we by now already have 50, and they can become secretaries of departments, of whom we also have more than 50.

He cannot be a general in the army, even in the Transkei.

That will come in time. [Interjections.] In their area it will still come. Sir, those hon. members simply do not understand the position. We are continually inviting them to come to the homelands to see what is going on there and to speak to the Bantu leaders so that they can convince themselves, because they are sitting there, and because they think that they can simply bluff the country even the English Press is beginning to despair. I quote from the Rand Daily Mail of 26th April of this year—

Sir, I am sorry I do not have the time to read this entire article, but it concludes as follows—

It is not I who said this, Sir, it was the English Press. Over and against that we state our policy clearly and honestly. We say, on the basis of principle: A White cannot obtain any proprietary or political rights in the Bantu homelands; whether he was born there and whether he has lived there from the cradle to the grave, he cannot obtain those two kinds of rights there.

But they have.

No. The hon. the Prime Minister asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what his policy was in respect of proprietary rights and land in the Bantu homelands. I have his Hansard here and I can quote it. He then said that it was not his policy to change it. He elaborated on that and stated very clearly that he did not see his way clear to giving the Whites proprietary rights in a Bantu homeland. Sir, our policy is very clear. Why is he now making fish of the Whites and flesh of the Bantu? The Opposition does not want to give the Whites proprietary rights in the Bantu homelands, but it is in fact prepared to do so in the case of the Bantu in White South Africa. Surely that is dishonest and unfair. And what is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition doing? This is typical of the United Party. They are unscrupulous scavengers on the prowl for bones. They are not like lions devouring meat. They are not dealing with the major issues in the country to create a future which will allow the Black man, the While man, the Coloureds and the Indians to live in good relationships, and to create this for the future of our children; that hon. Leader turned round, and do you know what he then did? He turned round and accused us of estranging the Bantu in the White area. Nothing is further from the truth. If I had the time, I could prove to him chapter and verse that the Bantu not only accept this policy of ours with its opportunities and rights for them, but also how they are showing in an enthusiastic way and with feeling that they want to implement that policy themselves. I am sorry my time is running out. I have here the manifesto of the Urban Bantu Council of Ikageng at Potchefstroom. I just want to mention this one example. There are many others. I read an extract—

This is a good relationship we are building up with the Bantu in South Africa. Why are those hon. members, for lack of principles and a policy, alleging that we are alienating the Bantu. Surely that is not fair. It is not fair to the Black man, and it is not fair to the White man either.

Our programme is clear and perfectly simple. Apart from the fact that the Bantu will be led to full independence, it is our programme to consolidate (he homelands as rapidly as possible, and to give economic substance as rapidly as possible to the political dispensation in the homelands. Our programme is in future to give these Bantu in White South Africa, in the absence of political rights, just as the Whites do not have political rights in the homelands just as the Whites do not have proprietary rights there, every possible security, the same security as the Whites have in the homelands. This includes the security of houses and the security of good wages. The question of wages is not only the task of the Government. Wages is a task for all of us to tackle. It is essential that the Bantu be paid good wages. They must receive wages according to merit. We will give them Police protection and help them in all possible respects. The Act which was piloted through Parliament this year in regard to the creation of greater labour mobility and the network of transport, etc., is geared at giving the Bantu in White South Africa those very facilities for which they have the greatest need, a sound, normal family life, as far as is possible, progress in life and that which makes of one a good human being. In this way we are creating good relationships in the Republic of South Africa in contrast to that party, which fall like hyenas on the bones. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it has become quite apparent that it takes an Agliotti scandal to get the Nationalist Party to talk about the urban Bantu. On two previous occasions we have tried to get them to talk about the urban Bantu.

I did so…

I throw the challenge of that hon. Minister back in his teeth. He ran away from it when we challenged him twice before in this session.

I did so on 19th May.

You did not. You ran away from it. You know. Mr. Speaker, that he did run away from it.

I did so on the 19th May.

Now that we have the Nationalist Party with their tail in a crack and are putting a twist on that tail, he is suddenly full of courage and wants to come and speak about the urban Bantu. We saw what went on on that side of the House. We saw the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party twice go to this hon. Minister to try to persuade him to come into this debate. The hon. the Minister must not think we sit here with our eyes closed. We are watching what is going on. What do we then get from the hon. the Minister after all that? He still has not answered the questions we have put to him. He says we must not talk about the urban Bantu but about the Bantu on the farms.

No, both!

The Bantu on the farms are not the problem today. Let us get our priorities right.

You must talk about both.

Priority number one in South Africa is the urban Bantu. If that hon. Minister has the courage to ask other members on his side, he will find that the majority agree with me. Priority number one is the urban Bantu and that hon. Minister knows it in his heart, but still today he is trying to run away from it. That is why he wants to talk about the Bantu on the farms.

I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. It is quite obvious that this gentleman was most uncomfortable. He comes with the same old story about character assassination and about some mythical gentleman from America who is supposed to have come and told us to do this. I want to ask that hon. Deputy Minister if he accepts what is in this report.

Which report?

This is the report of the Controller and Auditor-General. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister accept it?

Which report?

The report of the Controller and Auditor-General. Does the hon. member accept it? The criticism which has been raised by this side of the House appears in the pages of that report. The hon. the Deputy Minister must not come with character assassination stories. He must take his medicine. I want to take the hon. the Deputy Minister to task. While he was speaking I asked him whether he Would answer a question. He knows the question I was going to ask him. He boasts of four million journeys the Bantu make daily between their homelands and the so-called White urban areas. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister name those homelands? This is the third time this session I have asked him that question and he has not answered it yet.

You go to my Hansard; I named those homelands here the other day.

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us how many of these four million journeys are between Umlazi and Durban? How many of those journeys are between Mdantsane and East London? How many of them are between Imbali and Pietermaritzburg? How many of those journeys are between Ga Rankuwa and Pretoria, a distance of not more than four or five miles? These are homelands created artificially by this Government as a subterfuge to remove the Blacks from the White areas. That is all it is. Those are not homelands for the Bantu people.

Let us go one further with this hon. the Deputy Minister with his sanctimonious drivel. He says he is doing such wonderful things for the Bantu people. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister do the same for the Indians and the Coloureds? Can an Indian become a Prime Minister? Can a Coloured become the head of a department? Can an Indian become a general in the army? Can a Coloured become a Chief of Police? I think the hon. the Deputy Minister does not even want to take any notice. When he comes with all his sanctimonious nonsense and quotes from this letter about complete segregation, I want to ask him and his hon. Minister in front of him if they are prepared to face up to this criticism? It is quite apparent that he is not even prepared to listen. Is he prepared to stick to complete and total segregation? He has thrown that overboard long ago. He does not stand for complete segregation. Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister come and quote such a letter? I wonder how that letter finished off? Did it also ask for a petrol station or did it ask for a bottle-store, like the last one of which he read the last paragraph by mistake? Will he read the last paragraph of this letter too? But the biggest condemnation of this hon. Deputy Minister and his sanctimonious talk here tonight, was the report of the situation in which he and his Minister placed Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. This man, the leader of the Zulu people in this country, goes overseas as a specially invited guest and think of the embarrassing position that he is put in when he is asked over there whether he has met the Prime Minister of his country. This is the leader of an ethnic group created by this Government. This man has ashamedly to admit that he is ashamed to say that he has never met the Prime Minister of this country. Whose fault is it? It is the fault of that hon. Minister. I want to place on record that if it had not been for the efforts of my friend, the hon. member for South Coast, and myself, he would not even have met Chief Buthelezi.

That is untrue.

The hon. the Minister had not met him until we convinced him that it was in his best interest and in the best interest of the country that he should see Chief Buthelezi.

You are talking utter nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense. I know what I am talking about. The hon. the Minister cannot in all fairness deny this. It is quite apparent that these two hon. gentlemen have been put in here deliberately to pull this debate away from the line which it has taken. I want to say that I have never seen 118 more uncomfortable people in my life. [Interjections.]

Yes, you floundered about.

You with the big paunch, keep your trap shut.

What about your paunch?

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say that hon. member must keep his trap shut?

Yes!

Then the hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring this debate back to the line it has taken all day, namely an attack on the efficiency of the administration of this Government. It has become quite apparent that, in all spheres and not only when it comes to the administration of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, this Government is entirely inefficient. It has lost whatever efficiency it might have had. This country is suffering today under the maladministration of this Government. I am very sorry to see that neither the hon. the Minister of Agriculture nor his deputy is here.

He has resigned.

Perhaps he has resigned. I do not know. Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister will tell us.

I want to come back to the dairy industry. The hon. member for Newton Park raised this matter earlier. I want to say that South Africa is finding itself today in die most difficult situation. Unless we get a change of policy from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, South Africa will shortly find itself—and I say this advisedly— with the most dreadful shortage of milk. We will shortly find ourselves in the position where all the milk produced in this country will have to be channelled to the urban areas to maintain the supply of fresh milk. This country could be wholly self-sufficient with regard to dairy products, but we will shortly find ourselves in a position where we will rely on the outside world for all dairy products apart from fresh milk. What has this Government done for the dairy industry? It has done absolutely nothing. If you look at the history of this industry, you will see that production has been controlled by this Government by manipulating price!!