I move—

Mr. Speaker, I think the House will agree with me that hitherto we have had a very interesting and protracted debate, and it is only a pity that at the Committee Stage so few of our friends opposite made any constructive contribution in an attempt to improve this Bill. We have had certain loose allegations, and the Minister has also expressed certain pious wishes in connection with this matter. It is for this reason that this Bill at this stage still leaves so much to be desired.

This side of the House has tried hard and sincerely to make suggestions by which we could achieve changes in principle which would have been to the advantage not only of the Bill but also of the people whom the Bill must eventually serve. However, we have failed in our attempts to persuade the hon. the Minister or the Government to change or to improve in its essence the Bill or the composition of the Council which it is to establish; or, as I said at the Second Reading, to remove the seeds which it contains and which, if we are not careful, will work towards its destruction; or to remove its inherent weaknesses which are already contributing to its early demise. At the Second Reading, Mr. Speaker, I also said that if the Minister failed to make certain most necessary changes or improvements, his Council would have to succumb under the weight of its own weaknesses and deficiencies, and that it would die, as I have said, before it was born. In this regard I am referring particularly to Clauses 2, 5, 7 and 8.

The Minister has also seen fit to ignore my representations which, I want to say in all humility, are based on scientific principles and are educationally and psychologically sound, as well as the representations of this side of the House and of the education profession. The result of his refusal to accept any of our suggestions or the proposals made by the commissions aimed at making this Council the best possible body, is that the council which he intends establishing must, I say with all due respect, be his sole and exclusive responsibility. As regards the Minister’s guarantees, I want to say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that if we could place on record and if the promises the Minister made to us during the Second reading and the Committee Stage actually formed part of this legislation, I would have felt reassured regarding the effect of the legislation as now before us. But unfortunately speeches by Ministers do not form part of legislation. Nevertheless, as a result of what he has said, we and I think this House will call him to account if this council of his is not a success.

Mr. Speaker, the council provided for in this Bill has too many defects and the Bill contains too many vague provisions to be a success. In passing I feel it is my duty once again to refer to Clause 5. The hon. the Minister has already given an indication that he will reconsider Clause 5, that he will study it and see whether he cannot meet us. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that Clause 5 (2) (a) provides—

In other words, the Minister can approach the Administrator and then in consultation with him, instruct that such a committee shall be appointed to investigate certain aspects of matters relating to the school. Let us assume that the Administrator does not see his way clear to giving the Minister that approval, or to giving the council that approval. Then Clause 2 (b) continues and says that he can try to obtain that approval from the Superintendent-General of Education or the Director of Education. In other words, he will now go to the official, to the employee, and this subordinate officer must then give him the approval, i.e. grant him access to the school or schools. This is a completely wrong principle. It simply cannot work. Because the official can simply not grant that approval as he will only get into trouble with his own superiors. Mr. Speaker, this council still contains in itself the seeds of division and bitterness and possible disunity and discord and although I do not want to claim for one moment that this Minister will try to create any disruption in education with his council, this body as at present constituted can still be regarded as a body which can serve as a mouthpiece of the Minister, a body which he has appointed to serve him slavishly. And it is here that, by adopting a different method for constituting his council, he could so easily have placed his council above suspicion and could have assured the education profession that this advisory council would be free of any pressure, except the pressure of its own conscience and the pressure of its own convictions. It is a pity that this clause has not been so amended that it would be possible for this council to be placed above suspicion. The constitution of this council in my opinion carries in itself the seed of division with the result that it will not be a success. It is of course my sincere hope and trust that it will be a great success from the outset. But I repeat that as far as this clause and the method of the council’s constitution are concerned, the result can be that this body will be stillborn.

The hon. the Minister as well as the chairman of the Select Committee have testified that it is their sincere wish, their sincere aim, merely to use this council to serve education as such. Why then, may I ask with due respect, are they allowing this council, with reference particularly to Clauses 2, 7 and 8, to suffer a setback at birth as a result of the suspicion which these provisions create. Understand me, correctly, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying that the Minister will allow party politics or his own ideological ideas to be decisive factors in appointing these members. Nevertheless I feel very strongly that by directly appointing his members, as provided in Clause 2, he is bringing himself and his council under suspicion and placing that council in a wrong light from the outset. I repeat: It is a pity that this has happened. Nevertheless at this late stage I still want to express my confidence that the hon. the Minister will find it possible in the Other Place to change the system of appointment, even if only slightly. As matters stand at present, that is to say as far as the constitution of the council is concerned, both the Minister and the council will wage an uphill struggle, and together with the results which Clauses 7 and 8 could have, the professions, the provinces and the teachers associations will find it difficult to believe that the Minister’s body is not a body which he can abuse for his own purposes—I for not say that he will do so; or that it is a body which, and I am now quoting from his own Bill, “shall endeavour to uphold and promote the prestige of the teaching profession and of persons engaged therein”; or that he is establishing a body which will merely act as an advisory body.

As far as the legislation in its present form is concerned, all that remains therefore under present circumstances—this is completely in the Minister's hands—is for him to choose the members of his council so carefully, to choose people of such outstanding quality and calibre, that notwithstanding the suspicion which has arisen as a result of Clause 2 and which is still arising, the suspicion will disappear and it will be made easier for the public to accept this council; or he must by these means and by the calibre of the persons he appoints, establish a body which will enjoy the confidence not only of this House, but also of the teaching profession as a whole and also of the country. In other words all that remains is for the hon. the Minister to keep strictly to the terms of the Bill, and do what the Bill itself says, namely, that he will only appoint people who have distinguished themselves in the field of education or are otherwise specially qualified in some aspect in the work of the council. If he does this, then I think he can achieve success.

I suppose he must appoint you.

He cannot do better than to appoint me, but he will have to pay! Clause 8 is a provision which together with Clauses 2 and 7 will make it extremely difficult for the Minister, and for his council as well, to meet and to satisfy a lone-felt need in the education profession. This Clause is going to cause him and his council difficulty because what do we find here? In terms of Clause 8 the Minister is allowing a council not only to prescribe to him. He as Minister cannot submit any legislation to this House before he has consulted the Education Council. The Senate cannot submit any legislation before that council has been consulted. But the Minister has a way out. He can tell the council: Go to the devil! But who are really in difficulties are the less important bodies such as the provincial councils and the provincial administrations who, of they should refuse to listen to such a council, to the advice the advisory council gives them, will simply be in real difficulties. This Government. Mr. Speaker, already has the power to interfere in provincial matters—not the Government but the State has that power. But it is a pity that we are creating the suspicion that this House is prepared to ignore Sections 84 and 114 of the Constitution in establishing this council.

But, Mr. Speaker, this clause has a further weakness, namely, that the council’s activities or functions are limited to White schools. It is a pity that Clause 8 limits its activities to White schools. I want to repeat that the well-established principle throughout the world, and the Minister knows this as well as I, is that education in its essence remains education, no matter for whom it provides, no matter with which races or persons or language groups it may deal. And in our country where we have separate institutions for the training and education of White and non-White the principle of Education remains in essence education, and the principle does not change. It is a pity that in Clause 8 the hon. the Minister for example is giving the council to a certain extent the power to bind him and that he does not want to allow the council to bind other educational bodies as well. I am sorry he has done this. This is also a great weakness which will militate against its success.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to conclude with these words, that at this stage of the Bill now before us, the Minister’s council is not only advisory, but it is also wider in scope than merely advisory. In the second place, it is clear that the council can interfere with educational institutions in South Africa. If this should happen it will be a great pity from the point of view of the co-operation we have to-day and the object which the Minister has in mind. Once again I want to say that the future of this council, its success or failure, the future of the good name of the professional man, Jan de Klerk, more than the future of the politician, Minister de Klerk, will depend on the council he is to establish. We on this side of the House can only express the confidence that for the sake of education which we all want to serve he will appoint a council which will enjoy the goodwill and confidence of the nation as a whole. For this reason I should like to move—

1. (1)it provides the National Advisory Education Council with powers which are not advisory; and
2. (2) it confers powers upon the Minister to interfere, generally, with education and its related institutions and schools.".

I second.

Mr. Speaker, it is definitely a proud moment to be present at the birth of a new era in our education, particularly when one sees that the child, the mother and the father are all three well. I do not want to discuss the amendment; I just want to refer to one or two provisions of the Bill to which the Opposition have studiously not referred, not at any stage, but particularly not at the Committee Stage when they had the opportunity to do so.

The crux of this Bill, the object of this Bill, is to take education out of party politics. The Opposition have not put it in this way. This was the course I adopted during the deliberations of the Select Committee. I always kept it out of party politics. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) helped me and helped me very well, and I appreciate all the consultations I had with him, and he knows that our main object was to take education out of the political arena.

One of the matters to which I devoted a great deal of attention in drawing up this legislation—and I worked on this legislation for eight years—is embodied in Clause 1 which will result in certain of the private schools, 25 of them, sharing in the benefits and the service which this council will be able to give to education. In this clause it is laid down that all schools which received financial assistance out of public funds, will be “schools” under this Bill. Prof. Bingle said in reply to a question which I put to him: “No one would be such a vandal as to destroy the private schools.” I would certainly be the last to do so, or to draw up legislation which was aimed at harming the private schools. The legislation also makes provision—and the Opposition have not been eager to mention this—that minorities can also make their voice heard in two instances, that is to say, when advice is given, the minority can also give advice. This is surely reasonable—not two-thirds, and not a majority of one, but the minority can also submit their advice. When the council submits its report to this House and the Other Place and to the Administrators of the provinces, the minority will also be able to attach its report to the other report. That is provided for in this legislation. But I must make haste. The crux and the basis of this legislation are to be found in Clause 7 (2) which specifically provides that the council must—there is no option but this is an instruction—endeavour to do its work in consultation with the Department of Education. Arts and Science, the provincial education departments, education bodies and organizations and persons who are concerned with education matters—every parent in this country has the right to derive benefit from the deliberations and the advice of this council. But what is more, the council must endeavour—it must do so—to consult with those organizations. They can all approach the council, and in terms of the legislation it is obliged to consult them. The Opposition did not say a word about this. The Bill obliges the Minister to consult the other Departments and the provinces if he has legislation in mind. There must be consultation at all stages. The Minister must consult. The provinces must consult. The council and the provinces must consult. The provinces must consult one another, and one of the instructions to this council, which is laid down here specifically, is that by consultation and discussion it must bring together the provinces which arc so far apart at the moment. They must meet one another and discuss their difficulties. While this legislation embodies an absolute instruction that there must be consultation, there is no instruction that there must be legislation. Legislation is a last resort, and I have always regarded it as such and I have said at all times that legislation is a last resort, the ultima ratio regis.

There is something else which the Opposition has not mentioned and which is of the utmost importance, namely, the fact that despite the suspicion which is continually being aroused against this legsislation, the legislation embodies full guarantees that no one can suffer any harm. With all this in mind, I feel that the accusations and the suspicion regarding the contents of this legislation are not justified. There are many bodies which can undertake research and it is not stated specifically here that this council must undertake research because it must co-ordinate the existing bodies and its real task is to co-ordinate. That is laid down in the legislation. Hon. members have submitted that the council will take certain powers to coordinate and that this is unnecessary. I specifically provided in this legislation that the council would not have any executive power or functions. What powers can it take unto itself? That is provided for in the Bill; it does not have such powers, nor will it have such powers. It has no executive power but while it is coordinating it must take action, and this action will be to bring about consultation between the various interested authorities. The council does not have any statutory power to legislate. The De Villiers Commission recommended that if the Minister accepts its advice it should have the force of law. I immediately rejected this. The council cannot legislate at all.

But there is another aspect for which this legislation also provides, namely, that although the council will be an eminent, separate and independent body, a worthy and academically free council which will not be responsible to anyone, it will not be isolated, because the Bill specifically provides that the five Departments of Education will each have direct representation on that council. There is therefore no question of isolation. Nor will it be able to work in secret and devise all sorts of undesirable plans, because the Bill specifically provides that it must lay its reports annually upon the Table of this House.

I conclude in the full confidence that this legislation for which I am responsible, meets the needs which have been felt for many years already, that it is a good Bill, a strong Bill, a Bill of which no one need be ashamed. The parents will now be given a greater say and will appreciate their responsibilities to a greater extent. The parents will be given a part to play in furthering the interests of their children, whereas they have tried to stand on one side. But there is one potent factor which will be given a part to play, namely, the inspectorate, and this will be a very strong force in our education. The inspectorate will help in building up a system, not a Natal system, or a Nationalist system, or a Jingo system, but an education system. Let us assume that this great task of the council will not, as the hon. member has said, remain a pious wish, but that it will become a brilliant reality. I should like to express the hope that we shall now see an end to the discord over our children. Do not let us turn our schools into battlefields. Do not let us quarrel over our children. Do not let us make our children unhappy amongst themselves. This Bill makes provision whereby people of varying beliefs will sit down together, will express only their sacred convictions and will all have the opportunity to do so when the interests of the child are at stake. I was the person who deleted the word “White” and the hon. member knows it. To me a child is a child, whether he be White, Coloured, Brown or Black. He did not choose his parents, his language and the soil on which he was born. We are responsible for all the children in this country, and if there is anyone who wants to place obstacles in the way of such children it will be better if a millstone is tied around his neck and he sinks to the depths of the sea. My concluding thought is that I want to see our children happy.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) has just told us that this is a very proud occasion for him, a proud moment in his life. It is certainly not a proud moment in my life. Towards the end of his speech the hon. member became Biblical in his quotations. To continue in a Biblical strain, I can say that he is the John the Baptist of this Bill. He preached to us seven years ago, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Nationalism is at hand”. He originally flew the kite; we knew that this Bill would follow; and it has come.

The hon. member for Witbank tells us that on this Council the minority will be able to give advice. The minority on the Select Committee gave advice, and the minority in this House gave advice, but how did that help? The minority on the Select Committee gave advice to such good effect that they proposed 29 amendments, but not one was accepted. What has happened during the passage of this Bill through the House is that it has revealed our differences, and not that we have been able to understand each other and come to some compromise. We know that all the great achievements of government, and all the great things of life in human relations come through compromise, through give and take, through being prepared to make sacrifices in order to reach agreement, so that instead of having continual arguments about our differences we can live happily together. We have not been able to do that. The hon. member says that all bodies will be able to appear before this Council and state their points of view. Of course they will, but to what effect? Then he says they will be able to discuss their difficulties with the Council. They will. So did we, but it did not help us very much. He says the report will be tabled annually. How will that help us? Post facto, after everything has happened, they will publish a report.

Now, at this third reading I should like to say how I view the Bill. This Bill has come to its final stage, after three years of discussion, after three sessions. It was introduced in 1960, it appeared again in 1961, and it has now passed through all stages in 1962. It even went to a Select Committee where our differences were more clearly defined than they had been previously. The final stage of this Bill gives us an Act which grants the Minister absolute powers in education. The Minister can decide how many members there will be on this Council. The Minister can decide how many of those members will belong to the executive. He can also appoint every member. The same Minister has to give his assent if the Council appoints an ad hoc committee. The Minister can decide the members’ remuneration. The Minister can say that if any province wishes to introduce legislation, it will have to obtain the advice of the Council through him. The Minister throughout has these absolute powers. The serious problem the Minister has now is how he will exercise these powers. I sincerely hope he will see the great dangers that confront him. This is not the first Council which has been nominated in this way by a Minister with absolute power. We see the disastrous failure of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation, where similar powers were granted to a Minister and where the Corporation failed absolutely to obtain the confidence of the public as a whole. The Minister, in making his appointments, may find a similar difficulty. At various stages I have put this question to hon. members opposite and to witnesses who support their point of view: What is your objection to having two Councils, one for English-medium education, and one for Afrikaans-medium education? People say we are one nation, but hon. members quoted the good example we tried to follow in some respects, the Butler Act, where it said: If you wish to have two councils, have two. And the Interkerklike Komitee, in putting up their proposals in 1955, said that in addition to this Council there should be another Council for Technical Education. Under this Act of course the Minister cannot establish two Councils, but it may be necessary for him to allow this Council to function in two sections. I think that would be a very good thing. If he obtains information from the Council in regard to English-medium education, he should give attention to it and apply his mind to their views, because they are not his views. The Minister and I have both been interested in education. We have both tried to give service to education, but we disagree about the fundamentals in South Africa, and we must recognize these differences because only in that way can we live happily and progress together.

The Minister has told us that he himself is full of confidence. He is prepared to stake his political reputation on this Bill. An unfriendly critic would say, “What is that worth?”. It depends on the market in which you bet. If you stake your reputation, where do you stake it? If the Minister stakes his reputation amongs the Nationalists, he will win, but if he stakes it with the English-speaking people he will lose; and if the whole Government were to stake their reputation in the only market in the world which is a world market, UN, their bet is worth nothing. No one will back them. The Minister tells us he is prepared to stake his political reputation. I do not think that matters a great deal. It only shows his excessive confidence. But I want to say this to the Minister. He is himself certain that he can make a success of the work of this Council. He is not at all modest in accepting these great responsibilities. There is no feeling of diffidence about him. He is certain that he can make a success of it. We shall observe it very closely, but I make this final appeal to him, to show a little more generosity of spirit than he has shown during the passage of this Bill. I made one very modest appeal over a minor matter, at the second reading, which he rejected. That appeal was in regard to 25 private schools out of 65 which receives a small subsidy from the provinces. I asked him whether he would be prepared to let them be associated with the remaining 40, and he refused. Because he did that, I do not view the future of this Council with any confidence whatever.

Mr. Speaker, at this last stage of the Bill, I find great pleasure in saying that I am grateful that we have reached the point where we are entering this new era in our education. The objections which hon. members opposite have put forward are in most cases unfounded, and where they have in fact been well-founded they were based on suspicion and envy in a. certain sense, but mostly on suspicion because they refuse to trust the Minister and this side of the House. This legislation has been well drafted and with the best of intentions, with the object of truly taking our education out of politics and placing it on a pedestal because the future of our people and our country depends on the education of our children. I want to welcome this leglislation wholeheartedly and I want to express the hope that it will contribute towards giving our education in future that course and direction which are essential in every country. To-day it is 50 years since the establishment of Union, and it is certainly high time the legislators of this country took steps to ensure that this one matter, the education of our children, is also given course and direction and is no longer allowed to move in any direction it likes. This legislation will contribute towards that object.

I do not want to discuss the constitution of the council any further. I just want to point out to hon. members that to me the crux of the matter is to be found in the constitution of the council, that is to say, there will be five representatives of the various education departments. They must bp on that council. In other words, the fact that the Minister must consult them before he can introduce any legislation shows that there will be direct liaison between the Minister and such persons who represent education in their provinces. Such a person can immediately see the matter from the point of view of his province and this will contribute towards ensuring consultation at a high level. I agree with the hon. member for Wffbank (Mr. Mostert) that any legislation which flows from such advice will only be the last resort. This will be the last resort when all other methods have failed and the Minister will not enforce legislation for any piffling reason.

But I want to give the Opposition a further assurance. As I see matters, this legislation constitutes a safeguard for the minority group in this country and not a threat to that group. The English-speaking people are suspicious of this legislation because they believe that they will always be in the minority and can therefore be overwhelmed by the way of thinking and the beliefs of the majority group, and that we may use this legislation as an instrument to indoctrinate the children in order to force our way of thinking upon them. But I regard the legislation as providing that very protection because we provide specifically that minority reports can also be submitted to the Minister and laid upon the Table so that the Opposition will have the opportunity to see what are the views of the minority group, and can then ensure that these views are brought to the notice of the public and the outside world through the medium of the Press, so that the interests of the minority group will not be neglected. This is the clearest possible proof to me that we only mean well and that we mean no harm. Nor would we be so foolish as to interfere with the traditions, the language, the culture or the rights of the minority group.

Do not think that you will always sit there.

I am referring to the minority group. If we should be the minority group the position would be exactly the same in our case. My argument is that we would not be so foolish as to interfere with the culture of the minority group, because if we were to do so, we know from the experience of every nation and every country in the world that that is the best way of rejuvenating such a group. The moment one interferes with the rights of such a group, it gets up on its hind legs and it fights through thick and thin.

I want to welcome this legislation—and with this I want to conclude—because to me it places the child at the centre of our education. The child once again becomes the crux, the central figure in our education, and this Bill makes it possible and envisages that anything which interferes with the right and the privilege of the child to be the central figure in our education will be removed. The future, South Africa and the Republic belong to the youth and to the child. Only the very best is good enough for the child. If the child’s interests are at stake, everything must make way—I say everything. The authorities, all authorities if necessary must make way. To me the child remains the central figure in education. Education is therefore for the sake of the child and not the child for the sake of education. I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly.

I do not share the views expressed by the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) in welcoming this Bill. The same objections that I have had from the start of this measure, not only this year but in previous years, still obtain. I want to say this in reply to the hon. member for Randfontein that I think he places far too much faith in the power of minority reports to influence the course of education in the future in this country. I am glad that at least we have that concession that reports are to be Tabled, minority reports as well as the majority reports, but I do not think that simply placing those reports on the Table of this House is going to make any difference whatever in the course that education is going to take and that it is going to provide any real protection for minority groups. We have seen over and over again in the course of the political history of this country what happens to the reports of minority groups. They are shelved and no notice is taken of the suggestions made in those minority reports. I do agree with one thing that the hon. member for Randfontein says and that is that the objections to this Bill are based on suspicion. That is perfectly true; they are based on suspicion.

Why do you not try to get away from it?

Because unfortunately I share those suspicions, and there are very good reasons for it. The entire history behind this Bill, the statements that have been made by the Prime Minister and by other hon. members on the Government side, have aroused the suspicions of the entire English-speaking section of this country. There has been talks of one ideal for the country, of White consciousness being taught in the schools, of our children having to be moulded in a certain pattern, and all of us know that that pattern is not the pattern of the minority groups. That pattern is the pattern of the ideologists expressed by the ruling party, and whether we like it or not, this country is not made up of one people with one culture, one background and one outlook. There are vastly different concepts and philosophies between the different groups in this country, and every public utterance that has come from the Nationalist side of the House has been designed to change that different philosophy, that different outlook and that different culture into one mould, and that is the mould and the ideals expressed by the Nationalist Party. That, Sir, is the reason why there has been this suspicion clouding all the discussions on this measure, permeating the Select Committee discussions, and, of course, it has been the reason why there have been widespread protests against this Bill and why there have been petitions signed by thousands upon thousands of anxious parents. I would have been happy to have been able to say that I believe these suspicions to be ill-founded but I cannot say that because I too share the suspicions, largely because of all these utterances by responsible members of the Nationalist Party over the last few years.

Sir, no significant changes are now revealed in the contents of this Bill as we see it at the third reading. There were certain changes introduced after the Select Committee as between the original Bill submitted to the Select Committee and the Bill as it finally emerged for the second reading, but no really significant changes were accepted by the hon. the Minister at the Committee Stage. The Committee reported back to this House with a few changes, admittedly, some introduced by the hon. the Minister himself and a couple of minor amendments which were suggested from the Opposition side of the House, but no really significant change has in fact emerged from all the deliberations of the Select Committee and of the Committee of this House. The same objections unfortunately therefore still obtain. A body which is meant to be an advisory body, which the Bill itself says is to have advisory functions only, is nevertheless given powers far beyond those of a normal advisory board. Perhaps if the hon. the Minister had omitted Clause 5 entirely from this Bill, perhaps if it did not still contain Clause 5, the clause which gives the powers of investigation to this council into individual schools, one’s suspicions might have been set at rest: then one would have been able to say that this is indeed an advisory board; that is its function: that is what the Bill lays down, but as long as Clause 5 is in this Bill, as long as it contains a clause giving these wide powers of investigation to the council, one can no longer assume that its functions are going to be advisory and that its functions are to raise the standards of education in South Africa, something with which I believe everybody would have concurred—a council to give advice for the purpose of raising the standard of education in South Africa—but the council’s functions go beyond that. They enable the council to investigate schools, to go into what is known as the internal of education, to go into the actual running of the school by the principal, to go into the curriculum, the method of instruction, the way in which history, religion and science are taught by the teachers in that school. There is no doubt that this Bill as it stands will, I believe interfere with the initiative of the teaching proffesion in South Africa and will attempt to could our children into one set pattern. Sir, this might be to the short-term advantage of the political party in power, but South Africa as a whole is going to lose as the result of this, because we will turn out a generation of children who are fit to associate with each other but are not fit to associate with the world as a whole, children whose whole ideas have been moulded into one pattern, whose cultures and philosophy have been taught to face in one direction and one direction only. Sir, the hon. member for Randfontein used these very phrases, that education must take one course and one direction from now on, and I say that that is exactly what we do not want. We want to bring up children with open minds, children who can absorb what the cultures of other countries have to offer, and if you could your children’s thoughts into one direction, if you teach them that other cultures are to be rejected …

Nobody said so.

…Sir, what is meant by education taking one course and one direction?

Giving direction to education.

To me anybody who controls the direction of education or who attempts to control what is known vaguely as the basic principles of education and the policy of education, is controlling education, and this means that diversity goes by the board, that uniformity replaces it, and as I have said earlier we may find in this country that the political party in power will gain, but South Africa as a whole will be the loser.

I am glad that I can rise and, together with my hon. friends on this side of the House, congratulate the Republic of South Africa, the entire educational world and the child of the future on this Bill which is being placed on the Statute Book. I am glad that I do not share the pessimism and the condemnation that we have had from hon. members opposite and the suspicion with which this Bill is regarded. Mr. Speaker, I am a happy man to-day and I feel very contented, because while this Bill, as I think the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) said, unwittingly gives the Minister absolute powers, with which of course I do not entirely agree, everything depends—and these were historic words which he uttered—on how legislation is administered. That is true in fact of all legislation. There is one Act of which that cannot be said. Legislation grants powers, as it inevitably must. In the age in which we live it is completely frustrating and it is harmful to any country if one has to work with a cumbersome machine, but there is also such a thing as responsibility and there is a place where the Minister concerned can be called to account, and that is this House. I am not afraid of the future therefore. On the contrary, this is one of the happiest moments of my life.

But I do want to reply just briefly to the main speaker opposite in the light of his party’s amendment, because I think he has dealt with all the points. I want to congratulate him on having given a good summary of the Opposition’s objections to this Bill. I do not intend replying to all these objections: that would be unnecessary repetition. But as far as the contents are concerned, the hon. member has said that if the promises I have made could have formed part of this Bill, he would have been satisfied. Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of any promises that I made! All I did was to interpret the legislation. I shall be the person and my party will be the party that will have to interpret this legislation, and while suspicion and prejudice rained down on this side of the House, I simpily tried as the mouthpiece of my party to place the correct interpretation on the provisions of this Bill. The hon. member saw fit to Say that this side of the House had made no contribution or only a very small contribution at the Committee Stage towards improving this Bill. That surely is not correct. We on this side of the House do not speak with two or three voices. We have an ideal which we are striving to achieve, and we are not here to delay the proceedings unnecessarily, and where my hon. friends on this side remained quiet, they showed their tacit agreement with the interpretation that I placed on this legislation. After the explanation given by the Opposition on the Select Committee, it was crystal clear what the motive was underlying their opposition and if a naughty child refuses to listen, it is unnecessary for two people to take two canes to give that child a hiding; one man can do the job, and that unfortunately was the task of the Minister.

The hon. member has objected particularly to Clauses 2. 5, 7 and 8. I do not want to say anything further about Clause 2 which deals with the constitution of the council. But the hon. member has said something about Clause 5 which I must correct. He has referred particularly to what he regards as a weakness in the Bill, namely, that in terms of Clause 5 (2) (a) the Minister after consultation with the Administrator may appoint a committee to institute an investigation, but if the Administrator refuses, the Minister will give instructions to a subordinate official and say: “Although your superior has refused, you as director of education must do this or that.” Mr. Speaker, surely that is not correct. Why create this incorrect impression? What is the actual position? It is this, that the Administrator who has control over the director, can say to the director of education after he has refused: “Look, I have refused to permit such an investigation, and I do not want you to give permission to these people to visit any of your schools.” The director of education simply has to obey that instruction. That after all is the general legal position.

Then why do you have (b) in the Bill?

I made it quite clear in my reply to the second reading and during the Committee Stage that these people operate under a superior authority. Take my own position. The Secretary for Education, Arts and Science normally functions in terms of the Public Service Act and he does all the things he is allowed to do. But if I as Minister say to him, “You may not do this and I shall not allow you to do that; I do not give you the right to appoint any non-White labourers at hostels: I want to appoint all the non-White labourers”, then the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science does not have the right to say to me: “Sir, I want to appoint them.” If I were to be so stupid as to say to him, “You must come and report in my office every morning and then I shall tell you what you must do to-day”, then he must do so. But because in the first place the Administrator must be consulted and in the second place the people who are in charge of the schools must give their consent, a terrible fuss is now being made and it is being suggested that the Minister will use a back door and tell the Administrator, “You go to blazes; I do not care if you do not want to give your consent”, and that the Minister will then go to the director and say: “Here I am and I want access to your schools.” What a childish argument! Mr. Speaker, in accordance with my promise to the hon. member I have considered this clause very carefully. I have discussed it with my Department and the law advisers and what I am now saying is what they have said but just in different words. It is not necessary at all to amend this clause in any way because the dangers which the hon. member sees in it simply do not exist.

Clauses 2, 7 and 8, in the hon. member’s own words, create suspicion, and because they create suspicion, this council will be stillborn. The reasons the hon. member gives are in the first place the fact that the Minister will appoint the members; that is why the council will be stillborn. This is his main objection. I just want to tell the hon. member and the country that if I were bound and if any of my successors were bound to appoint to the council people who are nominated by all the various bodies and associations which hon. members consider should have the right to nominate persons, then this council would be stillborn; it would be a basilisk. The danger I see is that we would then have pressure groups and that persons would be nominated who have absolutely no understanding of the real object of this council, namely, to give advice at the highest level, to coordinate and to build for the future on the basis of its sound knowledge of theory and practice, and of the background and the past. [Interjection.] I know the hon. member does not agree with himself; in his heart and mind he realizes that this is correct, but it is the party political game to say that this Minister will appoint a Nationalist council. That is all it amounts to.

I said that if I were the Minister I would get the teachers to nominal these people.

I want to issue this challenge to the hon. member and I hope he will accept it. After the council has been appointed, we may get objections perhaps. There may be people who would have liked to see a certain person on the council because in their opinion he is a good person to have on such a council, but I am afraid that we have so many good people that we will not be able to appoint all of them to the council. But I challenge the hon. member to come and tell me after the council has been appointed: “Here you have made a very bad appointment; this man is worth nothing. In terms of which provision did you appoint him? You are bound by Clause 7 as regards the functions of the council; and you are bound by Clause 2; you are fenced in. On what grounds did you appoint this man?”

I issue that challenge to the hon. member and I hope he will be man enough, once the council has been appointed and when we meet next year, to congratulate me on the council as I have appointed it and that he will then withdraw these remarks which are aimed at creating suspicion. With reference to Clauses 7 and 8 the hon. member says that I shall not be able to convince the teaching profession that this council is not going to be misused. He does not say that that will be the position but he says that it may be the position. But he is a prophet and his prophetic insight tells him that I shall not succeed in convincing the teaching profession. I want to tell him that the teaching profession is convinced and thankful. I have not yet received one single objection from a teacher or anyone directly connected with education. I want to tell hon. members that the teaching profession is grateful that at long last an ideal is being realized. The hon. member knows how many commissions and conferences have recommended this National Education Council since 1911. Commissions sat in 1911, 1916, 1924 (Jan Hofmeyr’s commission), 1934, 1935, 1937, and 1939. These commissions all sat during the time of the old South African Party and the United Party. Actually the child was born at that time, but to-day the United Party is turning it into a stepchild. We have long since adopted it and we shall bring it up.

And make it plump and healthy.

We shall make it plump and healthy and we are going to give the country something of which it will be proud.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) has said that Clause 8 will cause us great difficulty because in the first place the Minister himself is bound by the advice of the council before he can introduce legislation, but the Minister has such overriding powers and authority that he can tell the council, “I am not going to heed your advice”. But the poor provinces do not have that power and the poor provinces will have to bow and say. “Yes, my lord”. That is not the intention. The hon. member was in favour of such an advisory council. He was only opposed to the coordinating powers and the other powers which the council has, but he has said from the outset that they also want an advisory council.

Of course we do.

Well, here I only have an advisory council. And what advice has ever carried the element of compulsion with it? If I were to say to the hon. member, “You must remember that if you do this or that, then this or that will happen to you,” and if the hon. member then refuses to accept my advice, then he will be sending himself over the precipice. But there is nothing of a compulsory nature contained in Clause 8. The advice will be accepted or the advice will be rejected. But I believe that the advice will be of such a high professional standard that it will be accepted. We shall bring these people together, and when we bring them together we shall have cooperation, and if we have cooperation, we shall have coordination, and once this concept has been put into practice, we shall also believe in one another’s bona fides.

As far as this amendment is concerned, it is a summary of the Opposition’s problem. They have created an unnecessary problem for themselves. They have created an insoluble problem for themselves. Have they ever thought what sort of Bill we would have if their 29 amendments were to be accepted? I have rewritten the Bill with their amendments, and I just want to say that I admire the willingness of the Chairmen who presided in Committee even to allow the amendments. If their amendments had been accepted, it would have been a disjointed, ineffectual, stillborn body which would never have amounted to anything.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude and I want to give the country and the educational world five key words which I think it is necessary to remember at this stage. The first key word I want to give in conclusion on this historic occasion is the word “gratitude”. I think it is no more than right and just that we should express our gratitude to the educationists who throughout our existence at this southern tip of Africa and particularly since 1910 when we transferred certain educational matters to the provincial authorities, and even in the old republican days, brought the standard of our education and the training of our people to its present high level under difficult and restrictive circumstances. I should like to make it quite clear so that there can be no misunderstanding that the establishment of this council does not represent a motion of no confidence in our provincial administrations. On the contrary. The work that they have done must be praised because it is of a high standard. I also want to make it quite clear that this legislation does not represent an attempt to take away the powers of the provinces. On the contrary. We need far more agents in our country to be able to do our work. One of these agents is the private school. I regard the private schools as a very good agent in many instances—not all of them, because there are some of them which do not serve the country. When they do make their contribution, however, I say that we need them as agents. We do not intend abolishing them because they represent an important agency. My second key word in connection with this Bill is “fulfilment”. In other words with this Bill we are on the threshold—I only say “on the threshold”—of fulfilling an ideal for which we have longed for 40 years.

Which ideal?

If the hon. member had attended the debates he would have known what that ideal is. During these 40 years people have longed for co-ordination and co-operation. They have felt that many of the things that are wrong can be put right in this way. Now however, we are on the threshold of fulfilling this ideal. But this Bill gives me a third key word, namely, “work”. With this Bill the life and the work of great educationists, and not the life and work of party politicians, will reach fulfilment—great educationists who have gone before us and educationists who are alive to-day and who realize the weaknesses of our system. They have complained all these years. To-day we can place the crown on the work not of a political party, but of these men and women who over the years have complained so bitterly to us as well as to the Opposition.

My fourth keyword is our “future”. With this legislation we can go forward to meet our future cheerfully. Our young Republic, as the hon. member for Randfontein has also put it, is only a year old, but we go forward to meet the future full of courage and enterprise because we feel that we are now creating for ourselves the weapons armed with which we can cheerfully face the future. My fifth and final keyword is “confidence”. We can now join hands, and here I want to refer to what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) said. He said that we must realize that our English-speaking friends have an approach to many of the principles of education and training which is perhaps somewhat different to that of the Afrikaans-speaking people. I agree with him wholeheartedly that unity of approach cannot be achieved by trying to force together things which do not belong together. I want to tell the hon. member that I do not believe that this advisory council will strive to achieve arid uniformity in any aspect of education—whether it be the religious aspect, the syllabus or any other aspect. If such an attempt were made it would be the most uneducational principle that could possibly be applied and it would therefore be a failure. As a matter of fact I do not think that it will even be necessary to remind this proposed council of that fact. In fact unity can be achieved only by accepting the differences between us. The hon. member placed great emphasis on this, and I appreciated it. The Select Committee clearly showed where we differ—and it is a good thing that we know where we differ because then we can respect and appreciate one another in the light of those differences. But we shall not make any progress in this country by taking someone who differs from us by the scruff of the neck and forcing him to do something.

In conclusion I want to say that we can now face the future equipped with this legislation which will make it possible for us to give the child only the best. Everything hinges on the child. In this way we shall achieve greater unity and greater heights, and last but not least, we shall be able better to equip the young children who are entrusted to our care to meet the challenge of the times—to equio them better than they have been in the past for the challenges presented by this era in every field, whether it be the technological or any other field. By so doing we shall be rendering a service to the present young generation and future generations in South Africa.

I move the amendments to Clause 5 standing in my name, namely—

1. holds more than forty per cent of the issued shares in such company or contributed more than forty per cent of the capital of such other association;
2. has any financial interest whatsoever in any other authority granted or renewed or deemed to be an authority granted or renewed under this section, to sell liquor for consumption on the premises where it is sold.;

The aim is to put it beyond any doubt that the “association” to which reference is made, must consist of Coloureds or Asiatics. In addition to that provision is also being made regarding the bottle-store in Athlone. Because this person acquired established rights before this Bill was introduced, I want to make it quite clear that he is exempted from the obligation to provide on-consumption facilities. He can of course do so if he wishes, but he will not be obliged to do so.

Although it does not apply to this clause, I should like with the permission of the Chair to make a few remarks with reference to the Bill as a whole. In the first place I want to say that it is the intention to put the Liquor Act which Parliament adopted last year and which inter alia affected the Coloureds in the other provinces, but mainly the Bantu, into effect on 15 August of this year. Another point relates to the price at which liquor can be sold under this Bill. I have been asked inter alia by the hon. member for Durban (Point), whether Coloureds will be allowed to sell liquor at prices lower than the prevailing market prices. I have already told the hon. member that that is not the object, but that everyone will be treated in the same way. Hon. members know however that it has been recommended that in the case of liquor for the Bantu a margin of 10 per cent should be allowed—in other words that they should be allowed to charge 10 per cent less than the prevailing market prices. I have reconsidered the whole matter, however, and have decided that the same market prices will apply to White, Coloured and Bantu liquor—in other words, to the whole trade. There will no longer be any exceptions therefore.

I believe that the amendments which are being proposed by the Minister to Clause 5 will have the effect of improving the clause. In regard to the words “holds more than forty per cent of the issued shares in such company …” proposed to be inserted in sub-section (9) of the proposed Section 100sex, I should like to point out that I do not believe there is any provision in this Bill which prevents a nominee from holding, or from acquiring and holding, shares merely with an authority. We know that there has been a lot of abuse in the Transvaal under the Asiatic Land Tenure Act in that persons used nominees and shares which ostensibly are the property of the person concerned but which in fact were held with a blank transfer form. I suggest that the Minister ought to give further attention to this matter in so far as this Bill is concerned, otherwise persons might be able to avoid the clear intention the Minister has in mind.

It is required by the regulations that these people must file an affidavit to the effect that they are not nominees, but the actual holders and owners of such shares. The Act also makes provision that in cases of fraud the licence of the person concerned can immediately be cancelled. The hon. member will, however, realize that it is very difficult to legislate against that type of thing.

I agree with what the hon. the Minister has said. Consequently, it is clear that the position is covered so far as the original application is concerned. But is that so in respect of agreements entered into subsequently? The cancellation of a licence is of course a real safeguard and if that is the method which is going to be used to deal with this I need not take the matter any further.

According to the Act and regulations all subsequent agreements must also be sanctioned.

The amendments which the Minister is now proposing, meets the weaknesses to which I referred during the second reading debate. There are, however, a few further points I should like to raise. The authorities which the Minister will grant will, naturally, be under such conditions or restrictions as he may wish to impose. The first point I should like to establish is whether the Minister intends when granting an authority, to make similar provisions in regard to the supply of food with liquor as was done in regard to Bantu authorities.

Yes, that is so.

I feel that it is essential that where liquor is available, such liquor should only be supplied on premises where food is available in sufficient quantities and not only snacks.

That will be done.

Secondly, I should like the hon. the Minister to confirm that all applications for authorities in terms of this amendment will be advertised and that there will be an opportunity for the lodging of objections.

That is so.

How will such advertising take place?

In the same way as with Bantu authorities.

There is, therefore, no idea that licence holders within, say one mile of the premises should be notified of such applications?

An indication will be given in the advertisement where the premises will be situated. People affected can, consequently, come forward with their objections.

Since the Bill was read a Second Time, it has come to my notice that a certain Coloured man has purchased a bottle store from a European and that advertisements have appeared, or are in preparation, for the transfer of that bottle store to a Coloured area. I wonder, however, whether this Coloured man is not being placed in jeopardy by this Bill. Consequently I should like to know from the Minister whether there is going to be any interference with legitimate businesses. I do not wish to see this particular Coloured losing anything or to find out after he has had the business for a year, that he cannot keep it.

But he cannot get transfer unless the State President has granted authority?

I understand that there already is such an authority or that it is being obtained. But is this man not, in any case, taking a chance? Coloured people should now, I think be warned that they cannot acquire bottle stores in European areas until two things have transpired, namely firstly, the State President has granted authority and, secondly, compliance with this Bill. That will put them on their guard.

Any Coloured person can of course negotiate for the purchase of a bottle store liquor licence in a European area. Before he will be able to transfer that licence to a Coloured area, however, he will have to get the permission of the Department of Coloured Affairs and the authority of the State President. I cannot visualize either of the two happening. Coloured people are, therefore, warned not to be misled by people wishing to sell licences to them, especially licences at exorbitant prices.

I presume that it is the intention of this clause where reference is made to “reasonable demand by the public” that the “reasonable demand” should apply to the commodity itself namely malt liquor and not to three brands of malt liquor. In other words, Sir. I presume it is intended that licensees must keep three brands of malt liquor if there is a reasonable demand for malt liquor, not if there is a reasonable demand for three brands of malt liquor. I do hot think that is altogether clear. I understand that that was not the impression which certain people had had.

Secondly, will the hon. the Minister give the Committee some idea as to how many new manufacturers there are likely to be in the line of malt liquor. I understand there are only two at the moment.

And two in the offing.

I see. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will give us some idea when this section will come into operation in relation to malt.

I am not entirely happy about the Drovnions of this clause but I do not intend moving an amendment in view of the discussion at the second reading. I feel it is not sound policy to pass a measure now demanding that something be done which it is not possible to do, in other words, laying down that there shall be beer from at least three different brewers when there are not three brewers in existence. But as the Minister says there is another one coming into the field shortly and a forth contemplated in the foreseeable future. What I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in regard to this is that if he is adamant that there should be three, whether he would consider delaying the application, the coming into effect of this clause. In terms of Clause 14 he is entitled to proclaim different dates for different clauses. I want to ask the Minister to postpone the coming into force of this clause until these two additional breweries are operating and their goods are on the market. Because unless he does that he is creating an artificial market for the existing two breweries and the first one to come into the field. Whether a person likes it or not he is going to be forced to buy their beer. It does place those breweries in a position of being able to dictate to hoteliers. They can be as difficult as they like; they can demand any conditions that they like; they can say “You’ve got to come and fetch it”; they can demand cash in advance or cash with order; they can impose whatever conditions they like to impose. They will have a stranglehold over the licences because, in terms of this Bill, they must accept whatever conditions may be imposed by the brewers. If the Minister will postpone the coming into force of this clause until there is a choice, until there is at least one more brewer than the number laid down, namely three, in other words, until the two brewers have come into the field, then at least there is a choice and free competition. You will not get the position where any one of the brewers can lay down conditions and regulations which he can force on to every licensee.

What conditions have you got in mind?

Well, he might say for instance “I am not going to deliver”.

That is a circumstance beyond the licensee’s control.

Or he can demand cash in advance or cash with order and not deliver the goods for, say, two weeks.

If he has not got the money to pay, it is also a circumstance beyond his control.

No, the person would have the money to pay. Assume I am a brewer and I say to a licensee: “You must pay cash on order and I will deliver the goods in two weeks’ time because I have not got it in stock at the moment”, then I will have the use of that money for that period, interest free. All sorts of personalities are always involved in business. A licensee clashes with a supplier over something that may have happened in the past. Although that may be the position, in terms of this Bill, every licensee is forced to deal with each of the three brewers who will be available. I do think it is an unreasonable situation where in private enterprise you are forcing a person to purchase from a particular source. It goes against the whole principle of private enterprise.

It is a principle accepted by Parliament.

Yes, it has been accepted in regard to wines and spirits where there is a choice. A minimum is laid down but there is still a choice because the number of brands which must be stocked is less than the number of suppliers. Therefore there is a choice to every licensee. He can buy from the person whom he wishes to buy. Under this clause in regard to beer no option is given whatsoever. There is no choice given to the licensee. It is creating an artificial market for the existing two and the first one to come into the field. I think the hon. the Minister must agree, even though he may not accept it in this measure, that that is not a sound principle, that it is not sound policy to give no choice. I accept the fact that you must offer a choice to break any monopolistic tendencies which there may be. But I do feel that that choice should be reasonable. The word “reasonable” appears in the definition, but although it appears in the definition I do not think we are being reasonable in the condition we apply as legislators.

The other point I wanted to raise here, Mr. Chairman, was also in regard to the question of reasonableness raised by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell): The clause reads “In reasonable quantities and at reasonable prices”. Now that is a very broad definition. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to confirm that if any brand of beer is uncompetitive by more than a cent or two, that that would not be regarded as a reasonable price. Because again where there is no option given, where there is no choice given to the licensee, any brewer can change the price knowing that he has a forced market at least for the initial order. It gives him an opportunity, for a short term admittedly, of making additional profit. The purchaser has no option but to pay that higher price. I would like the Minister to confirm that where reasonable prices apply to the retailer they will also apply to the brewers who supply the beer in the first place.

There is one other aspect of this clause with which I should like to deal very briefly and that is the ability of licensees in various provinces to obtain the product of a brewery in another province. At the moment the licensees in Natal buy exclusively from the Lion/Castle combine for the reason that that is a brewery in Natal. It is therefore a financial proposition to them to buy from them. The Stag beer is brewed by the Old Dutch brewery which is situated in the Transvaal. You do not get Stag beer in Natal because of the high cost of railing it down to Natal. I do not know where these new breweries will be but it does seem to me that it would be unreasonable for a licensee in Natal or in the Cape to have to buy and stock the products of a brewery which only operated in, say, the Transvaal.

If the brewery does not operate in Natal, the licensees do not fall under this clause.

They can get it by rail. I do not agree, Sir. I think they can fall within the ambit of this clause. When we come to Clause 14 I will move an amendment in this respect.

The position which arises when breweries operate only in one province, is that you not only give an unfair advantage to the particular brewer but you also place the consumer and the licensee in a very unfair position as well. So far as this is intended to be a protection to brewers other than the Lion/Castle combine—I think it is an excellent principle that a monopoly in this field should be broken—I think it gives an unfair advantage to the brewer in another province. Because under this clause he will be able to market his product in, say, Natal or the Cape whereas if he were in proper competition with the Lion/Castle combine he would not have been able to do it. When we come to Clause 14 I will move the amendment which I have referred to.

I refer to sub-section (1) of Clause 6 which provides that—

I just wish to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter which I suggest deserves his attention and that is the question of the hours of restaurants, which are quite different from those of hotels and may not be able to satisfy the public’s requirements. It does seem reasonable that the hours of restaurants should in appropriate cases be the same as those of hotels. As the hon. the Minister will know most restaurants who have a clientele who come later, constantly have to get special permission which is a costly business. I think this is a matter which might well be investigated.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the last point raised by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) that matter will be dealt with next year when the new Liquor Act is before the House.

Will it be a generous extension of hours?

The whole Liquor Bill will be before the House. It will be a non-party measure. Each member will, of course, have the opportunity of putting forward his point of view. Nobody will be caucus-bound in regard to that Bill, as I have already stated at the Second Reading.

With regard to the question raised by both the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) and by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), it is true that we have only two beer firms, if I may put it that way, the Lion/Castle firm, and then there is the Old Dutch firm. It is also true as the hon. member has pointed out, that Old Dutch has never sold anywhere except in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. I believe they do not sell in the Cape and they do not sell in Natal. If they do not sell there then, naturally the licensee need not stock that beer because that will be a circumstance beyond his control. Anyway, there seems to be substance in some of the points raised by hon. members. I will consider this matter and have a discussion with hon. members afterwards, and if necessary, if there is substance in their argument, I am prepared to move an amendment in the Senate, although I am making no promise. I have already said there are two beer-brewing firms. Apart from the two, there is a third one which I am informed has already been granted a licence. So in fact it will be five firms, and if that is the position a great deal of the argument of the hon. member for Durban-Point falls away.

Then I am happy.

Well, let us say the more the merrier.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I think this is an improvement on the previous arrangement, whereby now a person, instead of being subject to police control and his licence being in jeopardy if he should offend against the provision in regard to compulsory stocking, it merely becomes a simple offence unless he can prove his innocence. But there is one objection to this, and that is that it has been made an offence in the highest category of fines. The fine for this offence is R1,000, whereas when a person commits an offence against an authority the maximum fine is R400. So where an authority is granted for selling liquor to Bantu, Coloureds or Asiatics, any person committing an offence against the provisions of that authority can be fined a maximum of R400, whereas a normal licensee who is found guilty of having only two kinds of beer can be fined R1,000. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered that, or is it just a simple way of putting it?

It is simply following the line in the principal Act. There is no significance attached to the fact that the maximum fine is R1,000.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

In view of what the Minister has said, I will not move my amendment now but will talk to the Minister later.

Clause put and agreed to, and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

When the House adjourned, I was pointing out that the remark by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) that these people in the Fish River Valley had been given the opportunity to buy back their land from the Government was only a hollow invitation to them, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has also said, because those people to-day, as a result of the gradual deterioration of their economic position, are simply no longer able to buy that land back. If there are farmers here and there who wants to buy that land, I believe that they would only be people who have come from elsewhere, who are already big farmers, and who want to buy a piece of land so as to be able to build up their own fodder banks. But I do not think that many of the people who live there can buy back their land.

But where are the Ministers?

I have here a large number of cuttings from the Burger and the Oosterlig of the past year or two setting out, the gradual deterioration of the position of these people. I just want to quote what Mr. L. Vosloo, the chairman of the Afrikaanse Sake-kamer of Cradock, said. He considered that the scheme to buy out the farmers which would result in nearly 200 families leaving the Cradock district, would not represent a serious setback to the town’s commercial life, because as a result of the prolonged droughts those people have had no purchasing power in recent years. I think the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) knows this Mr. Vosloo. I feel therefore that we have made out a good case to show that the Government cannot believe that these people will be able to buy back their land because they are not able to do so.

In the second place we have made out a case to show that the Minister of Water Affairs has changed his policy. But there is a very important matter which I want to raise here. I refer to something which has appeared in the Press in recent days. There has been a telegram from Mr. Robey Leibbrandt to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). It is not my duty to defend the hon. member for Houghton. I think she can do so better than I, but what I want to emphasize are the important implications of this telegram. May I read out the telegram—

The implications of this telegram are that all Jews in South Africa are supporters of the Communist Party.

Nonsense!

The insinuation is that no Jew can feel safe if he expresses his political convictions in South Africa. Now, who is this Robey Leibbrandt?

That is a scandalous remark.

I hope the hon. the Minister will also say that this is a scandalous statement by Robey Leibbrandt. Who is Robey Leibbrandt? What does he tell us? He says he is cooperating with the Minister of Justice and his Security Branch. According to the Cape Times of yesterday he said—

Then he made the following significant remarks—

On the 5th May in reply to a question, the Minister told us in this House, that they were prepared to accept all the assistance which outsiders could give them in combating Communism. But he did not want to comment on this matter because it was not in the public interest to do so and he said this with reference to Leibbrandt. But now it is Mr. Robey Leibbrandt who is speaking. Does the Minister not think that the time has come for him to repudiate Mr. Robey Leibbrandt and his O.A.S. organization? This is the worst form of anti-Semitism we have had in South Africa since the last war. I repeat that the implication of this telegram is that no Jew in South Africa can feel safe in expressing his political convictions. Hitherto the Jews have never associated themselves with any particular political party. They have voted as they liked, whether it be for the Nationalist Party, the United Party or the Progressive Party. But the implication of this telegram is that all our Jewish families must be careful because they are suspected of communistic activities. It is the duty of the Minister of Justice to rise and repudiate this telegram and to repudiate Mr. Leibbrandt and his organization. Mr. Leibbrandt says that this organization of his is very strong. He says—

And he says he has 1,000 men and they are giving the Minister’s Security Branch information. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Heilbron should know that one can get no stronger force than 1,000 people carrying stories to the Security Branch. But what else is at stake? What is at stake is the good name of the Security Branch. We acknowledge at once that the Security Branch of the Police are doing a very important job. They have to preserve the security of the State. We fully believe that it is essential that they should have people to provide them with information. But when the Security Branch obtains information from another secret organization which founds its political opinions on a racial basis in South Africa, then I believe that the good name of the Security Branch is also at stake. The hon. the Minister of Justice must tell us that this telegram sent by Mr. Leibbrandt does not meet with his approval and that the Security Branch will no longer have anything to do with an organization such as this.

That horse won’t run again.

Who is this Mr. Robey Leibbrandt? Is he an example of a good South African?

Are you?

Is he not the man who landed on the west coast of Africa during the war from an enemy vessel? Is he not the man who was charged and found guilty of high treason, who was granted clemency and was released a week or ten days after this Government took office? Mr. Speaker, when a specific racial group in South Africa is suspected of communistic activities on the basis of tales told by people of this type and the Government takes notice of them, then I cannot see how this Government can ever achieve its so-called ideal of national unity.

It is already a fait accompli.

Why do you not speak against Communism?

The hon. member asks why I do not speak against the communists. Here is a man who supposedly wants to combat Communism, but he was a handyman of Nazism from 1939 to 1945. Just as I condemn the communists, so too I am prepared to condemn Mr. Robey Leibbrandt, but let the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) rise and condemn Mr. Leibbrandt.

I do not fight shadows.

I think that this is a scandalous telegram that was sent to the hon. member and the hon. the Minister should take us into his confidence and tell us that his Security Branch has absolutely nothing to do with these people and will not have anything to do with them and that he repudiates this telegram. Let him rise and say that it has never been the intention of that side of the House to accuse the members of any specific racial group in South Africa of making themselves guilty of communist activities.

Normally I would not have participated in this debate nor had I intended doing so. Normally I would not have replied either to the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) but unfortunately the people outside do not know the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) …

They know Robey Leibbrandt.

… and it is necessary, therefore, that I should rise and reply to the hon. member’s remarks. I want to repeat what I said by way of interjection. I think the attempt, the very obvious attempt, by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) to arouse the Jewish community against the National Party is so obvious that no one will allow himself to be misled by it.

Do you associate yourself with this man?

I shall come to that. I say it is so obvious that no one will allow himself to be misled by it. Nor do I believe that it will gain the United Party any new members if that is why the hon. member raised this matter. But we cannot really blame them; we must be charitable particularly in these dying hours of the Session. After all, hon. members opposite have been trying in recent weeks to get new members and they have only got two—one in the House of Assembly and one in the Senate. One cannot blame hon. members for trying in this way to persuade a few additional people to join them.

Are you taking Leibbrandt under your wing?

The hon. member must not interrupt me. What I find very significant, is this. The hon. member reads a telegram which the hon. member for Houghton alleges was sent to her. The hon. member for Houghton has not brought that telegram to my notice. I do not know, therefore, whether in fact such a telegram was or was not sent to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton has always been quite capable of looking after her own affairs and championing her own cause in this House, but what surprises me is that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) felt called upon to put forward the case of the hon. member for Houghton in this House.

Just reply without trying to make political capital out of this matter.

Perhaps the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) has come under the influence of the hon. member for East London (City) (Mr. Moolman) who has said that the time has come for the Progressive Party and the United Party first to put their affairs in order so as to get rid of the Government and then they can go their own way again. I do not know whether this is an instruction from the new leader of the United Party, the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) is now carrying out. We have seen many strange things in recent days.

Hear, hear!

Amongst other things we have seen that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has been given promotion. When the Session started he was a Whip and there was a time when he was so quick to ask for divisions on behalf of the hon. member for Houghton that he became a double Whip. He has become a double Whip this Session. I want to warn hon. members and that hon. member in particular. If they had not given this unnecessary publicity to this matter, it would have passed unnoticed, but I warn them in all seriousness that what they are now doing by means of this agitation is to strengthen Mr. Leibbrandt’s organization, and then they must not blame me if certain things happen as the result of their unwise actions.

You can easily put a stop to it.

What did I say in reply to a question? I said quite clearly—and this will remain my attitude no matter what hon. members opposite may say—I made it quite clear—and indeed I pleaded for many hours for the assistance of hon. members opposite without getting it—that I was prepared to use the assistance of anyone in combating Communism in South Africa. I shall also make use of the assistance of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) if only he will give it to me

I do not associate with them.

With whom?

With communists.

That is precisely why I find the position so tragic. I believe the hon. member does not associate with communists, but why then does the hon. member not assist me in taking action against them? I can understand that he would not want to turn against his friends, but if he tells me that these people are not his friends, then I accept his word, but is he so opposed to South “Africa’s interests, is he so blind in his opposition to the National Party, that he is not even prepared to assist South Africa and the Government in taking action against Communism?

Nonsense!

I warn against the attitude which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) is adopting here. One would have expected, after what has happened, that he would at least have given me the assurance, no matter how unwillingly, that he will assist me in taking action against Communism.

I shall help you, but repudiate this man.

Do you hear what the hon. member says, Mr. Chairman? He says that he will only assist me provided I repudiate this man.

No, he did not say “only”.

The hon. member said he would only help me if I repudiated this man and he cannot get away from that. But I cannot blame him.

I said that I would help you but that you should repudiate this man.

Oh no.

On a point of order, must the hon. the Minister not accept the word of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West)? He says he asked the Minister to repudiate this man.

The implication is quite clear. I am glad that the spiritual leader of the hon. member has now risen because I want to come to him. The implication was quite clear. The hon. member will only assist me if I am prepared to repudiate Leibbrandt.

And you are not prepared to do so?

On a point of explanation, I said: “I shall help you but repudiate this man.”

I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member any further. Hon. members can draw their own inference. But his attitude, namely that he will take action against Communism only if I repudiate other people, is equivalent to the attitude which the hon. member for Yeoville adopted years ago in connection with Communism. He then wrote a certain article in the United Party Newsletter for November 1947. If the hon. member wishes to deny responsibility for this newsletter he must tell me so but I assume that at that time he was in charge of newsletters.

Enjoy life; assume whatever you like.

Unfortunately I do not know who puhlished the newsletter.

Eve.

It could not possibly have been the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) because at that time he was not yet a member of that party; otherwise I would perhaps have thought it was he.

You and the hon. member for Orange Grove cannot both belong to the Nationalist Party.

No, but at that time I was not editor of the United Party Newsletter either. What reasons did the hon. member for Yeoville give as to why they could not take action against Communists? They have told us that they are the people who can take such firm action against Communism. What did he say in this newsletter? They had already begun to notice in 1947 that there were communist dangers, because the heading to the newsletter was “Communist Dangers”. They pointed out how in recent times communist dangers had made themselves evident. The newsletter was published in the first place because the then Government had information that there was large-scale communist activity in South Africa and in the second place because the ordinary members of the United Party wanted action to be taken against Communism. That is why the ordinary members of the United Party are so grateful that I have now taken such action. But I leave it at that. Let me quote from this newsletter—

The Government to which he refers is the late Government which was still in power in South Africa in 1947—

But look how they try to divest themselves of their responsibilities—

Have you ever heard such nonsense, Mr. Speaker? One can understand a person writing this type of pamphlet, but one cannot understand anyone paying him to do so.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Were you and Leibbrandt not both supporters of Germany when Germany was the ally of communist Russia?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should answer that question.

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

As I have said I did not want to take part in this debate. I am tired and I did not want to undertake this as well. But the hon. member has forced me to take part in the debate. Before the adjournment I was referring to what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) had written and once again I wish to express my surprise, having had an opportunity during the adjournment of reading further what the hon. member had written, that people can be paid for writing this sort of thing. I also want to read what the hon. member for Yeoville wrote in 1947 and I might just add that he also played the part of a prophet on that occasion. He wrote this—

We did not win four, but as far as I can remember, we won twelve constituencies on the Witwatersrand.

You are as wrong as I was.

The position is that I am sometimes wrong, but the hon. member is always wrong. The hon. member wrote about the attitude of the United Party and the actions they had taken against Communism. That was in 1947. We were told the other day that they were the people who had done such a great deal to fight Communism. The hon. member said this on that occasion—

That was in 1947 when the United Party was in power, and I agree with the hon. member that they did not close one eye, they closed both eyes—

That was what the hon. member wrote in 1947—

They regarded the communists as a cultural society—

Do you see the philosophy of hon. members. Sir? In 1947 they washed their hands of the communist party. Let us forget about the Ossewa Brandwag and the Broederbond, but in 1947 the hon. member, as propagandist of the United Party, washed his hands of the communist party and said that he could not take action against them otherwise he would also have to take action against the National Party.

Ridiculous!

Not only is it ridiculous, Sir, but that was the reason why those hon. members landed in the Opposition and that is why they will remain there, because as always, the hon. member speaks with two mouths. He realized, however, that he had been painting the communists a little too white and that he should also say something else about them. Let me tell the hon. member in all humility that you can always expect him to say something about everything. He continued and he said this—

I still say that to-day.

Look at them, Sir, how vigorously they are sitting over there! They are the hon. members who accuse us of taking vigorous action, but this is where that word comes from, from the pamphlet written by the hon. member for Yeoville in 1947. Listen to this, Sir—

The communists’ own code, says the hon. member, should be applied to them.

Tempered how? The rule of law should be maintained.

He continued—

When I said that those people wanted to disrupt democracy by force, hon. members got annoyed and called me a Nazi. When I wanted to temper it by acting democratically …

Where?

In the Act. When I wanted to temper it by acting democratically, hon. members opposite reproached me. Let me give some friendly advice to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West! (Mr. Streicher), that before he again gets up in this House to say anything, he should first read what the hon. member for Yeoville wrote in 1947. If he does that he will place himself in a less embarrassing position than he has done.

Tell us about Robey Leibbrandt.

I know this hurts the hon. member and that was why I tried to put it as briefly as possible. What has actually happened, Sir? This is an old technique, particularly towards the end of a session—I have witnessed this for years at the end of every session—that just before we disperse, hon. members opposite raise a body and they try to tie a label round the neck of the Governing party: We are either anti-British or we are anti-Jewish or we are anti-Bantu, or we are anti-Coloured.

Now you are antifarmer.

No, we are only anti-United Party. We have the same story at the end of every sitting. On this occasion they have used the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) to try to raise a boy, and that is why I am taking part in this debate, because the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) has once again gone out of his way to hang the anti-Jewish label round the neck of the National Party and the Government. I want to tell the hon. member that he will not succeed in doing that. I want to state it very clearly that just as little as this Government is anti-British, just as little as it is anti-Bantu, and just as little as it is anti-Coloured, just as little is it anti-Jewish. I say that in a full realization of my responsibility and in spite of the provocation we have sometimes had from quarters where we have not deserved it.

I want to repeat what I said by way of a question to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), that as far as the Security Division is concerned, I do not intend either to-day or in the future to say from whom we get assistance, or to deny or to admit it where people allege that they have assisted us. That is a matter which I will not discuss in this House, not to-day nor in future. Hon. members must please accept it just like that. What has happened to have made the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) commit this blunder of trying to hang this anti-Jewish label round our necks? The only thing that happened was that the hon. member for Houghton made a very sharp attack on a Mr. Leibbrandt. I hold no brief for him, I have never done so nor do I wish to do so. However, the hon. member for Houghton directed certain sharp words at him and he apparently in a fit of anger reacted to that in a private telegram. That is a private fight between that hon. member and him and I do not want to interfere. What did he say and this is really where I want to blame the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West). The attack made by Mr. Leibbrandt was on Karl Marx, not on the Jewish community. No, the attack which he made was on Karl Marx. I am surprised that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth is so sensitive that he reacts in this House when anybody says anything about Karl Marx. It surprises me, Mr. Speaker. I wish to repeat that, in spite of provocation, I have stated my attitude clearly. I just want to repeat that, as far as the Government is concerned, and as far as I particularly am concerned. I who am responsible for law and Order. will carry out the law in all circumstances where one group, in contravention of the provisions of existing laws, incites racial feelings between races and who harms those groups in that way. That is how I regard my duty and that is how I will carry out my duty. However, hon. members must not cry and complain, when they look for trouble themselves, and then have personal experiences which have nothing whatsoever to do with the law and the contravention of the law. Above all, I want to say this to the Opposition: If you are looking for a victim by trying to hang an anti-Jewish label round the neck of the National Party, you are making a very big mistake.

It is not necessary U> do that.

The hon. member will not understand it and I do not blame him, because if you have been born like that you cannot do anything about it.

You are probably like you are because of your environment.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that we will administer the laws in the spirit in which they were placed on the Statute Book and under no circumstances will we allow the law to be contravened, no matter by whom. But on the other hand, if hon. members expect me to conduct a witch hunt where the law has not been contravened, they are expecting too much from me.

I have stated my attitude very clearly. In the National Party, as a matter of fact in all parties, there are people who subscribe to all sorts of beliefs and of all sorts of races. As far as I am concerned that is how I see South Africa. Particularly in view of this new era which we have just embarked upon, I do not see South Africa as a country in which the population consists of this or that race. I see South Africa as consisting mainly of two groups. The one group is the conservative group, the group which consists of Afrikaans-speaking, English-speaking, Jewish-speaking, Greek-speaking and so forth, people who are conservative and who wish to save and bring stability to White civilization here. On the other hand I see the liberal section who does not want that, the section who tries to destroy those things in which we believe. The tragedy is that in between those two groups, the extremely liberal group and the conservative group, you find the United Party, not knowing whither he must or whither he wants to.

No, we know.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) says they know. Nothing will give me greater pleasure than if he will one day let us into the secret and tell us precisely what that is. They are between those two groups and I want to conclude with this—the United Party will be shattered between those two groups in this political process which we are having.

We will see.

No, we need not wait to see; we know beforehand what will happen. The United Party will be shattered between those two groups. The tragedy of our political history to-day, and the tragedy of a big political party like the United Party is that because of the double role which it plays, the dual morality to which it subscribes, that because of the fact that it can be influenced by organizations and groups outside Parliament—because of that the tragedy is that the United Party is losing the respect of most people outside. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, a political party can exist if people get annoyed with it; a political party can exist when people swear at it; a political party can continue to exist when people are cross with it; but a political party can never exist when people lose their respect for it. In that case it simply cannot continue to exist. [Interjections.] I want to say this to the hon. member for Yeoville. I should like to see him for many more years in the Opposition benches, but if the hon. member is not careful, those extremely liberal elements will take their seat in this Parliament, and the day that eventually happens will be an evil day for South Africa. If they are not careful, the United Party will go under. Because a party which acts like that, must …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I do not want to reply to a question by the hon. member at this stage. I think he has already had enough replies from me to last him for the remainder of the Session. I want to tell hon. members that where they act in this way, where they act in the scandalous way in which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) acted this morning when he tried to stir up racial feelings between the Jewish community on the one hand and the National Party on the other hand, where they stir up such feelings—where we had that scandalous attempt—you will be discarded by all right-minded people, and let me say also by the Jewish community. Let me give the hon. member this warning in conclusion …

Before the Minister concludes, may I ask him a question? Will he please reply to the charge made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) in connection with the actions of Mr. Leibbrandt and his association with the Security Branch?

I want to give the hon. member credit for it that one is not as quick in the uptake at the end of the session as at the beginning of it. That is why I wan to repeat it. I told the hon. member that my reply was very clear. It is not my intention either now or in future to make any comment on allegations, whether they are made by the hon. member or anybody else, that they had given certain assistance. I am not prepared to comment on that, not now nor in future. I told the hon. member that and even if the hon. member were to offer to take me to the cinema, that would still be my answer.

I say, Mr. Speaker, and I want to conclude with this, that I am very grateful that neither the hon. member for Houghton nor any member of the Jewish community in this House, initiated this debate. I am particularly grateful to them for that. I want to say to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) and those who instigated him to launch this debate that should his participation in this debate and the manner in which he did so, lead to it—and heaven forbid that it does—that anti-Semetic feelings are roused, then that hon. member and the hon. member for Yeoville and the party opposite will have to assume full responsibility for it. Feelings have been stirred up which it was unnecessary to do. Hon. members opposite are not satisfied with the peace and quiet which exists between the races in South Africa. They come at the end of the Session and stir up these feelings and they do so deliberately because they want to hide their bankruptcy and their nakedness in the political sphere in that way.

Mr. Speaker, may I make a personal explanation? I said the following last night in the debate—

Mr. Speaker, I said it jocularly; I did not mean it. I should like to withdraw it.

The Minister of Justice has chosen to throw the blame for Robey Leib-brandt’s telegram and anything which may eventuate from that on the shoulders of the Opposition. It is quite obvious to all of us that by this Minister not repudiating that telegram, he is accepting responsibility for anything which may take place.

What nonsense.

The Minister had the opportunity of repudiating it. Instead of that he accuses the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) of saying things in this House that can incite bad feelings between racial groups. He did not attempt to accept the fact that telegrams of this sort are definite proof of that very activity on the part of Robey Leibbrandt. That is the position, Sir. There we have definite proof of a man doing his utmost to create bad feelings between the races in South Africa. The Minister does not repudiate that but he makes an attack on the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) for drawing it to his attention. That is not what we expect from a Minister of Justice. It is not what we expect from a Minister who claims that he is determined and sincere in his fight against this sort of racial prejudice in South Africa. With all the powers which this Minister has taken unto himself in recent legislation, what are we to think if, when he gets a first class example of the type of thing that can do us so much harm in South Africa, he refuses to accept responsibility on behalf of the Government and to repudiate this sort of thing. What are we to think? I say, Mr. Speaker, this incessant argument of the Minister’s that he and his Government are determined to fight against Communism, makes me think that they are prepared to fight against Communism with legislation only; with words and not deeds. When this side of the House were called upon and did produce the deeds when we had to fight against Nazism, you can depend upon it, Sir, that we will present the necessary deeds if and when we have to fight against Communism. It will not be words only. I do hope that the Minister will understand that with the almost 40 minutes he took to defend Robey Leibbrandt, he has in effect also been defending Communism. That is the position. Because there can be no difference between a communist who says things like that and Robey Leibbrandt who put those words into a telegram. I hope, Sir, that the Minister will understand that we do not appreciate the manner in which he has intervened in this debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am also glad that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) is in the House. Last evening he attempted to bring me in forward as a witness in what he was saying about the application of the Industrial Conciliation Act in South African labour matters. I want to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that job reservation has done less to protect White workers in South Africa than any other legislative measure brought in by this Government. I want to remind that hop. member that when we as an Opposition say that we are in favour of the policy of “the rate for the job”—I want to make this point quite clearly—there is greater protection for the thousands and thousands of White workers on the basis of the rate for the job than there is in the policy of the Government of job reservation. I want to illustrate that point, and in doing so I want to ask the Deputy Minister of Labour whether he will give us the comparative figures, if he enters this debate, of how many White workers in South Africa have been protected as a result of the application of job reservation as against the considerable numbers of White workers that are and will in future obtain complete protection by the application of the rate for the job.

Complete?

Complete. The only thing that will interfere with that complete protection are the actions of this Government, firstly, by interfering with the trade union movement in the machinery which they have set up for the protection of all of their members. I am now referring to the splitting up of the trade unions which made it possible for racial groups to undermine the living standards of the Whites. That has happened and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows of it. Particularly in Natal in the furniture industry where, because negotiations were able to take place between the Asiatic employers and Asiatic employees, a wage rate was determined which was less than that applied by the European trade union in negotiating with their European employers. The result is that to-day the furniture industry in Natal is almost completely run by Asiatics. The Whites have been eliminated. This Minister must know that to try to apply job reservation under those conditions is almost impossible, because he has to face this position that if he were to reserve a certain number of occupations in the furniture industry for Whites, those Whites would have to work at the rate laid down in the determination for that industry, which will be a lower rate than that applicable to the Europeans. I hope, therefore, that the Deputy Minister of Labour has no intention of amending the Industrial Conciliation Act in respect of Clause 25 where proviso (ii) reads “provided that no differentiation of discrimination on a basis of race or colour shall be made”. That is the rate for the job and that is the policy which is being pursued to-day in respect of every industrial conciliation determination that is made. It is the rate for the job which is controlling labour wages in South Africa to-day. Job reservation deals with work.

While I am on this point, Sir, what is happening in South Africa that is endangering the White standard? It is that work is being taken away from the areas under the jurisdiction of industrial council agreements, and being placed in the areas which fall outside that umbrella.

Who fixes the rate?

The rate is fixed as far as industrial council agreements are concerned, by employers and employees. It has nothing to do with the Government. But the rate as far as the border industries are concerned, is fixed by the Government. The employees do not come into it. The result is this—I raised this matter under the Labour Vote—that the garment working industry, particularly in Durban is facing the fiercest competition from the border industries, particularly at Hammersdale, because the wages which are paid to the Bantu workers there are lower than those being paid in Durban to the White, Indian and Coloured garment workers. There is no point in introducing job reservation if the Government’s actions take the jobs away. That is the issue we are facing, not only in respect of the garment workers industry but we also have it in the motor industry. There the same sort of difficulty is arising. I hope the hon. member for Vereeniging will go into the question of labour legislation a bit more carefully before he rises in the House and condemns the rate for the job which is the basic principle governing all our wage determinations to-day. That is the principle.

I still say it is most dangerous to the White workers.

If it is the most dangerous thing to the White workers, this Government has done nothing to amend it. It is still the basic principle. The trade unions have accepted it and employers have accepted it. I do hope that the Deputy Minister, if he takes part in this debate, will make it quite clear that he has no intention of interfering with that basic principle in our labour legislation. [Interjections.] Well, they seem to think that job reservation is going to answer the whole problem. But immediately you have a differentiation of wages for the same work, then you are in difficulties. And that is what this Government is doing by encouraging border industries. That in turn is undermining the whole of the European position in South Africa. Had it been possible it would have been interesting to get the views of the former member for Germiston, Mr. Du Pisanie, in this regard. He has first-hand knowledge of what is happening as far as the garment workers’ industry is concerned.

I want to move over to the second leg of the amendment moved by my leader. What has gone before in this debate has indicated quite clearly that the Government’s responsibility in regard to what I call the lower-income group and the middle-income group, is a very grave one indeed. I am glad that the hon. the Minister for Social Welfare and Pensions is here this afternoon, because I intend to deal in part with the report of the committee of inquiry into family allowances. It does have a considerable bearing on what we are attempting to bring to the attention of this Government in respect of those who are not by any means finding it easy to make ends meet in this country to-day.

To give the correct perspective and background in respect of those for whom we are attempting to elicit some sort of support, some sort of interest on the part of the Government, I have gone to the trouble of extracting some figures so that members on the opposite side will not be encouraged to quote at us the savings of the people by way of Post Office deposits. That is not the answer to the problem which I want to present to the House this afternoon. I will just give the figures so that the House will get an idea of the type of citizen for whom we are particularly pleading in the second leg of our amendment. Firstly, the unemployed workers in terms of the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics for May, 1962—I am only dealing with Europeans at this stage—were 16,139. Old age pensioners, according to the latest report of the Department of Social Welfare, 86,869: war veterans, 29,393; disability grants 10,590; blind pensioners 1,122: maintenance grants 6,834 and war pensioners 24,323; making a total of 175,310 people. On top of that family allowances are being paid to 265 families. On top of that we have Public Service pensions being paid to 12,044 persons, and railway pensions to 15,278. That is a group which by no stretch of imagination, can be described as wealthy South Africans. These are Europeans who are having the greatest difficulty in making ends meet to-day. If you add the other two this number of 175,310 will be almost 200,000, and the vast majority of them find it extremely difficult to make ends meet to-day. Anyone who represents a constituency such as mine, will have the necessary evidence to support what I am saying here this afternoon. That is as far as Europeans are concerned. Because of the very low income which this group receive we have to include in these thousands which I have mentioned the vast majority of our Bantu, the vast majority of the Indians and the vast majority of the Coloureds. There you have the group Sir, to whom we refer in the second leg of our amendment. If an examination is made of the survey of family expenditure—it was prepared in November 1955—you will find that 54.4 per cent of all European families’ income is under £1,200 i.e. R2,400; in the case of 9.86 per cent of all European families their income is under £750, i.e. R1,500. So that we have this position, Sir, that there is a considerable number of South African citizens who are up against it to-day in no uncertain way.

I have given the background so that there will be no misunderstanding as to the people we have in mind in the second leg of our amendment. I now want to come to the report to which I have referred earlier on. I want to ask the Government and the Minister responsible for this Vote, what he intends doing about this very, very, distressing report of the committee of inquiry into family allowances. It is distressing because of the evidence which it gives to this House. I want to start off by quoting what it says—and here I am supporting what my hon. Leader has said in connection with the agricultural section of the amendment. On page 81 it deals with the distribution and marketing of vegetables, fruit and other foodstuffs. Paragraph 314 says this—

So we have this position that in South Africa the consumer is paying 10s. for what the producer receives 33c.

The same as in America.

I assume that the interjection means that the hon. member condemns both as being bad or does he approve of it? According to this report the United Party Government appointed a distribution costs commission and the report says this—

And I ask what has the Government done since 1948 to keep this position in mind? From the reports we received yesterday it is quite clear that no one can be happy about this tremendous gap between what the consumer has to pay and what the producer receives. The other aspect which is tied up with this problem and one which I think the whole House should be most concerned about is malnutrition.

Paragraph 316 says this—

This is not the United Party speaking, but a Commission appointed by the Government to go into the question of family allowances, and this is their report, and I think that the Minister should give some indication of what steps will be taken, belatedly, to deal with this problem because it affects the whole of our future. The Minister of Labour left today to go to try to get immigrants to come here, and yet we are not taking the necessary steps to protect the citizens we have, and it is not because we have not the means. The picture I get from this report is of mountains of surplus foodstuffs of the very type mentioned here being wasted, whilst thousands of malnourished South Africans are prevented from getting that food by the policies of this Government. I ask what the Government is doing about it. On the one hand we have these surpluses of essential foodstuffs and on the other hand those hungry mouths trying to get to them, and the Government is talking about fighting Communism with legislation. Here we have the means for fighting Communism. These protective foods given to these hungry people will make it impossible for Communism to thrive.

Given? You are talking nonsense.

What I mean is that the availability of this food and this huge consumer market which is being neglected is the crux of the matter. Instead of giving them that food, we are spending millions on building hospitals, as reported in paragraph 317—

Yet we continue to spend money on hospitals when we have a surplus of the necessary foods. [Interjections.] I also want to quote paragraph 318—

I do not believe even 10 per cent of members opposite have read this report, but I have read it and it will be worth while if only we get some reaction from the Government. They give the reasons why our hospitals are like they are. I have already indicated that there are 10,000,000 lbs. of butter and hundreds of thousands of eggs which are surplus, and oranges and bananas are being destroyed, all foods which can do so much towards building up the South Africa which will be capable of fighting Communism in the real way. But what is the Government doing to meet this problem? Paragraph 319 says—

Those are the things we have surpluses of, but we cannot get them to the people who need them. Paragraph 320 states—

What comment have we on that? We have had very little reaction from the Government on this report, to indicate whether they accept the findings of the Commission.

What you want is a labour welfare state.

I want a South Africa full of people who are able to fight Communism, and when I see all these foods being wasted I say what a wonderful field that is for Communism. [Interjections.] This report has fortified the views expressed by this side for many years. I remember in 1950 when we dealt with the original Act dealing with Communism we said that we must improve the living standards of the masses as an effective way of fighting Communism, rather than by legislation.

But there is one final point dealing with this report to which the Minister of Finance should give his attention. There is a whole section dealing with income tax concessions.

When was it tabled?

Two weeks ago, but it was presented to the Minister of Social Welfare, and Pensions on 7 December 1961, so I assume the Minister has had an opportunity of looking at it.

It does not deal with apartheid, so he has not read it.

Paragraph 330 says this. They deal with the present system of income tax; collections, and they say this—

I do not know whether the Minister of Finance has studied this.

Do you want a reply now? I will give my reply in the Budget speech next year. My Budget was completed in December already.

I am grateful to hear that. [Interjections.] I am using this document as evidence to show how urgent this problem is.

It will be considered, but if action is to be taken you will hear about it in my next Budget speech.

If something is done, it will go a long way towards encouraging larger families and meeting the problems we have in regard to our White population. The Minister of Social Welfare is the responsible Minister. Between now and next Christmas something has to be done about these surpluses and which present a very difficult problem, but every day that passes those who could do with that surplus food are suffering more and more, and not only children, but also adults. I plead with this Minister to take this report very seriously. Judging by the Government’s reactions and the response to this report, we will be able to judge whether or not the Government is serious when they say they want to combat Communism. This is an opportunity to do something rather than talk about it and I hope the Government will wake up before it is too late.

I do not propose following the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) in his speech. The hon. member said that he was speaking to the second leg of the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, and of course there will be people after me who will reply to him. Only this reply: If the hon. member refers to the big difference between the producer’s price and the consumer’s price, I should like to say this only, that there has never been a Government in South Africa which has paid so much in subsidies on all our staple foods as this one has, or which has encouraged production to the extent that this one has, but at the same time tried to keep the consumer’s price as low as this one has. So I leave the hon. member there.

Now I have to express my disappointment that where I am now rising to reply to charges made here last night and this morning by the hon. members for Yeoville and Port Elizabeth (West), those two hon. gentlemen are conspicuous by their absence now. We had trusted that they would be present in view of the fact that they knew we would reply to the matters they raised, and in view of the fact that I requested the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) to be here, and I think it is contempt of the House of Assembly that not one of them is here now, but I hope that the few remarks I wish to make will be conveyed to them.

The United Party reminds one of a flock of vultures. I do not know whether you have noticed how they operate, Mr. Speaker. They fly up into the skies and soar around looking with their keen eyes whether anything is happening on the ground that may provide something for them, and they are not too fastidious either. Frequently they watch whether birth is being given to anything, or whether something is dying, and then they descend and try to pick up what they can get. The Opposition has heard now that there is a large maize surplus that has to be exported and that there will be great losses as a result of the difference between the home price and the world price. They have also heard that there is great over-production of dairy produce and bananas etc. and now they are attacking these lower producers’ prices. Now they have also heard that in my vicinity in the Fish River Valley there are people who have had a very trying time so that it has been necessary for the Government to assist them. Now they think there is something they can prey upon too. I suppose one should not blame them, for they are people who are misled by any rumour or report. So the hon. members get hold of the Evening Post of 24 March, the day after the Minister had announced the Orange River Scheme, which had the following headlines on its front page: “Irrigators who sold to the Government are indignant. Eastern Cape land prices jump”. Now these two hon. members have come here and told us that in the first place the Minister had changed his policy, and he should tell them when he did so. In the second place, they say that the Minister, knowing that he was going to change his policy, and knowing that he was going to spend £375 per morgen in the Fish River Valley, then went along and bought up the land at £150 because and that is the reason given by the hon. member for Yeoville—he intends establishing Bantustans there.

No, I said he intended establishing border industries.

No, the hon. member referred to Bantustans. I have his Hansard here. But he said this also, inter alia—

We shall come to the question of the Bantustans in a moment. [Interjections.] The hon. member made this allegation that things were going so terribly badly in the Fish River Valley. But on 11 May, a Friday evening, the hon. member went to Somerset East to address a meeting. The people from the Fish River Valley tried to attend that meeting, because it had been well advertised and it had been said also that he was one of the best speakers in the House of Assembly. One should have thought that he would have told the farmers that evening what the Opposition would have done for them. The Nationalists were very keen to go to that meeting. Many of my supporters wished to hear the hon. member, who is such a very much better speaker than I, but on arrival there they had to discover, to their disappointment, that they were not allowed to attend the meeting the hon. member for Yeoville came to hold for the irrigators. No, it was a meeting for their own supporters. These now are the people who make these allegations, but they are not prepared to meet the public. Why is he not prepared to meet the public of Somerset East on this matter, and to ask the people whether they are so dissatisfied and whether the Minister has treated them so scandalously? No, it is for this reason, because every one of them who shows his face there knows that he gets a motion of no-confidence and that is why the Nationalists are excluded and the farmers may not attend their meetings. The hon. member has denied his words, but here it is written in Hansard: “We all know that what is behind this change of face is not the rescue of the farmers but to advance the Bantustan policies of the Prime Minister” and five minutes ago the hon. member denied it.

You said I said the Minister wanted to make Bantustans of those areas, and I said no, what I said was that they propose to establish border industries there.

Let us just leave it at that. Then they come along with the charge that the Government has changed its policy, and they say the land was bought because the Government had a sinister object and that it was unnecessary to have bought up those lands. They said the Government had changed in this House, he rejected the old Conroy scheme alias the Bowker scheme of the United Party, and then the charge was laid against the Minister that on 13 March 1959 in this House, he rejected the old Conroy scheme, and that on 9 March 1959, the Monday evening, at Cradock, he rejected the old scheme, and then it was said that this scheme, which has been announced now, also included a tunnel and therefore it must be the Conroy scheme which the Minister accepted. What did the Minister say on 13 March? He did not refer to the scheme to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred. I am referring to Hansard of 13 March 1959, Col. 2511—

The Minister then proceeds and says why he does not see his way clear to accept the old Conroy scheme, which was urged by the hon. member for Albany from year to year—that scheme we have always opposed because it only included water for the Fish and the Sundays Rivers from the Orange River.

May I ask a question?

If the hon. member will be a little patient, he will get everything he wishes to know. The hon. the Minister then continued; after telling the people also that surely there was nobody who wanted him to build a scheme that would cost R2,000 per morgen and for which they would have to pay, he said—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then asked him: “What is that scheme? and the Minister replied—

Here the Minister announced that he wished to build a great scheme, a grand scheme. That was on 13 March 1959. But in the meantime a terrible drought struck the Fish River Valley and its environs and those people had a terribly hard time. In the meantime the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) was busy scavenging to see whether he could derive any benefits from the distress of the people. The Minister proceeded with the investigation he announced here, and on 12 May 1960 he was able already to go further and announced here that he intended building the Pongola scheme, but at the same time he also announced that he was going to tackle the Orange River project and build the Orange River scheme. That was on 12 May 1960. That hon. member is shaking his head; he knows about it and everybody knows about it. Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it is necessary to quote it for I have so little time—but he says this—

Then the Minister proceeds and he tells how he is going to build the Orange River scheme. But I think what is important is this: He said here it would consist of several schemes. Then Mr. Abraham asked him: “How many schemes will it be?” and he replied—

Then the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) asked: “Does that include the Orange-Fish scheme?” and the Minister replied : “Yes. As I say, the cost of all these schemes that have been investigated run to approximately £100,000,000.” There already the hon. the Minister was announcing this scheme, and then the hon. members for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) and Port Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) and I went along and told the people that the Minister was going to build the Orange River scheme, but that the Minister had told us on 12 May that he was still engaged on certain investigations; he did not have all the information as yet, and as soon as the investigations were completed, he would make his announcement. Mr. Speaker, I have the further information here, but I do not wish to quote too much for my time is short. Then a telegram came from that source saying it was drought-stricken and that the people were having a terribly trying time and that the water supply had become exhausted. They said they were unable to wait until the Minister makes this announcement and they asked whether the Minister would grant an interview to a deputation consisting of Mr. Harry Sieberhagen (who the hon. member is so fond of quoting here; and Mr. Johan Troskie and Mr. Toob Lochner and Mr. Trollip.

Is Mr. Sieberhagen a United Party supporter?

Yes. Mr. Sieberhagen is a supporter of the United Party but he is one of the United Party supporters who will possibly vote National Party now after these people have been treated properly by the National Government. They again came to see the Minister and they said: Look, we are not able to wait any longer; you have to give us some other form of aid. Then already it was suggested—and the first man who came along with this idea was Mr. Kobie Coetzee—that this Government should buy up the farmers’ land. He had already suggested it to Minister Sauer. They then came to the Minister with their troubles. It was not confined to this Minister alone. It went to the Agricultural Committee of the Cabinet, and it went to the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and to the Minister of Lands, and they decided to have an economic survey made in the Fish River. That survey was made. After the Minister had announced this scheme of his, this economic survey was made in March 1961 knowing that the projected Orange River scheme that was going to be built had already been announced. The Committee which conducted the survey brought out its report and this Cabinet then decided that exceptional circumstances prevailed in the Fish River Valley that required to be dealt with in a special manner. They came along with a proposal that no Government has ever made in the past, and which I believe no Government will readily make in future again. They said they were prepared to buy out those people who were hardest hit. They fixed a limit and said they would buy out the people who were hardest hit. But do you know what that limit was? It would not only be the small farmers that would be bought out; that is to say the people who had little grazing land. It was immaterial whether a man had 2,000 morgen of irrigable land; then the Government still bought him out provided he had less than 300 morgen of grazing land. It was immaterial whether a man was a large farmer or a small farmer, and the allegation made by hon. members here last night, that the Government had bought out the small farmers, is as untrue as an allegation could be. We who represent those constituencies were concerned about the offers that would be made to these people who were unable to wait for the further Orange River inquiry. Here I have their telegram, dispatched on 17 November 1960-

Mr.Speaker, I think I should rather tell you the facts of this matter. The Government came forward with offers. Perhaps I am anticipating myself when I tell you that of those approximately 400 farmers—there are a few more than 400—who were in distress in the Fish River Valley there were only about 120 who had less than 300 morgen of grazing land, who were eligible to sell. Those 120, with the exception of a few, offered their land for sale to the Government, but what is more, quite a number of them who had more land, also came along and offered their land and said: For God’s sake, please buy our land too, even though it is bigger. The National Government sent the Land Board there: The valuations were made and we had an election without one single person knowing what his valuation would be. Where were those hon. members then with their meetings; where was the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) who now turns his back on me when I address him? I thank him for that method of courtesy. Next time I shall know how to deal with them.

He does not know the meaning of courtesy.

Where were they then? We took Somerset East unopposed. We gained Fort Beaufort with a bigger majority than ever before and we took Cradock unopposed. Those are the people who now want to live and prey upon the dissatisfaction and the distress of a poor lot of people afflicted by drought. But the election was past, the results were out, and then the first offers came. Mr. Speaker, if ever there has been joy and amazement and bewilderment, then it was when they received the offers for their land. Immediately after that I hardly ever had a day’s rest. Then all the people who did not qualify came to me daily to ask me please to persuade the Minister to buy their land also, knowing that the Orange River scheme was going to be built, but not knowing when the waters of the Orange River would be coursing down the Fish River. Parliament met and we waited; everybody knew that the Minister was going to make an announcement on the Orange River scheme, but on 21 February I once again had a deputation here to meet the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. And do you know what their request was? Their request was: Please buy up more land in the Fish River.

Of course they would do so.

It is no use the hon. member shaking his head so. I shall tell you why the people are anxious that their land should be bought. It is because this scheme has a dual purpose. It was not only to save the people who could introduce the least stock-element in their farming operations. It was also to make more water available to the people who had remained, and that is why, the more land is bought up the more water there will remain for these people who are still in difficulties at the present time; they are not out of the wood yet. Surely the mere announcement of the Orange River project has not given them extra water as yet. That water will be coming in a few years’ time only. The hon. member over there last night referred to five years. It may be seven or ten years before the water will be there, and in the meantime you are stuck with people who have problems, and whom you must try to help to overcome their difficulties. That is why they came along and begged that more land should be purchased.

I shall buy more land there.

If I were to write to a couple of those persons to-day that the Minister is prepared to increase that qualification that they should have 300 morgen or less, to 400 morgen, we shall buy more land in the Fish River Valley to-morrow.

I believe that also.

If the hon. member also believes that, we are progressing with him, and then I hope we shall also progress with the hon. member for Yeoville who referred here to “the greatest scandal ever committed by a Government” because the Government tries to help people who are in dire straits to overcome their difficulties.

How much longer have the people to wait?

I think the hon. member for Yeoville is sorry that the price of land there has now gone up.

They are always sorry about everything this Government does. They do not want this Government to do good; they want things to go badly. They want shocks, even if it is from outside, for then things might go better with them. Mr.Speaker, do you know why they came here last night and this morning with all those wild statements? The Nationalists of the Somerset East, Fort Beaufort and Cradock constituencies are not the ones who are dissatisfied; it is because the United Party supporters are defecting from them one after another, and I am prepared to mention names. I am going to mention their names across the floor of the House because they are people like Mr. Bob Dower, whose support they have lost, and because they have made people such as Mr. Harry Sieberhagen dissatisfied. Those people realize that this Government is acting in their interests. That is why they come forward with this unwise and untrue and irresponsible remark that this Government acted scandalously by buying out those people.

Did the Government tell them, before they bought their land, that they were going to carry out that scheme?’

No, you are not so stupid.

I do not see my way clear to repeating my speech from the commencement. Now it is said by hon. members opposite that we accepted the Conroy scheme. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) refers me to the report on the proposed Orange River development project, page 14. I should like to refer him to page 9. If he reads page 9, he will see that what I have said here is the gospel truth and that the Conroy scheme always was the diversion of the Orange River into the Fish and the Sundays Rivers. Let me quote it to the hon. member—

I concede to hon. member that it was during the United Party government—

Mr. Speaker, when one reads this to indicate to hon. members which surveys were made at the time, and what the projects were at the time, they sit and talk, but as soon as you resume your seat, they repeat it was a Conroy scheme. This scheme differs from the Conroy scheme if anything in the world can differ from it. [Interjection.] What good will it do me to say it is not so? I may quote it to the hon. member again, and when I have finished he will again say, like a difficult woman, “All the same”. Surely one cannot argue with anybody who argues that way. I may argue with the hon. member until I am blue in the face, and I shall get only one “All the same” after the other. The hon. members come along with quotations and they try to sow suspicion against me personally and against my candidature in Somerset East. I should like to say this to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West). He has a lot to say about the Somerset East constituency. I think he knows where Middleton lies in the South and I think he knows where Baroda lies in the North; he knows were Bedford lies in the East and he knows where Somerset East lies in the West. I now challenge him to select any point between those four places, or any one of those four places, and then he can come along and meet me on a public platform before the Fish River farmers, and then we can discuss this thing and he can come and tell them how concerned the United Party is about the interests of the irrigators. That evening we can discuss that with the public and with the irrigators themselves, and if there is a shred of manliness in him, he will now tell me: “I shall let you know what date; you can make the arrangements”. I myself shall arrange for transport for him to get there. He will not accept it. If he quotes here what Mr. Era Venter has said, then I say I shall quote what Mr. Venter told me.

He wrote me a nice letter too.

The hon. member can be very pleased about that. Mr. Era Venter writes in a letter dated 5 April—

Mr. Speaker, what more can I say than has been said by the best witness, Mr Era Venter, the president of the Cape Midlands Development Association? But here I also have the letter of the Secretary of the Great Fish River Irrigation Board. What better evidence is there on dissatisfaction or satisfaction in the Fish River Valley than the evidence of the Board itself which represents those people? The letter reads as follows—

Time does not permit me to read all the letters. Here is a telegram from the Secretary of the Irrigation Board of Klipfontein; here is a letter from the Secretary of the Farmers’ Association Klipfontein-Thorngrove, Mr. van der Merwe; the telegram I have referred to came from Mr. Jopie le Roux. Here is a letter from Mr. A Louw, the Secretary of the Middleton Irrigation Board. Mr. Speaker, let us rather leave it at that. There is gratitude to this Government in the Fish River Valley for the manner in which they have been treated by this Government. There may be people who will rightly say to themselves: “If I had not sold my land, the price might have been a little higher to-day, and I am now disappointed that I sold”. That is why the hon. the Minister went to Cradock again. Yes, he is not afraid to go there; he can go there at any time; you merely have to invite him and then he comes, if time permits him to do so. As I have said, the Minister proceeded to Cradock again and the people said to him: “Now that you have announced the scheme we are sorry we sold our land; perhaps we could have had a little more”. The Minister’s immediate reply was: “All right, if you wish to buy back the land, then we will sell it back to you” And then the hon. member comes along here and he has the audacity to say that I was stupid when I told him that those people may buy back their land. He says those people had debts at the shops and Land Bank loans. But if their land is worth so much more now, surely then they can now obtain a bigger loan on that land? It is elementary economics the hon. member should first of all go and study. If only he will keep quiet one could argue with him, but his mouth is open continually and his reason is shut out; that is his trouble. Mr. Speaker, those people were in financial difficulties and that is why they sold out. The price was attractive; the price was excellent. The Government cannot make Bantustans of those lands. In the meantime the Government has withdrawn the water rights of that land, and it has given the water rights to the remaining people who did not sell out. The figures of the hon. member were wrong also. He must not quote my cousin Mr. Lootie Vosloo, and then think his figures are correct. Only about 90 farmers sold out. If my figures are correct, 94 of the approximately 400 farmers sold out. The hon. member says it is 200 families. No, it is not. [Interjection.] The hon. member must be quiet now and think a while and register this figure. Not more than 98 sold out. The majority of those families are still living on those lands, for the State has let those lands to them at a nominal, reasonable price to keep them there. The State is not exterminating the people. They do not have water rights now because they received a good price for their land. The water rights have been given to the other people who did not offer their land for sale, and so have little water. Those who did not sell now have more of the available quantity of water. On behalf of the Fish River farmers, but also on behalf of the farmers of the Sundays River, I should like to express to this Minister, and to the National Government and the Department of the Minister, my cordial thanks. As long as the farmers’ interests are looked after in this manner we shall see to it that we keep the National Government in power. We appreciate the development that, as the English Press also says, will take place there. Perhaps I should quote the leading article in the Evening Post of 24 March—

I am unable to find the little piece to which I wanted to refer now, but it amounts to this, that as regards the Eastern Cape, there is nothing but bewilderment about this development, the end of which we simply cannot determine, this development that could go on for years and which will be of as much importance to South Africa as a whole as to the Eastern Cape. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. members for Yeoville and Port Elizabeth (West) have come forward here with allegations and remarks that are not worthy of the United Party, I am sure that not one of them will dare set a foot on a public platform in that area. When they go there it is a branch meeting or an invitation meeting; that is the way in which they come there. As long as the Government treats the irrigators of the Fish River and the Sundays River the way they have treated them in the past, and the way it has promised to treat them in future, we shall see to it that the United Party never gets into power again.

The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) is a farmer of course; I am not a farmer. He apparently knows something about irrigation. I want to admit readily that I am not an expert in that sphere. I do think, however, that a few facts have been stated in the course of the debate which even the layman can perhaps understand and interpret. The first fact is that the impression was created one way or another—no matter how we read Hansard, no matter how we read the newspapers—by the hon. the Minister himself in 1959 that those people on the Fish River settlement would not get water. That impression was created, and it was as a result of that impression that the hon. the Minister undertook to buy out those farmers. Why else did he buy them out?

Why should I still want to get rid of them?

They got into difficulties during the 14 years that you frittered away.

It will be said that those people had to sell because they were having such a difficult time, but in that case, Sir, I wish to remind you of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) last night when he attacked the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) because he had not told us that those farmers were given the right of buying back. And when this side of the House said that the farmers could not buy back, that side of the House said it was nonsense. We now have had precisely the same excuse from the hon. member for Somerset East that the farmers had to sell, not because they would not get any water, but because they had no option. I do not think both sides can be right.

Don’t split hairs.

No, I do not want to split hairs; I do believe, however, with due respect to the hon. member, that that side has been splitting hairs this afternoon.

However, Mr. Speaker, I am not a farmer. I rather want to say a few words about a matter which is much dearer to my heart, because I have the honour of sitting here as the representative of a constituency in which the interests of the workers are predominant. Within a day or two hon. members will return to their constituencies and they will have to report on what has happened in this House during the past five months. Those hon. members who are farmers, like the hon. member for Somerset East, will be able to tell them about the Orange River scheme, and those hon. members who are active in the industrial field will be able to tell them what has been done for industry. But I, as the Member of Parliament for Maitland, will be asked what the Government has done during the past five months for the worker if South Africa, and that will be a reasonable question.

I will tell you that.

I want to tell the hon. member for Vereeniging that he tells many things to the people; he obviously does not know equally much about all of them. However, there is a reasonable question that will be put to me, and I will have to give a reply. I want to submit this matter to the House this afternoon in the greatest humility and ask hon. members what has really been done for the workers of South Africa, with specific reference to the less privileged workers, those in the lower income groups. A great deal has, indeed, been said on the subject. The matter was raised by this side of the House, but I think that nothing has specifically been done for the worker.

What did you suggest which the Government did not do?

I will not allow myself to be diverted by the hon. member. I will put the position this way to the hon. member: What have they suggested that has not been done and in that case they can ask the Deputy Minister of Labour. He suggested that the Shops and Offices Act should be amended, and we are still waiting for that. If I had to reply to that question this afternoon, I would say that very little, if anything, has been done for the worker. Had the position of the workers been so wonderful, I would have understood it, but is there one hon. member who will put his hand on his heart this afternoon and disagree with me when I say that, throughout South Africa, there are thousands of workers in the lower income group, who not only eke out a living, but who, in many instances, live in the greatest poverty? I am not the only one who is concerned about this position. I am convinced that hon. members on the other side of the House are just as concerned about it, because the people in the lower income group are having a difficult time. We travel blithely along the top of De Waal Drive, but we never go down to the little side streets, the back streets, where thousands of South African workers struggle to make a living. I am convinced that hon. members on the other side of the House are just as concerned about the matter as we are.

A few days ago the hon. the Minister of Finance—I think it was at the opening of the celebrations on the occasion of the jubilee of the Defence Force—told us how sound our economy was. He said that South Africa had a great industrial potential. He said the country had unlimited natural resources. Those were winged words; when we listen to those words, and when I think of the high level which our reserves have reached, and the tremendous increases which have taken place in salaries over the years, and when I hear how our national income has doubled, and that there is only 2.4 per cent unemployment, when I hear these things and I walk out of this building into one of the little houses in my constituency and I see the poverty which prevails from day to day, I ask myself what do all these statistics and all these figures mean—statistics and figures which represent South Africa as a country in which wonderful conditions obtain—whereas we know that there are thousands of our fellow South Africans who barely make a living and where poverty knocks at the door. If I can take you to one such home, Sir, I can take you to tens of such homes in my constituency, practically in every constituency in the northern suburbs of the Peninsula, the homes of lorry drivers, homes of shop workers, homes of railway workers, the unskilled labourer, the tarpaulin repairers in the employ of the Railways, and those people who have to wash and clean the passenger coaches and trucks, and last, but not least, the homes of numbers of pensioners, old people in the eve of their lives, who barely make a living, whereas they should have been in a position to live happily. We in this House are occupying ourselves with wider visions, we are travelling along the slopes of the mountain, and we are forgetting the people who are living down below in the side streets and those workers of South Africa who find it hard to make a living, those people in the lower income groups. Many of those people are not single, but have families whom they have to keep. That father has to work to maintain his wife and children, and the tragedy is that that father and that mother longingly wait for the day when they will be able to take that son or daughter out of school—Std. V. VI, VII—to go and work and earn extra income for the family.

We have compulsory education up to Std. VIII.

The children are taken out as soon as the law allows it, as soon as the children have reached the age. and that boy goes to work. Within a few years he is in the same position as his father with his Std.VI or Std. VII certificate. In that way a vicious circle develops in the case of those people who are in a groove, people who cannot get out of it, who have been forced into it by economic circumstances. Nobody can get them out of it unless the State takes them by the hand and lifts them out. Sir, if you go to the labour office here in Cape Town, and you study the people who stand in front of those doors waiting for work, you will find that 65 per cent of those people are people who did not go beyond Std.VII and that is why they are unemployed. You find that process developing daily in numbers of homes in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, we are actively engaged in looking for immigrants, people with technical knowledge and training. Do you know that numbers of boys and girls of those people who are forced to work long for the further training which they cannot get.

Are you dissatisfied with the immigration policy?

I wish the hon. member would be serious for once. Those people long to be trained, but they cannot get it and in the meantime we have to import those people at high costs. I do not want to exaggerate but I must say that in some respects we are scandalously wasting valuable material, human material in South Africa. I am not only referring to the Whites but also to the Coloureds. Not only do these people require training, but they need guidance as well. That boy who wants to study must be shown how to get into the school if he does not know himself, or if his father cannot tell him or if his father does not have the money to send him there. If we wish to make the best possible use of our human material in South Africa the State will have to make provision. The people are finding things difficult because they do not earn a civilized wage. By a “civilized wage” I understand that that man should be in a position to live with his family in a little home, not a palace, but a decent little home; secondly he should have sufficient nourishing food. He. as a worker, is entitled to that. Over the past few days we have heard about surpluses in South Africa, but at the same time I have heard in this House that the consumption of agricultural products has not increased since 1952-3. I, therefore, ask myself this question: If we can lift these people out of the groove of poverty and uplift them, will we not be able to dispose of a large amount of our surpluses while at the same time making it possible for those people to live decently? We hear about the Orange River scheme. I do not want to go into that but we already read in the daily Press that voices are being raised at the Orange River Agricultural Union which ask: Why place more land under water and encourage extra production if we already have surpluses? They are already beginning to worry about a scheme which ought to enrich the whole of South Africa. They are getting worried because they hear about surpluses, surpluses which I think ought to be much less if the people of South Africa were placed in a position where they could feed themselves properly with the products from our own soil. There is a third point, namely sufficient clothing. Only last week a notice appeared in the Government Gazette about the additional duty to be placed on materials which are imported. Let us translate it into language which the man in the street can understand. Do you know what that means, Sir? That shirt, the very shirt which the worker probably wears, which costs him 19s. 11d., to-day will cost him 5s. more if the additional duty is added. That is what the additional duty means to the worker. Mr. Speaker, he ought to be able to clothe himself properly, he ought to be able to educate his child properly. He should be in a position to travel to and from his work, he should be able to enjoy a little entertainment occasionally and he should be able to go on holiday perhaps once every two years. He should also be able to build up a small cash reserve. Those of you who are perhaps children of the depression—I believe those people who were children in those lean years are called that—will know what a wonderful source of security that £5 in the bank was. Do you know there are thousands of people who do not have £5 in the bank, who have nothing. I think we should place the workers in a position to build up a reserve, even if it is only a small reserve. I think I have mentioned eight points, eight prerequisites for people to maintain a civilized standard of living. Those are the things which a civilized wage ought to ensure to them. I do not think there is one person in this whole House who will tell me that the worker is not entitled to that. Let me tell you, however, Sir, that there are numbers who cannot afford those things. How can you do it if you earn £40 or £50 per month and you have a family? I am not even talking about the Coloureds. For every White man who struggles there are two and three Coloureds who struggle twice and three times as hard.

I want to state it very clearly that there are numerous people in South Africa who cannot afford these things. It is not surprising that there has been an increase in the number of summonses. It is not surprising that people have to take their children out of school to earn their own bread. It is not surprising that there are families in my constituency where the word “holiday” is no longer part of their vocabulary.

Why do you people not increase the wages? Why do you expect the Government to do everything?

If the party opposite is the friend of the worker, why does the Government not give guidance? I want to put it this way, I know that many hon. members opposite agree with me. Let them do something. This is a matter which demands to be investigated. I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister of Labour will disagree with me in regard to what I have said. He will admit that the lower income groups find it difficult to make ends meet. I think we all sympathize with those people. If that is the position, are we going to allow the position to continue? May I, in all humility, appeal to hon. members opposite to have this matter investigated and that we stop travelling only high along the slope on De Waal Drive but that we come down to the suburbs, to the narrow streets, and see the conditions under which those people are living.

I am fortunate in this respect that I can usually tell a man’s fortune in politics. Unless the hon. member who has just spoken undergoes a change of heart, I predict that he will not remain long in politics. The language which he used came from his heart, but the language which he used conflicts with the interests of those at the head of his party. If he continues to speak that language he will be outwitted one way or another one day and will no longer be here. [Interjections.] Hon. members should not get perturbed. Time will tell whether I was right or not. I want to tell that hon. member his political fortune to-day in all sincerity. He will have to change his opinion and refrain from placing in the foreground to the extent that he does the love which he cherishes for the people for whom he has pleaded. I find no fault with that, but he will have to cease doing so if he wishes to remain within the ranks of the party opposite. I wish to reply to a few of the questions before I deal with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). The hon. member has asked a number of important questions to which I want to reply, although he asked them in a very general way. The hon. member asked two questions. He wanted to know what has been done in particular for that class of person whom he mentioned? I want to go so far as to say that nothing in particular, but in general those people for whom he has pleaded have been kept in a position where you can still say that almost every White man in South Africa has been provided with permanent employment. The biggest catastrophe that can ever hit these people will be if they have to walk the streets and ask for work, while various Natives do their work. And that is the policy of the hon. member for Yeoville. That will be a very great catastrophe. I believe the hon. member spoke with great sincerity but he will realize that those people would have found themselves in much more distressing circumstances if they had had to march through the streets and if, according to the policy of the United Party, Natives had had to come from the Bantu reserves to do their work here. That would be the worst catastrophe that could hit them. The second question which the hon. member asked I will answer in this way: This Government, in spite of the fact that the price of food has risen considerably in the world outside, has in particular done this for that man, it has kept the price of food low by subsidizing food to a greater extent than ever before in South Africa. That is something which cannot be argued away. I say that the hon. gentleman will have to be careful in future. When he meets those people he will have to say to them: Look, we notice that the main United Party speaker on labour matters said in Parliament that a policy of the “rate for the job” should be followed. They will ask the hon. member what that means. This will in due course bring me to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, but it is partly also a reply to the hon. member for Maitland. If the policy of the “rate for the job” of the United Party were accepted, it would be impossible for the Whites and the Coloureds to keep their head above water, because the policy of the “rate for the job” has never succeeded in supplying one single White man in South Africa in the lower income groups with work or in protecting him. I am now replying to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He asked how many Whites had retained their work in South Africa as a result of job reservation. My reply is this that job reservation, to which he referred specifically, in terms of Section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, forms part of what we regard in this country as the major pattern of job reservation. There are three ways in which jobs are reserved in South Africa. I do not want to concentrate on the one part, because I want to deal with all the three different methods which are mainly followed in South Africa to reserve jobs for Whites. The most important one is the conventional method of job reservation. The hon. member opposite and many of his colleagues will probably be the first to protest if anything is done which conflicts with the conventional method of job reservation. If he asks how many have been protected by conventional job reservation, I say the entire Public Service, the entire police service (as far as the Whites are concerned) your entire military service in South Africa, your entire Defence Force. That is conventional job reservation.

I spoke about Section 77.

I know, but in that case the hon. member only spoke about a section of a section. Job reservation should be seen in its entirety. He dealt with an essential part of the three bases which I am talking about. That part is just as essential as it is for a wagon to have a wheel or for a motor-car to have a wheel—every wheel is just as necessary as the other three. Job reservation in terms of Section 77 is an absolutely essential part of our job reservation pattern in South Africa. If you remove one wheel from a motor-car you cannot travel with the other three. Conventional job reservation is the most important, and even those hon. gentlemen in the Press gallery …

Is Section 77 necessary in their case?

I am coming to that. I hope the hon. member follows what I mean when I talk about a part. I say that unfortunately most people who make a living as a result of this conventional colour bar which exists in the South African pattern, are unaware of its existence. I go so far as to say that 99 per cent of the gentlemen in the Press gallery are unaware of it. If conventional job reservation were to disappear it would be possible to replace every newspaperman in South Africa by a Black journalist from Africa, ten times as many as you need. You would be able to get qualified people from all parts of the Continent of Africa to take their place. But as the United Party sees the pattern, they think that they will probably be able to maintain the White man in the professions, but when it comes to the trades, where the artisan will be affected, they do not care one iota what happens to the White man. Time and again over the past 50 years, in season and out of season, onslaughts have been made on the trades in South Africa. They did everything in their power to place them in the hands of the non-Whites in South Africa. That was why they carried on like evil spirits when the first real colour bar was introduced in South Africa, Act No. 25 of 1926. They held protest meetings to protest against the proposed colour bar legislation, an Act which stands as steadfast as a rock. Because of that Act the mining industry is still following that pattern to-day and that is why the mining industry is one of the most effective in the world to-day. There you have job reservation, Sir, not only as between Black and White but even as between various Bantu races. But if they could, the United Party would even undermine that to-day. Had it not been for the fact that the mining industry would collapse if you removed the White man, Mr. Oppenheimer would tell them to-morrow that they should rather do away with job reservation. As a matter of fact he does that himself. I am referring to the report of a speech made by Mr. Oppenheimer a few days ago when he said: “Look, you must not attack the colour bar in Parliament, leave that to me.” It is clear from the report which occupations will be affected in the mines as far as the colour bar is concerned. There has been an agitation afoot for the past 30 years and more. They are conditioning certain trade unions in South Africa to abolish the industrial colour bar in South Africa one of these days, more particularly in the mining industry, in such a way that they will be able to place those Bantu whom they are training to-day in certain staff positions in the mining industry instead of Whites. He is fighting the battle for them. He does it so neatly, it is stated so subtly in the report, that unless you are trained in these matters and unless you are a first-class detective you would never guess what Mr. Oppenheimer meant in this report, and what he was fighting for.

I now come to Section 77 which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana attacked so strenuously at the instigation of the hon. member for Yeoville. Ever since the existence of that section they have been fighting against it every year and to-day they come forward with “the rate for the job” as an alternative. Let us explain it clearly to those who are not conversant with what the “rate for the job” means. For example, whereas we are no longer faced with a mass of completely illiterate Bantu, but where thousands of them already have their matriculation certificate, the application of the “rate for the job” will mean that you will be able to replace more than half the White workers in the White industries by Bantu and Coloureds, if the policy of job reservation is not applied.

Why?

Because they will employ Bantu in many cases.

Why?

You will not be able to maintain the position if the White man and the Black man receive the same pay. I am astounded that the hon. member cannot understand that. I have been asking that question ever since those days: Wherever in South Africa have you found the White man and the Black next to each other where the same wage was paid for the same job? The result of that policy is that the White man has to go. That has happened. You no longer find Whites in the building industry in the cities. They were no match for the Coloureds and the Coloureds in turn were no match for the Bantu. The Bantu replaced the Coloureds by their thousands. Do hon. members opposite think that they can continue to tell the White man how wonderful it will be for him to occupy a higher position, that they want the White to get promoted and that the Bantu should fill the inferior positions? That is the pattern which they advocate. That is a deceptive pattern, because whether the Opposition accepts it or not, South Africa is gradually following a road, as far as the Republic is concerned, of gradually making the White areas more and more White also as far as the industries are concerned. There will be room for the other races and in the case of the Bantu they will find refuge in those areas which are being developed for them. It must be accepted once and for all that no State and no nation can continue to exist if it has to be dependent on the citizens of another country to work in its trades. Every State which wants to be healthy and sound must be able to fill all its posts from the highest to the lowest with its own citizens. That policy of the United Party of only keeping the highest and the most attractive positions for the White man is all very well if you approach it from the angle that the White man is only a temporary so journer here. But if you are determined that the White man should continue to exist here for all time and at all costs, you have to build on the pattern of the National Party, namely you should retain the White man and the White women in the highest and the lowest strata of your economic structure, the lower levels of labour in particular should not be dependent on the labour and citizens of another country, as is the position to-day with the Bantu from the Transkei and elsewhere. If we want to develop the pattern, namely that of a State, we should concentrate on placing our own people in all the shelves, if I may put it that way, Sir, of our national life. The people should not adopt the attitude that they are only a nation of shopkeepers, as hon. gentlemen opposite apparently want them to; we should not merely wish to be the buyers and the sellers and the profit-makers. The profit-making section has never as yet maintained a nation. The profit-making section is that section of a nation which should be able to move from one part of the country to the other. The profitmaking section is that section which is responsible for the hostility which exists in the world to-day, namely in Central Africa. That is the section which is responsible for it that the White man is hated in Africa, because it followed the pattern there which the United Party want to follow here, namely that the Whites should only occupy managerial positions, and the lower strata of positions should all be filled by non-Whites. We can no longer even allow that policy to be advocated in South Africa. The time is long overdue that the Opposition realized that of all the fatal doctrines which they have preached from their platforms, namely that the White man and the Black man should stand at the same workbench and earn the same wage, that is the most fatal and the most deadly one. That is also the reason why that party is losing more and more seats in the workers’ constituencies and that is why they emerge from every election with flea in their ear as far as the workers are concerned. That is why I hope the United Party will accept this pattern which we are discussing and which we are applying in practice. They will have to accept it because if they do not, they will continue to follow a policy which is in conflict with the policy which we are following and which will attract more and more non-Whites to the White areas. We are often told that wages should be increased and made attractive in South Africa. I am in favour of it that the highest possible wage should be paid to every person on earth. Everybody is in favour of that. It is not necessary to argue about that. We should not forget one thing, however, and it is this: If we increased wages in industry, in those sections where the wages of the Bantu would also be increased, we would again be creating an irresistible attraction not only to our own Bantu for whom we are to-day making provision in the Bantu areas, but also for the Bantu in our neighbouring and other states and that is one of the main reasons why we are to-day still saddled with practically half a million foreign Bantu in this country. He works here for a year and then he goes home and he lives there for five years on the wage which he has earned here over the period of a year. Where we are in favour of an increase in the salary and wage scales we should also take this aspect into account. We create a most irresistible attraction and then we want to know why those people come here. They come here in spite of the fact that it is said at UNO that South Africa is a hell for the Black man. They come here because there is no better place in the whole world for the Black man than South Africa, because we are already paying them wages here which enable them to work for one year and then to return to their own areas on holiday for a considerable number of years. We cannot get away from this. That is a fact which we have to face up to.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk in this vein it is not my intention to give the impression that we wish to cause disruption to any extent. Far from it. We also want our friends opposite to realize that where the Bantu and the non-White worker has so far played an important role in our industries, they will remain there as such and that the process of their removal will take place at the same tempo and pace as the tempo at which the development of the Bantu areas takes place. We envisage that for years to come, for decades in the future, we will have a very large number of non-White workers in South Africa. But let us clearly remember this that when they come here, we accept them because we need them, because we cannot supply all the labour in the lower strata and also because we want to help them because they have a great need for working facilities. That is a position which will obtain for all time to come. But in that case we should be sufficiently sensible not to regard that state of affairs as a pattern which should be developed further, as is suggested by the United Party, namely to integrate non-White labour more and more in the White areas. It is there where we clash and where we differ so widely. As I have already said, the policy of the United Party is perfect if you approach it from the angle that the White man’s presence in South Africa is of a temporary nature, as it was in the Congo, as it was in the Gold Coast, etc. But that is not the position. Thanks to the National Party policy, the world is fast beginning to accept that nothing will drive the White man from South Africa. No threat or no falsehood which is propagated at UNO or anywhere else will any longer be a means of bringing about the eventual disappearance of the White man from South Africa. One festering sore remains to be removed and that is this evil doctrine of the United Party. The time has arrived when we should destroy those doctrines of the United Party in the political field with greater force and greater vigour, so that every White man and woman will realize that if they were to follow the way of the United Party, South Africa must sooner or later follow the same road which was followed by all the other countries on the Continent of Africa. That is where we clash.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Once all the Natives have been moved to the Bantustans, who will do the work which they did here?

I am pleased that the hon. gentleman has asked that question, because that question reveals that he has not been listening and if he has to report at a meeting he will not interpret correctly what I have said here. I said that for generations and decades in future the pattern will remain as it is to-day, but that the tempo of the process is being changed. According to the pattern which we are following their numbers will gradually become less. But no one on earth will be such an idealist as to think that we will reach a position where we will erect a barbed wire fence with the Blacks on the other side and where anybody who climbs through will be shot. We will not have that position. My reply to my hon. friend is that for all time, or for many years, the economy of South Africa will be dependent to a great extent on non-White labour from our Bantu areas, just as Germany and France obtain labour from Italy and other parts of Europe. You will always have that pattern. Similarly we will have it here. Industry and the mines are to a large extent dependent on labour which is simply migrant labour. But when they are immigrants it does not mean that they should enjoy what the United Party has suggested in the case of the Bantu, as the hon. member for Yeoville has said, namely that they should become land-owners in Johannesburg. He says we should develop a big strong economic and land-owner middle class Bantu community there. You do not find it in Europe that the workers become a great, strong land-owner class in the country where they go to work

May the Italian mineworker who goes to work in Germany not own land there?

I think the hon. member as an economist and as a great political pedagogue ought to know that they do not own property there.

But they may purchase land there.

In theory yes, but not in practice. That is what happens in practice, and that is the position there. Let us state this clearly once and for all, and let the people and the world outside understand this pattern, and let hon. members opposite stop maintaining that job reservation will handicap industrial development in South Africa. That is not the position. I have already proved to you, Sir, that the industry, namely the mining industry, in South Africa which stands out in the world as the most efficient, is based 100 per cent on the principle of job reservation. If we follow the same pattern in other industries, hon. members must not tell me that those industries will not succeed. They will not fail.

We once had a rebellion about that.

When we will have a riot will be when you do what you did in 1923, when the White man was told that he should work with the Bantu; and if you refuse we will shoot you. They did shoot. But somebody else was also shot—the United Party Government was shot The United Party is belittling those things to-day. The United Party imprints certain things on the mind of the industrialists which you cannot remove with a hammer. That was also how they imprinted certain things on the mind of U.N.O. The United Party is continually imprinting certain harmful things on the minds of certain industrialists until the industrialists eventually believe them. As the hon. the Deputy Minister said the other day, if there is nothing left for them to talk about, they talk about job reservation. No, Sir. we intend to continue to build on that policy and that pattern, and job reservation in terms of Section 77 is only a part of the whole pattern, part of the conventional job reservation pattern just as Act No. 25 of 1926 is. They all form part of the whole pattern. I hope hon. gentlemen will in future cease thinking that their attacks on that pattern in any way have the support of the White worker, male and female, of South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not refer at great length to the speech to which I have just listened. When he spoke last session and the session before the theme of his speeches was so much the same that we almost know it off by heart. I am sure he has been well and truly answered in all the matters which he has raised. So I hope he will forgive me if I do not refer to anything which he has said except to say that as far as job reservation is concerned—and I refer only to the Coloureds-I believe that job reservation is a clear admission that the Whites cannot compete with the Coloureds on equal terms. Furthermore, job reservation is subsidizing incompetence and encouraging lack of initiative. That is the position which has been brought about by job reservation as between Coloureds and Whites. That is how far I want to go on that aspect. It has been dealt with; it is the policy of the Government. We as Coloured representatives. believe that it works harshly in regard to the Coloured people.

It reserves your job for you here.

I do not believe that I should have a reserved job here. I believe that the Coloured man should be back on the Common Roll and should be able to vote for his representative as he did in the past.

Why don’t you resign your seat?

I have offered to resign my seat on condition that you put a Coloured man here. I am even prepared to resign my seat if any hon. member opposite will resign his seat and let us fight a Coloured seat to see who the Coloured will choose notwithstanding the boasts of hon. members opposite. They can accept my challenge at any time; I will not withdraw it. It remains open.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take this line in this debate. It was my intention to refer in more detail to the position of the Coloured people in relation to their living conditions. The Government rightly boasts to-day of the amount of our reserves; it has reached its peak. Because the reserves have sky-rocketed to the figure at which they stand to-day, they claim that the country is indeed a prosperous country. In my opinion, Sir, a country is only as prosperous as the people in the country are. If the people in a country are not prosperous that country is not prosperous, notwithstanding the wealth which it may have in the form of reserves, gold or anything else. If we wish to boast, therefore, of a prosperous South Africa we must see that the people of South Africa are prosperous in every phase of life. I refer particularly to the position of our Coloured people.

Why don’t you try to say something new?

The hon. member is quite right, but I merely wanted to answer the hon. member for Vereeniging. I have answered him before but it has apparently not sunk in, so I want to reply to him again. In some industries where Coloured people are employed the minimum wage is as low as £1 6s. 0d. per week. I say that any Government which permits such a low minimum wage in certain industries does not deserve to have the confidence of the Coloured people to whom I am referring. It is because of the low wage which the average Coloured man earns that we have malnutrition—and this applies also to White people in the lower income groups—in South Africa.

I believe the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has already referred to the report of the committee of inquiry into family allowances. He referred particularly to page 81 under the heading “Malnutrition”. I would just like to remind the House what it says. Paragraph 316 reads—

I do not want to quote any more, because this has already been referred to. An attempt was made in the Provincial Council by a United Party member, in a somewhat different form, but with the same object in view, to try to get the Government to distribute surplus food amongst the poor people. What happened? When that hon. member, sincerely and honestly tried to put forward a well-thought-out plan, whereby the poorer people of South Africa would benefit, he was laughed at; they jeered at him. The Cape Times rightly came out with this heading: “Nats Attack Food Plan for the Poor: U.P. Member Urges End of Dumping.” The report then goes on—

Mr.Speaker, I want to show that the surpluses in South Africa are sufficient in every way to assist the poor people. May I also refer to an article written by a man who has devoted a considerable number of years to working amongst the poor, Dr. Oscar Wollheim. He wrote a long article on this question, and he said this—

When you read the annual report of the Department of Health of 1958, Sir, you will see to what extent the Coloured people suffer as a result of malnutrition and disease compared with the Whites. The 1958 report is the latest which is available to me. I do not know whether there is a later one. The hon. members says it is not true what I say. Let us take the case of tuberculosis. I read from page 39 of this report, and it says—

I am not going to go into the specific types of tuberculosis, but, compared with 12 Europeans who died, 510 Coloureds died. If the hon. member wants to know what is wrong with these figures, I do not know. There is only one answer: These people do not get sufficient protein foods in order to keep them alive, and they die prematurely. On pages 37-8 of this report it says—

They give the whole table of deaths up to four years and so on. Let me take the case of children between five and nine years. Whereas there were only three deaths in the case of the Europeans, 61 Coloured children died. In the age group 10 to 14 years, as many as 2,741 Coloured children died as compared with 31 European children. Now, Sir, these figures must indicate something. It must indicate that these people do not get the food value which is necessary to keep them alive.

What do you suggest?

I am glad the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) asks me what I suggest. Mr. Speaker, you have on previous occasions indicated that we cannot discuss school feeding in Parliament. I have no intention of going into that aspect. But I do want to say this in answer to the hon. member’s interjection that, if you will feed the school children as you have done in the past, you will go a long way towards helping those people in their health. If the hon. member does not accept what I say, let me read some of the reports which we receive from medical people. As soon as the school feeding scheme was stopped we had reports from doctors. I want to read one or two of them in order to satisfy the hon. member that, if they could only revert to school feeding, it would help considerably.

What about surplus maize?

I am coming to that point. I want to read a few letters. I have one here from Dr. Sym of Knysna—

That was written by a doctor. I have another one here from a principal of a school at Queens town, which says—

I have seen other letters signed by medical people throughout the country, that, as soon as the authorities stopped feeding the children at school, both Coloured and European, there was an increase in the incidence of malnutrition and consequent illness amongst these people. What is the remedy? The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) gave some details. I am told that if you use the surplus maize as protein food for the people, you will get rid of a considerable amount of ill-health.

Will they eat it?

I have no doubt that they will. I want to impress on the Government that these large surpluses—there is an outlet for it. As far as butter is concerned, there is a considerable surplus, and also of cheese and eggs. I remember some years ago local authorities were prepared, and I am sure they would still be prepared, if the Government would send the surplus butter and eggs to them, to distribute them to the poor. I myself, as a member of the City Council of Cape Town, have had a system for many years. The surpluses were sent to us and we used the old Drill Hall, and, by a scheme of identification cards, these people used to come and receive their butter at 6d. a lb. Where there is a will there is a way.

Who is going to pay for it?

What difference does it make who pays for it? Those hon. members would rather spend more money on hospitals and fighting tuberculosis than to spend money on the distribution of these surpluses. My plea to them is this: Let those hon. members go out with me to the areas occupied by the Coloureds and see the state of their roads and houses and the poverty they live in, and there will not be one of them who will refuse to accede to the request I make on behalf of the Coloureds whom I represent. Do not waste your surpluses. Send it to them. Make it incumbent upon local authorities to act as your distribution agents. I have not the slightest doubt that you will get complete acceptance by every local authority. They will only be too glad to help these people.

I want to conclude on this point. The Minister of Coloured Affairs made a very important statement about Coloured education. I do not want to discuss it, except to say to the Minister of Finance that, if the Government has to carry on Coloured education instead of the provinces, I sincerely trust—and I make this appeal to him, that he should make available sufficient funds to make it possible for there to be compulsory Coloured education with the same facilities in every sphere. I sincerely hope that, not only will they give them equal facilities, but, for the sake of all the schoolchildren in South Africa, Coloured or White, the Government, I hope, will reestablish the school-feeding scheme and will get the local authorities to act as their distribution agents for the surpluses, and you will be repaid millions of and in the health of the population, and you will save on hospitalization. [Interjections.] But, you see, Sir, you get the same reaction that you get in the Provincial Council. They laugh and jeer when a serious motion in regard to food is introduced, and I say that the way they behave to-day shows that they are not in any way concerned with the position of the poor people.

The hon. members for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and Maitland (Mr. Hickman) have made a plea on behalf of the middle and lower income groups. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has made a special plea on behalf of the people he represents. I am surprised that there has been no reply from the Government side to the charges made by those hon. members. We had a long speech from the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), in which he mainly defended job reservation. The question put to him was how many White workers are protected by Section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, but he did not answer it, and it is quite clear that the hon. member spent most of his time justifying job reservation and justifying the cause of unequal pay for equal work. If we are to lighten the many financial difficulties that beset the lower income groups, we have to maintain the rate of economic progress, in order to have full employment. The Minister, in his introduction, spoke briefly about the new method of financing. He referred to Dr. de Kock, but he gave us no other information in regard to the reserves and I would like to ask him, first of all, whether he has the latest figures in regard to the Revenue Account and the Loan Account, the final figures. He gave it to us a few days ago, but I would like to know whether he has the final figures. Then I would like the Minister to say something in his reply about his intentions in regard to the present position of the reserves. To-day the reserves are at their highest level for the past 14 years. That is due to the strict import control, but also to the exchange control introduced last year, which had the effect of prohibiting the repatriation of funds from this country. The whole country wants to know what the future position is going to be, whether the reserves are now in such a state as to justify any relaxation of import or exchange control. It is quite clear that the amount of our present reserves is due to the fact that we are not allowing the overseas investors who have funds in this country to repatriate their funds. It is very easy to boast of the high figure of the reserves, because it is just the same as a person who boasts about how much money he has in the bank but he has not paid his accounts. I do not want to be interpreted as saying that we do not pay our foreign obligations, but as long as there is exchange control this high figure of the reserves may mask the real position of the reserves. We have seen recently that there has been a narrowing of the margin between the London prices and the South African prices on the Stock Exchange, and I would like the Minister to give us some further information on that. This is a matter on which the Minister has special information, and he is the one who can give us that information. No member on this side would be so foolish as to suggest a remedy without having all the information available. The Minister has the information available and I think it is time we had some indication from him, because there is no doubt that the present position in the country is patchy. [Interjections.] I think the Minister will be the first to agree that the position in the country is patchy. In some industries there is prosperity and in others almost a depression, or tending towards a depression, like in the building industry. Numbers of building workers are unemployed. In certain towns we have a surplus of flats, but on the other hand we have a shortage of suitable accommodation. Whilst we have too many flats, we find in another part of the city slums of which no one can be proud. We have the position that there is a hesitancy on the part of the ordinary working man to invest in a building, and instead he keeps his funds intact. We find a hesitancy on the part of business to invest. This patchy position is clouded to a certain extent by the uncertainty of industry, and industry is uncertain because they do not know what the future is going to be with regard to our position should Britain enter the Common Market. It is that uncertainty which is making industry uncertain. For the last four years, in the main, secondary industry development has been slacking. The over-all position shows that our exports have increased. There have been increases in our wool and maize and gold exports but in our secondary industries, which employ a large number of people, there is a downward trend in employment. Recently Dr. van Eck said that the Common Market was the political and economic event of the century. The European countries are getting together and trying to find points of agreement. We in this country are bent on a policy of fragmentation. Let us examine what was recently said by Mr. Hans Middleman, the President of Assocom. He said—

If we examine the position in this country, we find no resolute attempts being made to widen our markets to the North. The Minister of Economic Affairs is overseas now endeavouring to get the best conditions possible, but we have seen no tangible results in the expansion of our markets, apart from the recent agreement with Japan. The second question which Mr. Middleman posed was whether we are advancing or retreating in trade and labour relations with the adjoining territories. We are making no adequate progress either in trade or labour relations with the neighbouring countries. Are we increasing or hampering the freedom of movement of the economically active population and their right to choose their occupation? It is quite obvious to anyone listening to the debates in this House that the Government is determined to restrict still further the movement of people in regard to choosing their occupations. The Government is determined on a policy of having two economies, one for the Black areas and another for the White or mixed areas. So we have the pattern developing of unequal pay for equal work. Recently a visiting professor, Prof. Enke, wrote an analytical article on the South African growth, and he said this—

Here we have the fact that there is a grave risk in having these two economies. Not only are we paying different rates of pay for the same work, but that also tends to increase the cost structure, because by reducing the over-all output and reducing these factories to small units of production, a unit of production in the White area, as contrasted with a unit of production in the Black area, it tends to increase costs in both areas.

We come to the further question posed by the president of Assocom, whether the freedom to invest is being widened or narrowed. There has been no restriction on investment in South Africa, but there is a tendency on the part of the Department of Commerce and Industry to encourage industries to go to border areas as a matter of Government policy and virtually an industrialist coming to this country is put in the position that unless he takes the advice of the Department, after being referred to the I.D.C., it is very doubtful whether he can expect any assistance either administratively or in any other way from the Government. There is a shyness on behalf of new investors to invest easily in this country, because of the implied difficulties they will experience if they do not comply with Government policy.

That is absolute nonsense.

The greatest threat to the economy is inherent in international policy and inter-racial attitudes, and private investors will postpone their investments in order to wait and see, and as Professor Enke says, this could have catastrophic effects on national income in the absence of suitable and prompt intervention by government and constitutes one reason for restraining partisan influences on some of the very real external dangers and internal difficulties of these times. There is no doubt that the present financial tension is due to the restriction on the repatriation of capital and the Minister is by no means certain that a major capital inflow can be expected. Only a day or two ago Sir George Albu, addressing the annual meeting of the General Mining and Finance Corporation, said that if the various embargoes and controls on the movement of capital from South Africa were to be dispensed with, a very rapid withdrawal of most, if not all of the foreign capital, would result, and he attributed this to the present political situation in the country, and while emphasizing the need to attract fresh capital from overseas for the well-being of South Africa, every effort should be made to make the policies of this country more acceptable to the world at large. He said that this did not mean that the country should pander to the more extravagant and often ill-considered demands, but there should be more reasonable attitude to some of the controversial issues dealing with human relationships which would assist in restoring overseas faith and confidence. The importance of attracting overseas capital was supported by another economist whom the Government have frequently quoted with approval, and it is clear that if the Government expects to attract capital from overseas there will have to be some amendment of its policies.

There is plenty of capital here.

This economist whom the Government frequently quotes said this—

To satisfy the curiosity of hon. members, that statement was made recently in an article in the Economic Journal by Mr. Jan de Villiers Graaff, an economist whom hon. members opposite are frequently prepared to quote. If we examine the position in this country over the years, we see to-day that the proportion of the White population is lower than it was in 1910. The White population is now 20.9 per cent of the total population, whereas in 1910 it was 21.4 per cent. Even the recent Reserve Bank statistics disclosed that the position is patchy. The Bulletin of the Reserve Bank published recently shows that the total number of persons employed in manufacturing and construction is lower and that the economic development of the people is not keeping pace with the growth of the population. This trend is seen not only in the Reserve Bank statistics, but in the recent report of the Department of Census and Statistics. We find that there is a pattern developing in this country which is manifesting itself in the present difficulties we have. During the course of the debate we have had members on this side referring to the farming industry and the difficulties experienced by the workers in the towns. It is due to the policy the Government has followed over the years. People have left the rural areas and gone to the towns, and when they come to the towns most of these people get employment either in Government posts, where job reservation is automatic, because they go to White people only, or they have got employment in industry, and I want to deal particularly with those employed in industry. The man in the country leaves it because the farm can no longer support him, and he goes to the towns hoping to find a new way of life there. In some cases men have got work in the Railways or some other Government Department and the womenfolk have found jobs in the factories. When they came to the towns they had no training at all; they were unskilled employees. Over the years they acquired skills, becoming semi-skilled and then fully skilled. We find particular examples of this in the footwear industry and the clothing industry. These people, having obtained this employment, have a new standard of living, a new pattern of life. In many cases they have built their own residences, frequently on the borders of towns, because they want to have a patch of ground where they could bring up their children, where they could have their own garden and their own fowls and a little bit of stock. They have altered their whole pattern of life; they have given up the idea of ever being farmers again because they find that the land cannot support them and they have gone to the towns. And what has happened now? The Government in pursuance of its policy of border industry development have now established industries on the borders, and to-day in our large cities people who formerly worked in our clothing and our footwear factories are out of work or have to make a fresh start late in life because of the change of Government policy, and now we have this position namely untrained, unskilled non-Europeans brought into industry and being paid a wage much lower than that being paid in the European factories. We have virtually two economies and two standards of living, and we find uncertainty in the minds of these Europeans who have to change their whole way of life. They cannot go back to the farms. At this time of life they cannot start a new type of work, with the result that they drift into caretakers’ jobs or take jobs in the commercial and distributive trade. Having had ten or 15 years’ experience in industry and having acquired a particular skill and become useful members of society, they now come to various Members of Parliament on the Government side and on this side and say “The factory in which we were formerly working has closed down; please, can you find us a job in some Government Department to give us some kind of security?” Their whole pattern of life has been changed and the tragedy of it is that it costs money to train a worker in industry. The experience, the training, of these people extending over ten to 15 years is discarded. Those people can no longer go back to that particular kind of work; they have to make a fresh start in life, and all this adds to the cost structure of the country. We are moving these factories to the borders of the reserves; we are working with a new type of employee and we have already found that the standard of work there is not as high. We also find that the labour turnover in these border factories is far greater than in the old factories where these people formerly worked. I have met people who have done a foreman’s job in some of these clothing factories in Johannesburg who have transferred to one of these border industries. They have been amazed at the speed with which these people have acquired these new skills, but they have found that they lack the ability to concentrate for any lengthy period, and they have also found that they are much more inclined to demand new terms and conditions and to go on strike for trivial matters and that they are much more difficult people to control. I know of foremen who have said: “I would far sooner go back to Fordsburg and deal with all the people I had to deal with then at a higher rate of wages; they are people who co-operated better and people with whom I could get on and associate with.” New difficulties are arising not as a matter of natural evolution but as the result of determined Government policy to alter the whole pattern of this country. Is it surprising that we find a hesitancy on the part of people to invest, that we find a hesitancy on the part of the worker himself to invest in his future? What is taking place is that the worker who formerly lived in the town and who knows that his labour is on short time or out of employment as the result of the fact that the factory has moved elsewhere, leaves his savings in the savings bank. It is all very well gloating about the high savings, but this man does not invest in a new house. Our young people who should be building their own homes are not doing so. Sir, we are a country of home-builders, or we were in the old days. We were proud of having built our own houses and our own homes. We were proud to put down a deposit and then look forward to the years when we could pay off the purchase price. We were proud to ensure that our children had a future and eventually a house in our old age. What is taking place to-day is that more and more our young people are living in flats. They are not taking the risk of building homes because they have seen their neighbours thrown out of work or put on short time, and so the vicious circle continues. As the result of their being on short time, as the result of unemployment and uncertainty, they too are not investing in buildings, and because they are not investing in buildings, the building workers are unemployed, and, with the building workers unemployed, the building workers’ assistants, the Africans, who have acquired skill in the building industry, are out of work, and when they have no employment they are endorsed out of town and, once that happens, they have little hope of coming back again. When the builder gets new contracts he has to start with new, raw labour, which is classified in the building industry as unskilled labour, but which is not unskilled. A good building boy, who has worked five, ten or 15 years in the building industry, while he may be classified as unskilled, has acquired a very real skill, and can contribute to an amazing degree to the lowering of costs and to the efficiency of the job. This whole pattern runs right throughout the South African economy. The hon. members for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and Maitland (Mr. Hickman) have referred to the difficulties of the ordinary man. The policy of the Government, the way in which it has disrupted the whole of the economy is accentuating these difficulties, and we must expect these difficulties to continue until such time as the industrialists believe that they can look forward to ten, 15 or 20 years of certainty, and until there is certainty in the mind of the ordinary worker that his factory is not likely to close down, that he has a future to look forward to. While hon. members on that side may quote the high production of mealies and mealie surpluses, we are faced with the fact that many mealie farmers are experiencing difficulties. While we see big farmers enjoying big profits, we find that the small farmer is going to the wall, and here, in a land of plenty on the one hand, we are finding increased poverty on the other, all due to the uncertainty created by the policy of this Government, a policy which is not planning, but Government bungling. Until such time as we have proper planning, and not so much talk of ideologies, so long will this country continue in the state in which it is to-day.

The hon. member who has just sat down is the second Opposition speaker on financial matters. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition dealt with the second leg of this aspect and the hon. member who has just sat down enlarged upon it. But I want to say right at the outset, having listened attentively to the hon. member, that his speech was in sharp contrast with the speeches made from that side of the House towards the end of the last session last year when our reserves had reached the record low figure of approximately R142,000,000. What we had from hon. members on that occasion was the greatest pessimism, no faith in this country and no hope for the future. I say that the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down was in sharp contrast with the extreme pessimism revealed by the Opposition last year.

The hon. member jumped from subject to subject in an attempt to reveal weaknesses in our economy, but he was by no means convincing in that attempt. I must, however, reply to one point made by the hon. member before dealing with his other points. I refer to the accusation which he made against this side of the House that if industrialists wish to establish industries in South Africa to-day, they will not get the necessary assistance from the various departments or even from the Industrial Development Corporation unless they are prepared to follow a pattern dictated by the Government, and that is to establish their industries on the borders of the Bantu areas. Where the hon. member gets hold of that is something that passes my comprehension. The Government has never dictated to industrialists where they should establish their industries. It is only certain industries which are selected and which are suitable for the border areas, which are advised to go there. This is typical of the many examples of all sorts of attempts on the part of the Opposition to frighten future investors unnecessarily, without being able to mention a single example where the Government has dictated to the industrialist concerned where he must establish his industries. I think that statement made by the hon. member is a reckless, irresponsible one.

To come back to the second leg of the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely that the tempo of our economic development has slowed down so much that we will not be able to provide opportunities of employment for the normal growth of our population, that is the theme which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition touched upon and which was enlarged upon by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). The Leader of the Opposition stated, and the hon. member tried to emphasize it here this afternoon, that the slowing down of the tempo of our development was attributable to the uncertainties in the minds of investors as the result of the policy followed by this Government. The uncertain factors mentioned by them are allegedly the policy of Bantu homelands—the Transkeian Territory specifically—the uncertainty with regard to the border? of the Bantu homelands and the uncertainty which surrounds these border industries. That is the aspect on which the hon. member for Pinetown in particular concentrated. In addition to that, of course, there is the factor which they also mentioned in the third leg of their amendment, namely the so-called policy of isolation followed by this Government. That is their accusation against us, and I think it is high time we analysed this accusation a little more closely. It is argued that the tempo of development has slowed down to such an extent that we shall not be able to provide the necessary opportunities of employment for the natural growth of our population, and that this is attributable entirely to the uncertainties which arise from the policy of this Government. That was what the Leader of the Opposition stated when he dealt with the second leg of his amendment, a statement which has now been re-affirmed by the hon. member for Pinetown. I want to start by saying that it is true that our gross domestic capital formation declined last year; we accept that. That is clearly borne out also by the Budget which the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced this Session, and we accept that that is so. But let us analyse the position on purely economic grounds to see whether that slowing down in the tempo of development and the decline in the formation of internal capital can be attributed to the uncertainties which, according to hon. members on the other side, flow from the policy of this side of the House. In the first instance it is clear on closer examination that this reduction in internal capital formation is due to a decrease in supplies whereas fixed investments have actually increased. That is my first submission. In the second instance, investments in our secondary industries have increased by R30,000,000 in the past year. I concede, as I have said, that over the past year there has been a decrease in our internal capital formation in comparison with the previous year, but in the industrial sector, the very sphere to which we must look for an acceleration in the tempo of our economic development, we find that there has been an increase of R30,000,000. We should like to see the industrial sector developing more rapidly. That was also stated in the clearest terms by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech. But to say that the position has been stagnant or that there has been a general collapse, is not true in the light of the fact that an extra R30,000,000 has been invested in our industrial sector.

In the private sector?

Yes, in the private sector. In the third instance there is one general fact that we must acknowledge, and that is that industrial expansion takes place step by step; it is not an even, continuous process which would show a gradual rise if drawn on a graph; it is not a continuous, even process; and in this connection authoritative bodies like the Chambers of Commerce themselves declare that we still have unused capacity ’as the result of the almost too rapid development and expansion that we had in the early ’fifties and particularly in the late ’fifties. We still have an unused capacity as a result of this rapid development that we had in the ’fifties. Surely it stands to reason that until such time as this unused capacity is fully used, there will be no great incentive to embark on further expansion. We believe that we are rapidly reaching the stage where that unused capacity will be fully used and that we are therefore on the threshold of a further economic boom.

In the fourth instance we feel convinced that we are approaching a period of great economic prosperity. In the first instance we read in the daily Press about enormous overseas interest. Four or five weeks ago a whole page in the Sunday Times was devoted to new industries which are going to be established in South Africa. In a sense it was a prospectus showing the economic boom that lies ahead of us in the future. It is significant that a great deal of the capital that is going to be invested in those industries is internal capital, but a considerable portion of it represents foreign capital. The second aspect that we must not lose sight of is this: The latest dividends on our industrial shares in particular provide the clearest proof of confidence in our economy. When we find this boom in our industrial shares in South Africa, I feel that we can justly be proud of the knowledge that there is confidence in our economy, in comparison with what happened a few weeks ago in America, when, as the result of the attempt made by President Kennedy to combat inflation and when he refused to make further concessions in respect of increased steel prices, there was a collapse of industrial shares on Wall Street, and 15,000,000 small shareholders had to sell out.

Mr. Speaker, now that our reserves have reached these heights—this matter was also raised with the Minister of Finance this afternoon by the hon. member for Pinetown—great pressure is being brought to bear on the Minister to make some attempt to relax our control measures. The hon. member did not really plead for this in so many words, but from the way in which he put his question one can only draw the inference that he would like to see some relaxation of import control measures. In this respect I want to urge the greatest caution. In the past we always felt, when our reserves stood at approximately R300,000,000, that we had a safe margin. That may have been the position in the past, but we are living in entirely different circumstances, and it is because that is so that it is necessary to bear in mind that the yardsticks of the past cannot always be applied to modern times. It is generally recognized by international authorities to-day that if you want a reasonable safety margin, provision should be made for approximately four to six months’ imports. That is accepted to-day: I think the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) will agree with this statement. If we accepted the yardstick that we must make provision for four to six months’ imports, it would mean that our reserves would have to stand at approximately R500,000,000. Our reserves, which at the moment stand at R398,000,000, have by no means reached that level. Under these new circumstances, therefore, hon. members will see how necessary it is to be cautious and not to propagate the premature breaking down of control measures in view of the fact that it is accepted internationally that provision should be made for four to six months’ imports. Furthermore, in connection with this same subject, we must not forget that we have certain foreign obligations to meet in the next few years. In 1963 we have obligations to meet amounting to R62,000,000 and in 1964 we have obligations to meet amounting to R72,000,000. I mention these few points only to show that we are dealing here with a matter that has to be approached with the utmost caution if we want to keep our economy sound and if we do not want to gamble with our financial future. These loans that I have mentioned, which have to be met in 1963 and 1964, may possibly be renewed, but I think it is much wiser to make provision for every contingency. Then I just want to say this in connection with another aspect of the reluctance that we see on the part of investors and which hon. members of the United Party lightly ascribe to uncertainties created by the policy of this Government; we still have many investors in South Africa who until recently have not realized that the winds of change which swept throughout the world also affected South Africa and that of necessity they must adapt themselves to the changed circumstances. There was a time when investors, generally speaking, always adopted this attitude, “Let us first see what happens overseas and then trim our sails accordingly.” During this Session the hon. the Minister of Finance has come along with a Budget which will give a tremendous impetus to our economy. He has set an example to the private sector by making the necessary investments in our economy, and I believe that it is essential at this stage in particular that the investor should no longer ask himself what is going to happen overseas but that he should show the necessary confidence in the economy of our country and actively proceed to make the necessary investments. I think there are signs on our economic horizon that this aspect is receiving much more attention from investors than it did in the past. It was announced by the Government recently that the State was going to invest a sum of nearly R2,500,000,000 in new projects and projects which are to be commenced in the course of this year, which will be of enormous benefit to the private sector and the effect of which we will only see in our economy in the years that lie ahead of us. What is important is that here we are dealing with a psychological problem more than anything else—not with uncertainties which, according to hon. members on that side, flow from Government policy, but with excessive caution on the part of the investor who is inclined to watch circumstances overseas and to forget that the safest form of investment of his capital and the best security for his own capital is to stimulate our economy at this stage by making the necessary investments. I believe that that is a problem which will still be solved in the course of this year. We have the fullest confidence that it will be solved, and that confidence is borne out by the fact that our industrialists in South Africa have become export conscious. As the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs announced in the Press only yesterday again, this has been stimulated, of course, by the fact that there is greater interest overseas in our economy, but it is most certainly also true that the period of recession that we had in South Africa is something of the past.

Hear, hear. I hope that is true.

Mr. Speaker, you saw yourself that when prices on all the share markets of the world dropped, the Johannesburg share market was the only market where price levels were maintained. If that is not clear proof of faith in our country, then I do not know what one could regard as proof of that fact, because we can always accept the share market as the barometer of the soundness of the economy of the country. Sir, these are not my words; they are the words used by the President of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange when he gave his address last Sunday evening about the position of the Stock Exchange. Another reason why I am so optimistic is this: We in South Africa are producing two-thirds of the gold of the free world. Does that fact in itself not justify our optimism? Our coal reserves of 75 billion tons constitute one-third of the total reserves of the Southern Hemisphere. We can meet our foreign obligations with only eight months’ production of gold. Furthermore, we are very rapidly becoming the workshop of Africa with our unlimited supplies of iron ore, coal, manganese and chrome. And as far as the development of this important sector of our private economy is concerned, that is to say, our industries, we have the authoritative opinion of a writer who is not unknown to this House, Dr. A. J. Norval, in a book which he wrote recently, “A Quarter of a Century of Industrial Progress in South Africa.” On page 111 he predicts a very, very bright future for our industries. He says—

Here we have an absolutely unprejudiced opinion and the views of an authoritative person—

He concludes his chapter on industrial development in South Africa over the past 25 years on this very optimistic note. I should very much like to recommend this book to hon. members of the Opposition. It may make them more optimistic about our economy and, secondly, give them more confidence in their own country’s economy. In spite of this justifiable optimism we find one discordant note, however; I might almost say that we find one thistle in this rose garden of optimism, and that is the attempt that is continually made by the United Party to sow distrust in our economy. I have before me a copy of the Weekblad, which is known to most hon. members. It is the official mouthpiece of the United Party. I think this is last week’s edition. On the front page we find these banner headlines: “Shock awaits South Africa: United Party’s warning was definitely not in vain.” I saw this placard as I was walking down the street and for the first time in my life I invested 5c in the wisdom to be gleaned from this United Party publication. And on the front page we find this remarkable statement by the economic correspondent of the United Party’s mouthpiece—

Hear, hear!

We have never said that we will have no problems if Britain joins the Common Market. Just two weeks ago, on the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs, we had a debate here on this particular aspect, and here is the interpretation of the economic correspondent of the Weekblad—

I think it will be advisable to get a little more information first about the precise conditions on which Britain will join the Economic Market before we predict shocks for our economy. I say that notwithstanding the fact that we have great cause for optimism, the United Party adopts this attitude. In the debate which has taken place so far—and let us compare this with the jeremiads, the pessimistic prophecies, that we had last year towards the end of the session—the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has had to jump about from one subject to another this year in an attempt to scrape together a few arguments to show that the tempo of our economic development has slowed down to such an extent that we are facing the greatest unemployment. I say that the United Party would have been well advised to wait until we knew definitely on what conditions Britain is going to join the Common Market. I believe too that once that has happened our relationship with the Federation will be much clearer, because there is another aspect about which the United Party is terribly concerned, and that is what the outcome is going to be if Britain joins the Common Market and the Federation then becomes an associate member of the Common Market. I do not want to make any prophecies, but I think it is necessary that we should mention the basic facts in connection with this matter in this House. There is a possibility that if the Federation joins, it will be as an associate member. I saw in the Press recently that the Federal Government was considering the possibility of such a step. This can be done in terms of Article 131 of the Treaty of Rome. That will mean that Britain will have to share with the other countries of the Common Market the preferences that she enjoys in respect of the Federation. In those circumstances it is possible that the Federation will make use of this opportunity to increase the Federation’s import tariffs so as to give protection to her domestic industries. How would such a development affect us? Our existing trade agreement with the Federation falls outside the scope of the imperial preference system, and that is a very important fact to bear in mind. The mutual trade relationship between ourselves and the Federation need not be affected at all therefore by the Federation’s association with the Common Market. The Federation is not bound, in her own external trade policy, by the Common Market’s import tariffs which are determined by the Common Market for full members. Everything will depend on what the Federation itself decides to do. In these circumstances it is my considered opinion that the Federation will buy in the market where it is able to buy most cheaply, and it will be our task to see that our industries are placed on such a competitive basis that we shall be able to meet those problems. I mention these facts because we have been hearing wild rumours lately about the terrible disaster that will overtake our growing economy if in the first place Britain joins the Common Market and, in the second place, if the Federation becomes an associate member of the Common Market. Well, we have sufficient reason to meet these problems coolly and calmly, and with our very capable Minister of Economic Affairs attending the Common Market discussions, we have the fullest confidence that the interests of this country will be well looked after. There is one further fact that I might mention in this connection. We must not lose sight of the fact that the Republic constitutes a very great market for the Common Market countries.

As I have already said, in the financial and in the political sphere, as well as in the international political sphere, we are concluding this Session, in contrast with last year, on a note of optimism. Underlying that optimism is the knowledge that this country’s economy is basically sound, that our country is blessed with a population which has the necessary perseverance, the necessary will to survive here and to develop the whole of this country’s potential in every sphere, irrespective of the dangers that threaten us. Far be it from me to minimize these dangers, but I have full confidence in the spirit and in the perseverance of the population of the Republic

When the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) started, I thought he was going to disprove what has been advanced on this side, particularly by the previous speaker, that our economy in recent years simply has not provided sufficient jobs for our rapidly increasing population that is in fact he said he would disprove. The simplest way of disproving that, would be to point to official figures of employment, to show that we are talking nonsense on this side. But how did the hon. member set about it? He set about quoting how our reserves have increased, and how share prices have gone up. Mr. Speaker, it is a clear coincidence that just this morning I happened to read a little sentence in a publication which I think describes very aptly the type of argument that this hon. member put up. It is published in an economic journal and says “as the medieval metaphysicians showed, an arm-chair statistician can prove anything, and economic theories are most rewarding in this respect”. I think that was the type of argument the hon. member put up. He advanced a whole lot of theories which probably quite satisfy him, but he never got to the fact of the matter. I will tell him now why we say that the economy in the last four years particularly has simply not provided sufficient employment for our rapidly increasing population. The hon. member must be aware that our population is increasing at the rate of about 2 per cent a year, and so one must assume that one’s labour force increases by two per cent a year, and that one must provide extra jobs every year for an extra 2 per cent of people. In other words, over a period of four years, if we have consistent development and balanced development in respect of all industries and all economic sections of the community, they should have provided 8 per cent extra jobs compared to four years ago. Now what are the facts on the official figures that have been published? These are not assumptions, these are official statistics of employment, published by this Government, as far as they are available. Now we find for instance that in the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics for April 1962, they point out that as far as total employment is concerned, that whereas total employment in 1956-7 was 111.9, in December 1961 it was 113.9, in other words it had gone up 2 per cent instead of 8 per cent. So total employment over that whole period only increased by 2 per cent. It is even more interesting if we see where that increase took place. The hon. member for Mayfair will agree with me that if we really want to raise our standard of living rapidly, the one sector of our economy that should develop rapidly is industry, because industry pays the best wages. Let us have a look at what is happening to our manufacturing industry. Everyone is agreed that in the long run the welfare of our society will primarily depend on the rapid development of industry. What do we find in respect of the manufacturing industry? That whereas in 1956-7 (four years ago) the index was 114.2, in December of 1961 it was 113.4. Stagnation in the manufacturing industry as far as employment is concerned! Let us have a look at mining. That is the one industry that has had a fair development. If you look at the figures for all races in mining, you find that it increased from 108.3 to 119.6. But we know that the great bulk of that labour is foreign Natives who come from outside, because for some reason which hon. members probably know more about, our Native population is not keen to work in the mining industry. But if you look at White employment in the mining industry, you also find that it increased from 107.8 to 109.5. If you look at “construction”, you find that there is an alarming drop of employment from 110 to 99.5. In transport and communication there was a drop from 114.9 to 108.3. That is the type of argument the hon. member must use and not the argument that because our reserves are going up and our share prices are going up, therefore there cannot be any unemployment in this country. I think he has totally failed to prove that what we are saying on this side is not absolutely true, namely that our economy in the last four years has simply not generated enough jobs for our rapidly increasing population—not for any intrinsic reason, because inherently we have one of the strongest economies in the world. We entirely agree with the Government on that aspect, but unfortunately we have not one of the strongest governments.

The other point the hon. member touched on was that he said that he would like to see our reserves go up to R500,000,000.

I did not say that. I said that was the general opinion.

I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister of Finance whether that is also his appreciation of the situation. I must say that this test that your reserves must equal between four and six months of your total export or import trade, as the case may be. is a test which very few countries in the world could comply with at the moment.

The hon. member also told us that he bought a Weekblad for 5 cents. I hope having read that Weekblad, he will probably now become a subscriber.

Order! The hon. member must not canvass the journal.

Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member had discovered some wrong statement, but surely what is written there is correct as reflecting the Government’s attitude to-day. We know that a year, even six months ago, and even three months ago, their general attitude was that the Common Market would not affect South Africa at all and that it would not affect our South African trade. I think one can put it in a nutshell by saying what the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs now said overseas, “Provided you treat it as if we are still in the Commonwealth you won’t run a risk”. My point is that if we had remained in the Commonwealth, this risk would not have existed.

We are not in it and you have to accept that as a fact.

That is what I say: The uncertainty in an uncertain world has been made far more uncertain by the policy of withdrawing from the Commonwealth. It is one of the penalties we are beginning to pay for having left the Commonwealth.

Mr.Speaker, in a recent publication I see that the Prime Minister said (Fact Paper No. 98)—

I think that we, on this side, have always adopted that attitude that our difficult racial problems could be solved far more easily in a context of prosperity, and the Government, on the other side, must ask themselves whether their policy is leading to this desired state of affairs or not. We have already pointed out how, in the last four years at least, our economy has not been generating sufficient employment, and we could not possibly have had full employment. I know hon. members on the other side will come and say: “Look at our official figures of unemployment.” They are just misleading themselves if they attach too much importance to our figures of unemployment. What are our figures of unemployment? Our figures of unemployment simply reflect registered unemployment, all the unemployed people who go and register at the unemployment exchanges. We know that it excludes the Bantu population, we know that it only registers a fraction of the unemployment amongst Coloured and Indians, and we know that even, as far as the Whites are concerned, there are large numbers of unemployed who are not registered, and therefore are simply ignored by the Government when they pretend that we have not got a problem of unemployment at the moment. Mr. Speaker, and then they make international comparisons, and probably we will get them again here, and compare our figures, for instance, with the unemployment figures in the United States of America. But hon. members on the other side should realize that the figure in the United States of America is a real unemployment figure; they have sample surveys of the population every month, and they register every person who is unemployed, whether he draws unemployment benefits or not, and whether he is registered as unemployed or not, and if the American figure of unemployment is 5 per cent, it has been calculated, for instance, that that is probably equivalent to an official English figure of 2 per cent, because the English, like us, only register those persons who are on the unemployment register. And the difference is this: that a far larger percentage of English workers do register because of the extensive unemployment benefits they get. So, in making these international comparisons, the Minister is misleading himself if he attaches too much importance to those official unemployment figures. Until he makes an actual sample survey of what the real position is, he cannot attach too much importance to those figures. As I have said, we agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Prime Minister that our survival and racial peace ultimately will depend on whether we can make this country prosperous

May I put a question to the hon. member: Assuming for a moment that the basis of our unemployment statistics is wrong, is it not a good comparison if the same basis was used the previous year? Even assuming that the basis is not what it ought to be, a comparison is useful if you use the same basis.

I don’t think that that is quite correct, because new people come out of the schools and don’t bother to register, and we know, for instance, that the figures in regard to Native unemployment …

That would have applied in the same way in 1955 as to-day.

I admit it in some measure, and if you look at the figures you will find that unemployment now is higher than it has ever been in the post-war period.

For that purpose you accept it?

As some indication, but you cannot accept it as an absolute measure. The figure shows a tremendous increase in unemployment, but surely the figures the hon. the Minister should look at are not the figures of unemployment, but of employment. In any event, inherently South Africa has one of the strongest economies in the world, and, given good government and given good administration, there is no reason at all why we should not prosper; in fact, why we should not be one of the most prosperous countries in the world, and why our economic growth should not be one of the fastest in the world. As hon. members have pointed out, we have already reached a high degree of economic development, we are saving a large percentage of our income for investment, and we can compare in that respect with any country in the Western world, and, on top of that, South Africa has certain special advantages, some of which were mentioned by the hon. member for Mayfair. For instance, we produce two-thirds of the gold in the world, a commodity that always has a sale whether there is a depression or a boom. We might not always be satisfied with the price, but at least we have an insatiable market for it. In addition to that, our exports are amongst the strongest in the world, in the sense that, just like gold, if you take many of our exports there are very few impediments or restrictions in respect of any market in the world. That is why the Common Market will not affect us as much as it might other countries, for the fact that we are basically a strong exporting country. The Minister must also realize that gold production and exports are strong stimulators of the economic growth of any country; they have a multiplying effect on the national income. The Minister knows that. Now let us see what has happened since this Government came into power, how these two special factors that operate, and that should make South Africa grow more rapidly than almost any other country in the world, have developed over the past 14 years. If you look at the gold production, you find that, between 1948 and the present, the volume of production has doubled and the value has trebled. That has had a tremendously stimulating effect on our economy. We find that our exports, and in particular gold production, during the last few years have risen very considerably, but we have had a very poor performance as far as creating employment opportunities are concerned. The production of gold has, in fact, increased from R425,000,000 in 1957 to approximately R600,000,000 this year, an increase of nearly 40 per cent, which should have had a most stimulating effect on our whole economy. Our exports, other than gold, have, over the past 14 years, almost trebled. I therefore say that no Government in the whole history of South Africa has governed in such a fortunate economic climate as this Government had. If we had had a good Government, we should have been one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

Last year, when there was a slowing down, you blamed the Government; now you don’t want to give credit to the Government when things are going ahead.

Does the hon. the Minister really want to say that the increase in gold production has in any way been due to this Government?

Yes, to our policy.

Sir, it has no relevance to their policies, whereas out flowing capital has relevance to their policies. That is the simple point we make.

What is the performance of our economy as compared with other Western countries in countries in the in the world? Whenever one raises this question as to how fast we are growing compared with other countries in the world, the Minister always comes back and compares us with the slowest growing countries in the Western world. He always comes back and says: “Well, at least we are doing as well as New Zealand, Australia and Canada.” But those three countries themselves admit that they are growing much too slowly to-day. But the hon. the Minister never makes a comparison with the rest of the world. Even an old country like the United Kingdom, which is supposed to be one of the laggards to-day as far as economic growth is concerned, has a more rapidly growing economy than South Africa. The hon. the Minister need only look at the survey by the Stellenbosch Institute, and here he will find that it is so in respect of the last eight or nine years, and, if he compares us with other Commonwealth countries, he will find that many countries without these special factors which stimulate our economy are growing two and three times as fast as South Africa, and that applies especially too in respect of old countries in the Common Market. It is a very difficult matter to establish, but I think most economists to-day admit that the communist countries are growing at a rate of 4 to 5 per cent a year, which is two to three times as rapidly as we are growing.

I started my speech, which was interrupted by the dinner adjournment, off by quoting with approval the statement of the Prime Minister that racial peace and our very survival in this country depend upon whether we can become a prosperous society and how fast we can reach that stage. The question, therefore, which I should like to analyse now is how fast we have, in fact, prospered under this Government. The official national income figures show in theory that the real income per head, i.e. the rate at which the standard of living has been increased in the past decade, is in the order of about 1½ per cent. I have already pointed out that that places us amongst the slowest growers in the Western world. Ours is in fact only one-half or one-third of the rate at which other Western countries are advancing.

What about the United States?

The Minister should know that the United States is one of the slowest growers in the world. They are, in fact, very worried about it because they feel they are losing the race against Communism. Their intention is, consequently, to double the rate.

What about Australia?

I have quoted that already and the conclusion one must arrive at is that we are amongst the slowest growers in the Western world. The great United States itself is, despite its wealth, worried about its slow rate of growth.

But this is a very abstract calculation. It could only be applied to the mass of the people whom we want to make more prosperous if the benefit of this economic growth which we, undoubtedly, have had are fairly and equitably spread. The question, however, is whether it has been fairly and equitably spread? Have the great masses of our non-European peoples as well as many of our Whites benefited equally from this? The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has quoted figures to show that there is not the slightest doubt that non-White wages should be increased. Also the Prime Minister pointed out in a recent statement the desirability and necessity for an increase in the wages of non-Whites and that this was emphasized by studies made of the average incomes of non-White families in Johannesburg, Durban and Pretoria. “Whilst certain findings of these family studies might be criticized it can hardly be denied that they have revealed extreme poverty towards which neither the employer nor the Government can adopt an attitude of indifference.” This according to the statement of the Prime Minister. So I do not think I am wrong if I say that the great bulk of our non-White population, as also the hon. member for Umhlatuzana showed earlier on, is living at subsistence levels in this country at the moment. The question is whether their standard of living has increased? It is no use having an abstract figure if the masses do not share in that increase in welfare.

I admit it is awfully hard to decide whether the welfare of the masses as well as their standard of living is increasing rapidly in this country or not. I suggest, however, that there are indirect, though real, tests to show whether our welfare is really increasing at a sufficiently rapid rate. As regards our prospects in this country, I have already said that we are all agreed that inherently this country has great capacity for economic growth. I do not want to retrace all the arguments to this effect. One of the things which every one in this House knows, is that when the income of the poorer classes increase, it is usually manifested in an increase of their consumption of food. Every one is, I think, agreed on that. If, however, any further proof is required thereof, I can refer to a survey which has recently been conducted by the University of South Africa and which shows that families living at a subsistence level spend R2.3 of every R10 by which their salaries are increased per month, on food. In addition, something like 90c are spent on clothing. It is a widely recognized fact that as the income of the poorer classes increases, so they spend more on food and clothing.

On this basis, i.e. if the standards of living of the masses in South Africa have risen lately, one must expect that the consumption of food will have increased as well. It is most alarming, therefore, to read in a publication, i.e. Agrekon of January 1962, of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing what the Secretary of that Department writes on “Moeilike markte en surplusse”—

The following are the significant and alarming words—

What is the picture that is painted here? It is that since 1941 there has been a gradual but steady increase in consumption of agricultural products. Four years after this Government got into power, however, we arrived at a static condition because consumption did not increase any further. Is that not an alarming state of affairs and prima facia proof …

Are you blaming the Government therefore?

The Minister is anticipating my speech because I will come to that in a moment. Every one in this House is agreed on the fact that we have a tremendous capacity for rapid growth and, consequently, for standards of living to rise rapidly as well. It has been advanced as one of the essential requirements if we are to maintain racial peace and ensure the survival of Western civilization. But is it then not alarming that for the first time since 1941 the consumption of food has remained constant during 1952-3?

But what are the other consumption figures—in respect of clothing for instance?

The Minister wants to sidetrack me because that is not relevant at this stage. Surely the position is that if the standards of living of the impoverished masses in South Africa are rising, they should consume more food per capita? I have already referred to the study …

You said only 23 per cent was being spent on food. Where does the 77 per cent go?

… by the University of South Africa showing that a large proportion of any increase in their income are spent by the masses on food. The Minister is assuming that there has been an increase in the standards of living of the masses. My point is that there has not been an increase. There has been maldistribution, however, because the increase in the national income has not been spread evenly. That is the only conclusion one can come to.

But it is not only the fact that the food consumption of the poorer people is not rising which is causing alarm. It is also the direct cause of the position in which the agricultural industry finds itself to-day. Production in the world is booming and while that should also be the case in South Africa, we find that the Government has to cut prices to farmers and that despite the fact that costs of production have increased! The condition in which the farming industry finds itself to-day is directly attributable to the fact that the standards of living of the masses are not increasing rapidly. And it is not only a static food consumption which points to that. Let the Minister look at the official figures of retail sales in this country. He will then find that between 1957 and 1961, the value of retail sales has increased by 3 per cent whereas retail prices has increased by 9 per cent. This also points to a static position as far as consumption is concerned. But what is more, it is this static condition which has led to creation of surpluses not only in our agricultural industry but also in the industrial sector. Industrialists are, generally, agreed that we probably have a 20 per cent over capacity in our industries. Consumption has simply not kept pace with the production of agricultural and industrial products. Now the Minister asks whether I blame the Government for that. Of course I do! In every well-regulated society, it is the prime function of government to see that if there is an increase in national income that income is spread evenly amongst all sections of the people. That has, obviously, not been done in South Africa, unless all these official figures are wrong.

And there are many reasons why the Government can be blamed for this state of affairs; time compels me to deal with only three of them. But that will be sufficient to prove that it is the result of this Government’s policy that South Africa is not growing as rapidly as it should and as its inherent capacities demand and that the standards of living of the masses are not increasing rapidly. It is due, in the first place, to the racial policies of this Government. I am not going to spend much time on this because it has been argued over and over again in this House. It is amazing that these racial policies which hon. members on the other side claim are to maintain Western civilization in South Africa, are rejected by the whole of the Western world. They are only supported by hon. members on the other side. [Interjections.] It is no use hon. members on the other side telling me that that is only my opinion and not theirs. They must also take into account what the opinion is of the businessman who makes the investment and thereby creates rapid economic development. Hon. members know. surely, that the greater bulk of businessmen in this country are not communists? They believe the policy of the Prime Minister and of this Government in respect of racial affairs to be utterly impracticable and futile. It is not believed by them that these policies are going to solve any of our problems. But I should like to read a quotation from the Economic Review of the Republic of South Africa issued by the Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd. This is a publication which the hon. the Minister knows is being distributed amongst many important industrialists in England and all over the world. In this publication the racial policies of this Government is discussed. After having stated the viewpoint of the Nationalist Party in regard to separate development quite fairly it goes on to deal with the weaknesses of that policy. These people cannot be said to have any political interest in South Africa. They could not care less who governs in South Africa as long as their investments are safe. This is what they have to say about this Government’s policies on racial affairs—

That is the considered and reasoned opinion of businessmen in England who have no partisan interest in politics …

And Kenya is flourishing!

… as has the hon. the Minister who interjected and who has recently been appointed to the Cabinet. But he held similar opinions before he went over to the other side. He is the one who has changed his opinions. This is the opinion of objective observers of the scene in South Africa and the result is that they do not find justification for faith in the future of South Africa. [Interjections.] The Minister of Finance cannot, of course, alone be held responsible for the collective policies of the Government. I wonder even how much say he has in their determination. He must give some credit, however, to the wisdom of the rest of the world which looks upon our policies as completely impracticable and unable to solve any of our problems.

They made a mess in Africa?

The Minister of Finance is, at any rate responsible for the more direct financial and budgetary policies of the country since he has become Minister of Finance.

I should like to suggest another reason why consumption has lagged so far behind—as a matter of fact to such an extent that it has become an encumbrance of our economic development. This other reason lies with the Ministers budgetary policies in terms of which he has allowed the people to be consistently overtaxed to the extent of hundreds of millions of rand. The Minister has apparently not grasped the point that the condition of static consumption, inter alia, is holding back economic growth. The Minister seems to think that there is something virtuous about a balanced budget and more so with a surplus. But that is an old fashioned idea. If you have over capacity in agriculture and industry like there is in this country at the moment, there is no virtue in a balanced Budget or in a surplus. In this connection. I should like to recommend that the Minister should, before introducing his next Budget, read a very interesting article in the Economist of 19 May, page 690, under the heading “deficits pay”. In this article the very slow growth of the United States is compared with the Common Market countries and points to the fetish which is in vogue in America of being able to submit a balanced Budget, or better still, to show a surplus. That is compared with the approach in the Common Market countries and in this way the writer comes to this conclusion—

Why has the rate of growth of the Common Market countries dropped this year? [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has once again played his old role of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde here. When he attends a meeting of the board of directors of the Netherlands Bank, then he tells an entirely different story from the one that he told here this evening. I have here a little pamphlet issued by the bank, namely the economic bulletin of the bank for April of this year. This bulletin deals with the same Budget as the one which the hon. member talked about this evening. But whereas he alleges that the Minister’s budgetary policy is responsible for all the misery that he sees—I say it is a figment of his imagination—the bulletin concerned had the following to say—

The hon. member for Jeppes must please stop coming along with his Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde stories.

He, and other members on his side, talked about our policy with reference to border industries which they allege will produce no results. But let me say this: Sir, the Rosslyn border area was only proclaimed the other day, but already there are 25 undertakings which are prepared to start there. Does the hon. member know that at Hammersdale there are already four textile factories operating in that border area? Does he know that others are still coming? Does he know that the I.D.C. is erecting a big building at Rosslyn, entirely for industrial purposes? In many respects the hon. member does not know what he is talking about.

Apart from this point, he also dealt with other points, the last of which is the racial policy of the National Party Government. He says that the reason why we are faring badly is to be found in our racial policy. I have said before, and other members have also said, that the National Party is not going to depart from its racial policy. We would rather struggle economically than abandon our racial policy. In that way we are maintaining White civilization in South Africa. I deny, however, that our policy in this connection affects this country adversely in the economic sphere. It is true that there have been temporary, minor setbacks as the result of distortions of our real attitude. This had its effect overseas particularly and prejudiced us temporarily. That position is coming to an end, however. The hon. member says that the commercial people are not communists, but look how they criticize the policy of this Government! In this connection he quoted the opinions of a certain person. I had an interview the other day with a few of the executive members of the Chamber of Industries and the Chamber of Commerce. Sir, do you know what attitude they adopted? Their attitude was that there was no permanent future for the Whites in South Africa and that we must therefore follow a policy which in the next 25 years …[Interjection.] I shall be glad if the hon. member for Jeppes will listen to me. We all listened to him very courteously and we expect him to do the same thing. That is an old dodge of his. Hon. members opposite sit there chatting, highly pleased with their own ignorance! In any event, the businessmen to whom I have referred here say that the best thing for South Africa to do would be to see how much money we can make in the next 25 years so that if it looks at that stage as though we have to clear out of this country, we shall have sufficient money to be able to go and live in some other country on our interest. That is the only inference that one can draw from the policy of the United Party, and that is why I say that they support that sort of attitude when they come along here and say that our racial policy is responsible for our economic position.

Another point that the hon. member raised was that the standard of living of the lowly-paid, particularly that of the non-Whites, was too low. He says that that is borne out by the fact that there has been no increase in the consumption of food. Sir, I replied to this very same argument just the other day when the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs was under discussion here, but the hon. member again comes along and says that since 1952 there has been no increase in the consumption of food. Is the true position not, however, that since 1952 there has no longer been underfeeding in South Africa? If there is no underfeeding, why then should people eat more?

Have you read the recent statement by the Prime Minister about the large-scale poverty that still prevails?

No. I have not. I would urge the hon. member to go and look at the sort of clothing worn by the non-White workers to-day in comparison with 10 years ago. Whereas in those days their cinemas had to close down because of lack of support, nowadays they remain open the whole day and there are always queues waiting outside. Go to any place of amusement for the non-Whites and you will see that to-day they have many more supporters than they did previously. Let the hon. member tell this House where the money comes from in deposit-receiving institutions, whose deposits over the past ten years have increased fourfold. Four times as much money is being invested annually in savings accounts to-day as 10 years ago. Where do those savings come from? Instead of listening the hon. member for Jeppes is beginning to converse again. I want him to reply to these questions. I put these questions to him in the previous debate. Apparently he will never dare to reply to them.

I have here the figures with reference to the funds of building societies. I do not propose to weary the House by quoting figures, but the hon. member for Jeppes did so and I must reply to him. Deposit-receiving institutions such as building societies, trust banks, the post office savings bank, etc., show an investment tempo equivalent to nearly 20 per cent of our national income. No other country in the world can make this proud boast. I have already said that in recent years we have no longer had underfeeding amongst our population, hence the static consumption of food. But let us assume that increased salaries for these people would be justified; why then does the hon. member say that to the Government and not to the employers concerned? Every year at conferences of the Chamber of Commerce we hear this story that the non-Whites are being paid too little and the allegation is made that it will promote business if the non-Whites are paid more. But to-day hon. members opposite come along and put forward pleas from which one can only draw the inference that those employers cannot pay their non-White workers more unless the Government so decides! Surely that is nonsense. After all, the wages which are fixed are minimum wages, not maximum wages, and employers are free to increase those minimum wages. One of these people told me that he was surreptitiously paying his workers a bonus with the result that he attracts the best non-White labour. Let the other employers do the same thing; then they will retain the services of their good workers. But they want to make the Government responsible for this. They say that the Government should increase minimum wages, and if there is any trouble, then they blame the Government for it.

Another point which the hon. member made his main theme was that opportunities of employment have only increased by 2 per cent over the past four years while the number of work-seekers has increased by 8 per cent. Of course, the great mistake that the hon. member makes is that he does not take into account the improvements in working conditions, nor does he take into account mechanization and automation. He probably never heard of that. On the basis of figures that he quoted in respect of our mines, our factories, transport, etc., he says that there has been no increase in avenues of employment in those undertakings. But surely the hon. member will concede that there is such a thing as an improvement in working conditions and that labour can be used more economically, thus increasing production although using a smaller labour force. Or has that never occurred to him? I want to show him that he is completely wide of the mark. As far as the gold mines are concerned, the labour position has been constant over the years 1959 to 1962; as a matter of fact, there has been a slight reduction in the number of workers. In spite of that fact, the production has increased from 20,000,000 to 24,000,000 ounces, that is to say, by 20 per cent! But that is a fact which the hon. member does not disclose when he makes his submissions here. Profits have increased from R172,000,000 to R214,000,000, while wages and salaries have increased by R20,000,000. That means that the mines have a bigger income; they have an increased salary bill and they have been more economic in their production; and where they have not increased their labour force, as the hon. member wants them to do, by the percentage by which they have increased production, work has been found for those people in other avenues of employment. Our statistics do not incorporate all the different types of employment in South Africa. The hon. member thinks that the position is static but it is not. In 1947 salaries and wages in the various occupations which the hon. member mentioned amounted to R197,000,000 in the mining industry; in 1961 the figure was R251,843,000. In the case of the manufacturing industry, where he says the position has been static over a number of years, salaries and wages amounted to R513,000,000 in 1957. and in 1961 the salary and wage bill was R604,864,000. In the construction industry salaries and wages increased from R74,000,000 to R76,500,000. In transport, in the Railway Service, salaries and wages increased from R205,000,000 to R225,000,000. I could give the hon. member a long list in respect of base metals to show how wages have increased. The hon. member wants to make us believe that these things have remained static. These increases are all 20 per cent or more. Look at production. In 1959 we mined 3,185,000 tons of iron ore and in 1961 4,473,000 tons, an increase of more than 30 per cent. The production of pig iron in 1957 was 1,499,000 tons and in 1961, 2,352,000 tons, an increase of about 40 per cent. In 1959 the total sales of the mining industry amounted to R671,000,000 and in 1961, R785,000,000. I could give the hon. member the figures in respect of industrial milk. From 1959 to 1961 the figure increased from 250,000,000 to 308,000,000; fruit products from 131,000,000 to 164,000,000; footwear from 100,000,000 to 107,000,000; oil-cake from 137.6 million to 194,000,000; fish-meal from 162.8 million to 228.1 million. This represents a colossal increase varying from 20 per cent to 40 per cent within the space of two or three years, but the hon. member says that our economy is static, particularly in the manufacturing industry. The figures which I have mentioned here are all in respect of manufacturing industries. No. the hon. member must not give us only one set of figures which suit him and which are by no means scientific either. He ought to know as well as any other economist that there has been development in every sphere. These developments have all tendered to bring about a saving of labour and a greater use of more skilled labour, with the result that manpower has been saved, and the labour thus saved can then be used in other spheres of employment.

The hon. member made another submission here. He says that as far as the Common Market is concerned, we would have been better off if we had still been in the Commonwealth. We have often heard that story from them, but the question that I put to him by way of interjection was this: “What is your party prepared to do; what concessions are you prepared to make so that we can remain in the Commonwealth?” But he refuses to reply to that question; his party dare not reply to it, because that would spell their doom in South Africa. He says that our racial policy is entirely wrong, but they will not change our racial policy, because that too, would spell their doom; the electorate would not give them an opportunity to do so. I shall be glad if the hon. member will follow some good advice for a change and talk more scientifically about economic matters.

I think South Africa has cause to be highly satisfied with our economic position. We do not believe a word of the hon. member’s story that we are doing very badly. He says that our unemployment figure is wrong. I want to ask him this: Assuming that figure is wrong, what right has he then to accept that our employment figure is correct? If he rejects the one figure, what right has he to accept the other figure? No, the hon. member must be more scientific. But let us look for a moment at the United Party’s amendment. They moved a “tricycle” amendment to the Minister’s motion, but that tricycle has three flat types, and the faster they pedal, the more they fall behind. In enlarging upon their amendment they dealt with every subject in the whole of the Republic, starting with the Orange River scheme and ending with the employment position on the Rand and in Pretoria, without being able to make any impression anywhere along the line, and the reaction for that is that whereas last year they were the cock of the walk and said that South Africa was in a very weak position and that we would never get out of those difficulties, they have nothing to say this year, but they nevertheless take days and days to say it. I do not want to dwell on this matter at length. I want to say a word or two in connection with our currency reserves.

It is perfectly clear to me that we have now reached the stage where our exchange position is very sound. There is no country in the

It is perfectly clear to me that we have now reached the stage where our exchange position is very sound. There is no country in the world, and there never has been a country in the history of the world, except South Africa, which has been able to treble its currency reserves within the space of 12 months. But if we deduct the amount which the Minister has deliberately repaid overseas, then our currency reserves have more than trebled in the past 12 months. That is something on which we can only congratulate this Government, and that is why members of the Opposition look so glum, because that is not what they wanted. The outcome of this position is that rates of interest in South Africa are dropping. In January short-term Treasury bills stood at approximately 4 per cent; to-day the figure is between 2 per cent and 3 per cent and we find that much more is still being offered regularly at this low rate than one could get a few years ago or even six months ago. It seems to me that we are moving towards a lower interest pattern in South Africa, which is a good thing, because one of the reasons why there has been a certain amount of investment resistance in the past few months is that there was a small number of people who said that they were afraid to invest because they did not know what would become of the non-White problem, but that is a problem which is disappearing. One of the things which deterred people to some extent was the high rate of interest on long-term loans, but since we have this drop in short-term rates of interest to-day, and since I notice that the commercial banks are going to follow the example of the Reserve Bank and lower interest rates further, I want to ask the Minister what his intention is and when the Treasury is going to start following this lower interest pattern in the case of long term loans. [Interjection.] Would the hon. member like that or not?

I should be very glad.

I feel that if we can reduce long-term interest rates to a certain extent, it will give a tremendous fillip to business and to the whole of our economy. After all, that is what we expect the building societies and other bodies to do. In a previous debate I referred to the fact that the rates of interest of deposit-receiving institutions should be brought into line, and I hope that the Minister will see to it that legislation is introduced not later than next year to make this compulsory. [Interjection.] Let me put this to the hon. member for Kensington who says, “That will be the day!” Surely if building society rates of interest are reduced to conform to the rate of interest of commercial banks, it means that building society interest rates on loans would also have to be reduced. If a building society lends money to the hon. member to build a house, surely it is a long term loan, and if that rate of interest is lowered, then surely the rate of interest must also be lowered on Treasury long-term loans? Surely that would be the logical outcome of the present position. I want to put this to the Minister in connection with our whole interest policy. It seems to me that the feverish rush that there was to get rid of foreign shares or rather South African shares held by foreigners in South Africa is something of the past, because I notice that to-day the outside world is buying South African shares not only in London but even in Johannesburg. Taking all these factors into account and taking into account the fact that every year since the war we have had a drop in our currency reserves between January and June but that this year we have had an increase of no less than R120,000,000—a wonderful achievement which nobody thought was possible—the question that occurs to me is where we are heading with our exchange reserves? It seems to me that our exchange reserves are going to reach great heights, and I just want to put it to the Minister that we should encourage industry and that the State should help to encourage industry to make productive investments as soon as possible. The position in every country in the world is that if there is a great deal of idle money which is not productively used, it has inflationary tendencies. I know that the Government will guard against this, and that is why I visualize enormous economic development in the next few months and years, because we have the money for it. I want to say to these people who complain that we are not getting sufficient foreign capital here and that we need foreign capital for development, that South Africa has sufficient capital to-day to undertake developmental projects. Foreign capital would be welcome, not on foreign terms but on our terms. In former years we had to take it on whatever terms we could get it, but that is no longer the position. It has been stated by the brother of the Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Jan Graaff, that we have reached the position to-day where we can pay off R100,000,000 per annum abroad and still finance all our capital development. I do not propose to go into the merits of that argument, but I just want to point out that I am not the only one who thinks that we can meet our own obligations if it becomes necessary to do so.

I want to point out to the Minister of Finance that when he became Minister of Finance he said that he wanted to bring about certain reforms in our taxation system. He has almost completed his reforms now. There is still one reform left, the pay-as-you-earn system. I do not want to go into the merits of it now but it looks as though that that system is going to be introduced next year. In this connection I just want to warn the Minister and ask him please to look after the interests of the wage-earners if that system is introduced. One of the difficulties that we had on the Select Committee is that the formula of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue works out in such a way that all wage-earners will be paying too much and will then receive a refund at the end of the financial year. Sir, the wage-earner is not a man with surplus money in his pocket, and before this scheme is introduced I should prefer the Minister to devise some scheme, which we were unable to devise in the Committee, to ensure that the wage-earner is not called upon to pay too much and that he then has to be given a refund later on. If the formula goes through as it stands now, we are going to have a great deal of trouble. I am glad that the Select Committee accepted a motion of mine to amend the wording of the resolution as originally passed to ask the Government to look into this matter. I want to bring this matter specifically to the Minister’s notice. I may say in passing that according to the Select Committee’s report the farmers will be excluded from the application of this system.

In connection with the Minister’s further reforms for the future, I want to suggest a few more, and one of them is this: I do not think that capital formation is promoted, either in the case of the individual or in the case of the State, by using taxation derived from capital sources for current account purposes. I think the Minister will agree with that. Unfortunately our Budget is so designed that a certain amount of revenue derived from this source is still transferred to the current account, and I want to ask the Minister to go into that aspect and to see that in the future that type of revenue is automatically transferred to the Loan Account. I am thinking, for example, of estate duty. A certain portion of estate duty is still transferred to the current account. It has not been necessary to raise this matter in the past because year after year we have transferred large amounts from current revenue to the Loan Account, but for the first time this year that is not happening, and I feel that the time has come when we should lay down a scientific basis to feed the Loan Account systematically with the necessary funds so as to keep our country economically sound, without an unduly large burden of debt.

The second matter that I want to raise is this—and here I may be treading on somebody’s corns: Our company taxation system is based on 6d. in the £, but we are taxing the gold mines much more heavily than that in some cases while in other cases the tax is lower again, but on an average the tax on the gold mines is a little more than 6d. in the £, that is to say, 30 per cent. The reason is this: Our attitude, and quite correctly too, is that the gold mines represent a wasting asset and that we must build up other things to replace the gold mines eventually as a production factor. That is a very sound attitude that we, the National Party, have always adopted, and even Mr. Harry Oppenheimer said in his last year in this House that he admitted that money should regularly be transferred from the revenue account to the Loan Account, but he said that we were rather over doing it. [Interjection.] I am not talking now about mining rentals. The mines are the State’s property; the State leases those mines to people, and that has nothing to do with the submission that I am making here. I want to ask the Minister to consider the advisability—he cannot do so at once—of gradually introducing the principle that any amount paid by the gold mines in excess of their 30 per taxation should automatically be transferred to the Loan Account. This is something that can be done gradually as the country is able to afford it, and I hope that within a few years this will be our firm policy. If we did this we would have a much sounder position than we have to-day, where we vote R50,000,000 one year for the Loan Account, the next year R20,000,000, the following year R30,000,000 and then nothing the next year. These are the reforms that I should like the Minister to bear in mind for the future.

The other matter that I should like to touch upon in connection with the goldmines is the question of the price of gold. It seems to me that there is a great deal of speculation nowadays as to what may happen to the price of gold, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister once again to do everything in his power this year, when he goes overseas, to try to get an increase in the price of gold, an increase that we deserve. Although the hon. member for Jeppe has said that you can always sell gold, we have been selling gold for the last 30 years at the same dollar price—and that is not realistic. I want to ask the Minister whether we cannot advance the argument that actually America is already paying a subsidy on their gold to those countries to whom she is lending money and which then have to buy from America—a subsidy not on gold that they produce themselves but that they may have in their possession, because if you sell something to a person for R100 and you only make him pay R50 for it, or nothing at all, you are subsidizing his currency to that extent. In this way they are making those countries economically dependent on America, and although an increase in the price of gold is actually essential they are doing nothing about it. I feel that the position that obtains to-day is altogether unsound and that something should be done about it immediately. I hope that when the Minister goes overseas he will succeed in having this matter rectified.

Mr. Speaker, before I come to what I want to say, I would just like to focus attention upon this fact, that the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) attempted to answer the tremendous indictment that the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) brought against the Government, by quoting a lot of figures. Anyone who knows the old joke about the bikini will realize the limitations of figures. And I want to say that the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has certainly, with his bikini, not managed to hide the fact of the rising unemployment in this country, or the failure of South Africa’s standard of living to rise at a rate comparable with our resources; and he certainly has not been able to hide the fact that our standard of living has not risen comparably with other comparable Western countries. The hon. member for Jeppes quoted this passage from the Prime Minister’s statement on 15 March Of this year—

Everybody in this House knows how correct was the speech of the hon. member for Maitland, when he drew attention to the extreme poverty among many of the White people in this country. I want to say that it will be small comfort to all those people to hear from the hon. member from Pretoria (Central) that no matter what the sacrifice is economically, the Government will not in any way depart from its policies. He inferred that this alone would save White South Africa and ensure its continuance. I say that all those people who are already suffering and will suffer in future from this Government’s racial policies will not be comforted, particularly when they know there is another policy, namely that of this party, which has always been able to preserve the position of those who are the bearers of Western civilization.

I think this is an appropriate moment to move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 22 June.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this year I was able to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Income Tax Act and that consolidation has now become law as the Income Tax Act, 1962 (No. 58 of 1962). The Income Tax Amendment Bill which I am now dealing with will bring about extensive amendments to the new Income Tax Act. In passing, reference may also be made to the consolidation of the Stamp Duties and Fees Act, 1911, as the Stamp Duties Act, 1962, and the Consolidation of the Licences Consolidation Act, 1925 as the Licences Act, 1962. This year for the first time it was possible for the Commissioner to publish for general information and comment almost the full list of the proposals for the amendment of the Income Tax Act. The Gazette notice resulted in only three of the proposals being commented upon.

A further proposal by the Commissioner was contained in the Government Gazette Extraordinary of 12 January 1962, and concerned the possibility of the introduction of a system of payment of income tax by instalments in advance of final assessment of liability, or the P.A.Y.E. system. That proposal was referred to a Select Committee for consideration, and the Committee’s report is in the hands of hon. members. The Government has decided to adopt the Committee’s recommendations, and I intend to follow the course proposed by the Committee. In accordance with one of the recommendations, provision is made in Clause 36 of the Income Tax Amendment Bill to permit the Commissioner to proceed with the registration of employers. The Committee also recommended that the scheme should be introduced, but that the original proposals should be modified in certain respects. Revised legislative provisions will accordingly be published as soon as possible to facilitate the introduction of a Bill early in 1963 in order that the scheme may be brought into operation with effect from 1 March 1963. In the interim of course suggestions in regard to the proposal which will be published, and which is more or less what the Committee recommended, will be accepted. Any suggestions can be made and they will be considered before the final form is introduced next year.

I turn now to certain clauses of this Bill, and I will deal firstly with the three matters I mentioned previously, and which invited comment when the proposals were published in the Government Gazette. The first request was that something should be done to prevent an exporter of farm produce from losing his right to claim the allowance in a case where, after considerable expenditure on market development, some catastrophe seriously curtails or makes it impossible for him to export his product. As the proposal for an exporters’ allowance is in the nature of an experiment, I do not at this stage intend to do more than is set out in the clause. The allowance will be granted for the first time in respect of the 1963 tax year and if any serious deficiencies in the present proposals are brought to my notice there will be an opportunity for amending the law during the 1963 session.

The second matter was really a plea for the continuation of the present basis of taxation of the income of a divorced or separated person. The proposal to amend the basis of taxation, as contained in the Bill, stems from the incontestable fact that alimony is not an expense incurred in the production of the income of the person by whom it must be paid, that it is an expense of a private and domestic nature and that apart from the provisions which, over the years, have been incorporated in the law, any claim for the deduction of alimony would have to be disallowed under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1962. In the higher income groups the splitting of income means a very considerable saving in tax, and, at the top of the scale, over 50 per cent of the amount of the alimony would be funded from the tax saved by the person who earns the income and pays the alimony. Apart from the direct saving in tax resulting from the deduction of alimony, the present provisions of the law as interpreted by the courts, have made it possible for both parties of a dissolved or broken marriage to retain all the benefits of a classification as married persons. Amendments to the existing provisions would in any case have been necessary. It is considered that the amendments now proposed result in an equitable solution of the problem. Because it was desired to cause as little hardship as possible, the new provision will not be applied in those cases where the order of divorce or of judicial separation resulted from proceedings instituted before 21 March 1962, or where the written agreement of separation was entered into before that date. In cases where the new provisions apply, each parent will be entitled to claim rebates for the children of the marriage, and the parent who is actually maintaining a child out of his own income will be entitled to a special rebate of R16. In those cases the recipient of an amount of alimony or allowance will not pay tax thereon.

The third proposal commented upon concerns the taxation of interest derived from banking institutions. Because of the restriction to institutions registered in the Republic, the fear was expressed that deposits outside the Republic would be transferred from branches of locally registered banks to branches of banks which do not carry on business in the Republic. The proposals have been amended so that they should apply to interest derived from any bank or from any branch of a bank outside the Republic as well. In the case of banking institutions which are managed and controlled in the Republic, the agreement entered into with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland for the avoidance of double taxation will have the effect of exempting the interest from Federation tax if the interest is taxed in the Republic. If the South African resident is carrying on business in the Federation and has made his deposit in that country for the purposes of that business, the interest on the deposit will be exempt from South African tax if it is taxed in the Federation.

Last year when I introduced what has become the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, of 1962, in respect of awards from pension, provident and retirement annuity funds, I hoped that it would not be necessary to amend those provisions for some time. After a full investigation of a complaint, it is now proposed, with effect from 15 March 1961, to make the following further concessions in order to increase the tax-free portion of an award from a provident fund …

Did the hon. the Minister say 15 March 1961?

Yes, 1961. That is the date of the previous Budget; we are now making it as if it resulted from the Budget of last year … in order to increase the tax-free portion of an award from a provident fund (a) to increase the amount of the exemption determined from the application of formula A by an amount equivalent to the taxpayer’s contributions to the provident fund and (b) to provide that the minimum tax-free portion of an award from a provident fund on the death of a member shall be either the amount of R10,000 presently permitted or an amount equal to twice as much of the salary of the member at date of his death as does not exceed R10,000, whichever is the greater.

In my Budget speech I indicated certain matters which would be included in this Bill. They have all been included and it is not necessary for me to mention them again. I have not dealt with all the clauses of the Bill. They are fully covered in the Memorandum and, in addition, the absence of comment on those which appeared in the published proposals, lead me to the conclusion that the provisions contained in those clauses are fully understood and approved by the business community.

We support the second reading. Sir. As we have in the past raised our objections to the fact that the Minister has not had a consolidating Bill, I think it is only fitting that we should say that we are very pleased indeed that we have at last got a consolidating Bill after 20 years. The Minister has also made reference to the introduction of the P.A.Y.E. this year and I would like to couple with it a reference to the consolidation of the Income Tax Act and the P.A.Y.E., a tribute to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue and his staff who have had a very busy year. They have attended to the consolidation of that Act. They have had to deal with the many memoranda which have come in in connection with P.A.Y.E. They had to publish a Bill dealing with this matter and at the end of those proceedings they have had to publish an amending Bill giving effect to all the matters dealt with during the course of the deliberations of the Select Committee. All that has been an additional load on the Commissioner and his staff and I am quite sure the Minister agrees with me that it is only fitting that we should pay tribute to the Commissioner and his staff for their services.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the clauses of the Bill in general, I would like to deal with one matter in particular and that is the question of public companies and private companies as defined in Section 32 of the Act. We have the unfortunate position of the Stock Exchange to-day listing companies which are regarded as public companies on the Stock Exchange and yet are regarded as private companies by the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. The Stock Exchange is now issuing to its members a list of companies so classified Only a few weeks ago, Sir, the Minister was talking about open end trusts and his open end trust legislation. The Minister was enjoining the members of the public to invest in South African equities. Yet we find, as a result of our taxation policy and our taxation revenue, a discrimination. The position is this, that the predominant proportion of the business of the Republic, business covering every facet of the country’s activities, and including in particular mining of every description, manufacturing, distribution and transport, is conducted by our public companies. They are the arteries of the country’s economic system and the harvister of the foreign currency which the Minister so badly needs. They are the source of livelihood of the mass of the public. It is, therefore, essential, Sir, that the administration and control of our public companies should be and remain in the hands of the responsible citizens of the Republic. The danger of the passing of control, always a contingency, I submit, Mr. Speaker, has been aggravated by the unhelpful provisions of Section 33 of the Income Tax Act, of 1941, as amended. The provisions stipulate, inter alia, that to retain or gain recognition as a public company, for the purposes of income tax, a company must satisfy the Commissioner that (a) the Memorandum and the Articles of Association contain no such restrictions on the right to acquire or transfer any of its shares as are likely to preclude members of the general public from becoming shareholders in any class of its shares; (b) the general public, throughout the year of assessment in question, were interested either directly as shareholders in it or indirectly as shareholders in any other public company in more than 50 per cent of every class of equity shares issued by it. Mr. Speaker, these two stipulations shatter the preservation of vital proper control. Not only must the general public hold directly or indirectly in a particular manner, more than 50 per cent of the shares, but in addition the general public must have the unfettered right to acquire shares. Many of the companies whose shares are listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange meet all the relevant requirements of Section 33 of the Income Tax Act and it is a cause for alarm that they are so vulnerable to change of control. Many other important listed companies meet all such requirements except the requirement as to the interest of the general public and are now being degraded to the status of private companies. As I said earlier, Sir, that degrading is being circulated to members of the Stock Exchange. It is in effect notice to them to take this fact into account when advising their clients to invest in companies. Certain of these companies quoted on the London and Johannesburg Stock Exchanges are held in high investment esteem. I do not want to particularize, Mr. Speaker, it would be invidious to do so, but if the Minister would examine the list I have here of some 46 companies, he would find amongst them the names of some of the leading companies in this country, companies which have a reputation for sound business administration which they have earned over a long period of years. It is possible that a number of such companies may be compelled by force of circumstances, to redistribute shares as to join the vulnerable group. On paper the disabilities flowing from degradation to the status of a private company are not insupportable being (a) liability to undistributed profits tax (b) shareholders liable to tax on bonus shares unless issued from share premium account. You have this position, Sir, that not only do they suffer a dangerous disability, but they can make themselves vulnerable to take-over bids. Sir, I do not want to digress and go into the whole question of take-over bids; it is a matter which will probably be dealt with by the Minister of Economic Affairs when discussing the Companies Act.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to maintain the soundness of our companies, the soundness of their shares as marketable securities, I think the Minister should give consideration to the whole question of the definition of public and private company. Because I submit that in the anxiety of the Department to close all the holes in the net so as to collect the maximum amount of tax, they have created a state of affairs which is unwholesome in the share market to-day. It is unwholesome from the point of view of the investing public. We want the investing public to know that the Johannesburg Stock Exchange—to which an hon. member referred to earlier to-day as one of the leading stock exchanges in the world—list only public shares. It is invidious to have to mark the list, as I can see happening if this position continues, so as to discriminate between private and public companies. I suggest, Sir, that the Minister should give earnest consideration to this matter. There are many cases which are the subject of controversy at the moment, There are many cases where the persons concerned have submitted their case to the courts or to the Income Tax Special Appeal Court and in some cases the matter is already before the Appellate Division. This is a matter which has been receiving the attention of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue and the Minister’s Department for some time. I suggest, Sir, that the whole question of the definition of public and private companies should be taken under review and the Minister should see whether in the coming year a new approach cannot be made in this matter. When we come to discussing the Bill in Committee, I think we can deal with some of the matters more adequately there such as, for instance, the question of alimony, and the question of investments in South West Africa.

In connection with the question of exporter’s allowance, the Minister has indicated in his remarks that this is an experiment. We accept that it is an experiment but it does seem that we need some guidance from the Minister. If the Commissioner for Inland Revenue is going to interpret this very strictly indeed, he will see that the minimum expenses are allowed; if he interprets this rigidly then the benefits to exporters which the Minister suggested might flow from his Budget statement, might be negligible. On the other hand, Sir, it does seem to us on an examination of this Clause, that it helps the newer exporter rather than the person who over many years has had a traditional export market. It seems to us that it will give opportunities to the exporter who has had a comparatively short experience in the export market to gain more intrinsic benefits than an exporter who has had experience of developing the export market over many years and has established a series of deductions for tax purposes under the normal deductions provided for in Section 11 of the principal Act. I appreciate that it is an experiment, but we will have to watch this matter very closely in the coming year, because I suggest that from an examination of this Bill, it does appear to us that this does contain more benefits for the newer exporter than for the older exporter.

The Minister has referred to Clause 31 in so far as it deals with pensions. It also deals with pensions to persons employed by local authorities. Clauses 3 and 31 deal with that. I am not going to ask the hon. the Minister to explain to us at length the reason why we have to substitute for the expression z = c—d the expression z = c + e—d. I think the Minister might explain that to us at a later stage. I do suggest to the Minister that when he considers the pensioners employed by local authorities he might also consider persons on university staffs as well. Representations have been made in that regard. There will possibly be an opportunity of discussing that in the Committee Stage.

The only other matter to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention is in respect of temporary employment overseas, Clause 7. This is to close an old gap. There has been an income tax evasion, or an income tax avoidance—nobody evades income tax, the Commissioner gets them in the end. There has been a practice in recent years for persons going overseas to regard their temporary absence overseas as a period when they are not earning income in South Africa and in that way they have attempted deductions. The Minister’s remedy will certainly close the gap but it may have the effect of imposing hardships on genuine cases of persons who visit countries with which we do not have reciprocal taxation agreements. I do suggest, Sir, that in the Committee Stage the Minister might consider his definition of “temporary” so that there can be no doubt about it that persons who visit countries with which we do not have reciprocal taxation agreements will not be subject to double taxation, namely taxation in South Africa and taxation in the country where they are temporarily employed.

This Bill comes at the end of a busy session; it is an attempt to close the gaps which have revealed themselves in the course of years. To a certain extent it breaks new ground and we hope next year when the Minister comes with his amending Bill, it will not only provide for the closing of any further gaps which have been discovered but that it will also provide for the incorporation of the whole scheme of P.A.Y.E. which the Minister proposes to proceed with and that more time will be given to the discussion of the Bill, although I must say this that while in the past we have criticized the Department for publishing Bills so late, after many years’ insistence we have got the co-operation of the Minister and we have had the advantage of having timeous notice of the Bill this year.

May I just ask whether I understand you correctly that you want a more definite definition of “temporary”?

Yes, Sir. We hope that more time will be given next year to the discussion of the Bill. We also hope that the Bill will be published some time in advance so that we will be able to receive the Bill in its complete form, namely the consolidated Bill as amended by this Bill and as amended by the P.A.Y.E. provisions so that when consideration is given to the technical matters of taxation, not only will hon. members of this House be able to follow the provisions which are not easy to follow, but the public outside who are concerned with the provisions of this Bill and who must make their financial arrangements in accordance with the provisions of the Act, will have ample opportunity to consider the effects and the incidence of taxation so that they can adequately comply with the Act and so that anomalies can be eliminated as far as possible in this House rather than in the more expensive way of the general public taking the matter to the Commissioner, eventually going to the courts and the resultant process following of the Minister some years later having to come with amending legislation. I submit, Sir, that it is better to have more sound legislation in this House so that anomalies can be eliminated in the early stages rather than to protract the matter over a period of years.

I was going to discuss this question of divorced persons etc. in the Committee Stage, but I think I would have found myself in a most extraordinary difficulty because the White Paper says—

So I think it is better if I say in the Second Reading what I want to say in connection with this matter

Mr. Speaker, the Minister in his introductory remarks to-night in regard to these new provisions affecting separated and divorced people, said that those in the higher income groups would save money. He said those in the highest brackets would save a lot of money. I would ask the Minister how many people, what proportion of people, are in the higher brackets and the highest brackets. I am not saying that he ignores the lower brackets; that would not be fair. I want to advance a reasonable argument. I think he has been misled on this matter. I do feel that he has not given sufficient consideration to those in the lower brackets of income. He said he thought this was an equitable decision.

I maintain it is one of the most inequitable decisions that I have ever come across. But then when one deals with Finance Ministers one often feels like that.

This Bill deals amongst other things with those unhappy and unfortunate people who have not found the happiness which they expected to find on the day that they got married. There are three classes affected by these proposed amendments. There are those separated by written agreement. Now the husband is to be treated as married and taxed on the joint income. The second category consist of those who have been separated judicially and now the alimony is not allowed as a deduction from the husband’s income. The main change is that they will now both be taxed as single persons; they will both get children’s rebates, with an extra one to the one who is maintaining the children. At this stage, Sir, I wonder whether the Minister would clear up something which has been suggested to me is not quite clear. In the case of a judicial separation the alimony paid by the husband to the wife is still taxed in the hands of the husband. But it does not seem quite clear that her personal income will not be taxed in his hands. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give me a reply to that now because it may affect my argument. She has a private income of her own; they are judicially separated; he pays her alimony; he pays tax on that alimony, it is not allowed as a deduction. The hon. the Minister made a big point of it that it was not expenditure incurred in the production of income. But it seems to be a little bit obscure. I do not think that he pays on the wife’s personal income if they are judicially separated but I would hate to see a lot of lawyers make a lot of money out of an obscurity of this nature. This is not quite clear; I would just like some clarification from the Minister.

The third category consists of divorced people who will now be taxed ignoring alimony. The husband will pay on all his income. There will be no deduction for alimony. The wife pays on her income, if any, and both will be taxed as single people. Again this question of children’s rebates come into the picture. Both parties in the case of a judicial separation will receive children’s rebates …

Are you referring to Clause 16?

I do not know about that; I am just talking generally from the Bill.

I think that is the Clause you are referring to. In the case of a judicial separation each party remains taxable on his or her personal income. The wife’s income is not added to the husband’s income or taxed in his hands.

Thank you. There was no doubt in my own mind, but certain doubts were expressed to me and I thought it best to clear up the matter here.

Now, Sir, as I have already said, both parties to a judicial separation are going to receive children’s rebates but they will both be taxed as single persons and not as married persons. Quite frankly I cannot follow the reason for this. I want to ask the Minister to compare the position of a widow or a widower who is assessed as a married person, getting children’s rebate, of course, with the position of an innocent party in a divorce also maintaining children and being taxed as a single man. It is beyond my comprehension. I cannot agree that there can be a sound reason for a finance Minister to tax people on that basis, because money is saved by certain people in the very high bracket who have a judicial separation. The Minister’s reply in the previous debate was that he was giving the guilty party in a divorce a rebate and that that sort of balances out.

Do you realize that the State, i.e. you and I, the taxpayers, are really subsidizing the alimony which a husband in the higher bracket, the R20,000, bracket, is paying to his wife.

Of course we are, Mr. Speaker, but how many are there in that bracket?

Even if there is only one, we are subsidizing that one.

But you are penalizing 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 people, no matter to what degree, even if it is only £1 or £5, because one man earns R20,000. Mr. Speaker, I would not like to be a Minister of Finance. He must always have a guilty conscience. The main trouble with finance Ministers is that they are always following their Commissioners for Inland Revenue. Outside the office these are ordinary charming people but inside the office it is sometimes very difficult to agree with them. Obviously the Commissioner has found one or two people who got away with plenty. Because one man got away with something we must drag into the net all the little people in the country. I cannot agree with that reasoning. It is no use being as tough and hard as that Mr. Speaker, you are still dealing with human beings. I wonder how many more people there are who are going to be prejudicially affected than those gentlemen with R20,000 or R40,000 a year. This to me, Sir, is one of the most unjust proposals I have ever come across. It is quite obvious that enough attention has not been given to this subject. It is really Alice in Wonderland legislation. There has been no outcry yet, Sir, because there has been no publicity, the hurt has not yet been felt. If the Minister has given the thought to this matter which he should have given, he must surely realize that when people realize what he is doing to them, there will be such an outcry that he will be forced to alter these provisions.

I want to suggest that the majority of those people who part and do not divorce, are people who cannot divorce because of their religious observances. We all know that to be the position. And to handle this matter in this manner, because somebody has got away with something, is beyond me. There must be another way of dealing with it, Sir. How can you deal with the matter in this way if the question of religious observance comes into the picture? It is a fact which definitely should affect the Minister’s decision. And don’t shake your head, Mr. Minister, you know I am right. You have not given this enough thought. I am leaving that, Mr. Speaker.

I want to bring another point forward. Where people separate under written agreement—that is the first one where the man is still taxed as a married man on all the income—it is surely most usual for the wife to go to work. I am not referring to the man with R40,000 a year. I am referring to ordinary people, those people who also find unhappiness in this life. What happens in their case? The wife goes to work. What else can she do? And now this Minister makes the husband pay on the wife’s earnings? She has to work. That is the position; it is in the White Paper. Let me tell the Minister that where somebody is separated by written agreement, that agreement is ignored entirely for taxation purposes and the wife’s income becomes taxable in the hands of the husband.

I am sorry if I have spoken long, Mr. Speaker, but I think I have stated my case. I think the Minister has rushed his fences in this matter and has not given due consideration to the people who are going to be affected.

Lastly I would like to associate myself to the remarks of the hon. member for Pine town (Mr. Hopewell) who suggested that that in considering pensions to people employed by local authorities, consideration should also be given to university staffs.

The point raised by the hon. member for Pine town (Mr. Hopewell) in regard to the definition of a public company, is something which has exercised my mind and I am sure also the minds of my predecessors and the minds of all the commissioners for a very long time. The classification of companies as public and private is a problem which bristles with difficulties. Here in South Africa it has caused trouble since 1917 and no satisfactory solution, no satisfactory permanent solution, has ever been found along the lines of the Provisions which seeks to define what shall be a “controlling interest”. Similarly it might be found that no satisfactory permanent solution is possible on the lines of the provisions contained in Section 38 of the Act. The primary object of the provisions in regard to the classification of companies is to ensure that companies which are not public companies declare adequate dividends out of their profits. That is obvious. Else the shareholders will be able to escape the payment of income tax by becoming a private company and not paying out dividends. That is the primary object.

The secondary object of this classification is to ensure that no company shall be classified as a public company unless its equity shares are widely held by living persons directly or indirectly through their share holding in the equity shares of public companies and that no small group of natural persons in fact controls the policy of that company. That is the secondary object.

As I say, it is a very difficult matter which has exercised the minds and tested the ingenuity of successive commissioners and Ministers, but I am prepared again to give it my attention, and I intend that the whole question will be thoroughly investigated with a view to amending legislation. I want to warn hon. members, however, as I see things at present, the possibilities are only twofold. I may become wiser in the next few months, but at the moment I see that the choice for us would be between maintaining the continuation of the present system of classification and using what is bound to be proved to be an unsatisfactory definition. Perhaps from time to time I can do a little bit of tinkering to the definition. That is the one side. The other side, as I see things at present, is the substitution for the present system of a system where under the rate of company tax is increased and the gross income of a company is defined as including receipts and accruals of a capital nature. If this substitution is adopted, it means that we will be able to do away with the undistributed profits tax, will be able to do away with the non-resident shareholders tax, and the present provisions in regard to the award of bonus shares will cease to be important. It has those advantages that we can do away with certain taxes. On the other hand, as I say, it has the disadvantage that it would mean an increase in the tax. So I am warning hon. members that those are the two alternatives, as I see things at the moment, and unless some other fertile mind invents some other alternative, those will be the two alternatives from which I will have to choose. I am warning them, because the fact that I am going to have it investigated does not mean that it is going to be an easy matter, or that the solution is going to be one that will satisfy everybody.

In regard to export benefits, it is, as I have said, an experiment at the moment. What we must try and prevent is that the export benefits which we are granting now, should be used as a means of swelling tax exemptions and thereby having avoidance of taxes. We have to see how it works. At the moment it is quite true that the older exporter who has already built up an export business will not be able to get the same benefits as the newer exporter. We also considered the other alternative, but the cost of it according to the information that we have was really incalculable. Therefore we started on what we knew were fairly well-chartered seas. We can more or less frame an estimate of what the cost to the country will be of granting this concession. In regard to temporary employment overseas, the hon. member for Pine town has truly remarked that it has been a means of avoiding tax in the past. They have deducted it from their incomes here and usually the countries in which they work temporarily have not been able or had the time to pick them up for taxation. Where we have double taxation agreements the matter is now fairly simple. We have double taxation agreements with the Protectorates and with Rhodesia. Those are the most likely ones. There we have the agreement that if they go and pay taxation here, then they will be able to avoid taxation in Rhodesia or the Protectorates. There we have defined “temporary” as 183 days. If they go there for longer than 183 days, then they pay tax there and not here. Where we have no double taxation agreements—we have with the United Kingdom, with the United States, with Canada, with Sweden, but we have not got one with France—one of the ways is to send somebody as a buyer to Paris and then the salary earned while he is there, is then deducted here. It is very unlikely that the French people will pick him up if he goes there for a short period, and what we have in mind for the definition of “temporary” is the same as we had in the other case, viz. 183 days.

As far as next year’s legislation is concerned, I want to say that we won’t be able to do away with two Acts, next year. The one will be introducing the P.A.Y.E. system early in the session before we have fixed the rate of income tax; that will be an amendment of the Consolidated Income Tax Act. Then after Ways and Means, we will have to come with an amendment of that amended Act. So we won’t be able to escape having two measures next year again, but again, as this year, I will see whether we cannot publish as much as we possibly can in advance of the Ways and Means proposals, publish as much as possible of the amendment to the administration of the Act before the time, as we did this year. I hope we will be able to do that again.

I want to say that I received with gratitude on behalf of the Commissioner and staff the tribute to their hard work this year. It has really been a hard year for them to do the consolidation, this important consolidation, and at the same time to have all the additional work, apart from the normal work, of the P.A.Y.E. investigation. I thank the hon. member for the tribute on behalf of the staff, and I want to say that I fully agree with the tribute.

The hon. member for Benoni has raised a matter with great fervour, even a certain amount of heat, with which I do not want to deal in detail. But the fundamental thing about which he has not said a word, is that the whole idea of alimony paid being deducted from the payee’s income is something which runs counter to the basic principle of income tax laws, and that is that only money spent on the production of income is deductible from your taxable income.

I am not arguing that point, but why are you making these people pay as single people and why are you making a husband when there is a written separation pay tax on his wife’s earnings if she takes a job?

What we are saying is that if they are separated by law, then they are no longer married, they are non-married.

Separated by written agreement. That is what I am talking about.

If separated by mutual agreement, then they are taxable as single people, but they each are entitled to the children’s rebate, and the one who actually maintains the child, even if the other one gets the children’s rebate, gets the children’s rebate plus R16, which is the difference between the primary rebate as between a married and a single man. But it is a matter of principle. If these people are separated and there are two separate establishments, this principle must be maintained

May I put one further question in this regard. I accept this question of the children’s rebate. But then why when people are separated by written agreement, is he going to make the husband pay on the wife’s earnings? She will surely take a job in 99 cases out of 100.

Will the hon. member raise that in Committee?

That is the difficulty. It comes under Clauses 3 and 7. I cannot pinpoint the clause. The Commissioner will tell the hon. the Minister that the effect of the Act is as I have said.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I would like the hon. the Minister just to tell me if I am right in my reading of the amendments which he is including in respect of deposits in building societies in South West Africa, viz., that if they are deposits which are made by persons who are resident within the Republic or companies in the Republic, then that interest will be taxed in the Republic, notwithstanding that it is earned in South West Africa, and conversely if the deposits are made by South West residents in South West Africa, or by companies controlled in South West Africa, then that interest or dividend, as the case may be will be taxed only in South West Africa.

That is the position in regard to a resident of South West Africa, or a company conducting business there—they will then be taxed only in South West Africa.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I move as an amendment—

The hon. the Minister in his second reading speech made the point that the proposals in regard to taxation of alimony would not be made retrospective to cover financial arrangements that have been made in divorces or separations where proceedings have been instituted before a definite date. We on this side of the House support that contention fully and appreciate the attitude the hon. the Minister has taken in this matter. We have, however, asked the hon. the Minister whether he will not give the same protection to persons who have entered into judicial separations or written agreement of separation prior to 21 March and subsequently get divorce, provided that the alimony or the maintenance is no higher under the divorce proceedings than they were under the separation agreements. You will see, Mr. Chairman, that the same principle applies, and I hope the hon. the Minister will give consideration to this matter, because it would alleviate many hardships.

I hope the hon. the Minister will accept that amendment. It to some extent meets the case which exists in Natal, but not altogether.

Natal again!

Yes, Natal once again is a little different from the rest of the Republic, but this time it is not the fault of Natal, it is the fault of the Government, because there exists a discrepancy in our law relating to divorce in that in Natal if you sue for a divorce on the ground of malicious desertion and the husband of the marriage is domiciled in Natal, the desertion has to be continuous for 18 months. Now in any other province this is not so. If your wife maliciously deserts you to-day and there is clear enough evidence, even if she was summonsed to-morrow, the matter can be before the courts within a week or two. Unfortunately you cannot institute proceedings—that is the relevant factor in this clause—in Natal until the expiration of 18 months. The hon. Minister when he spoke in the Committee of Ways and Means—and that is the reason why he should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Park town—said that where agreements have been made before the specified date (21 March) those persons have made arrangements about their financial relationships before that date and those who are separated after that date, will just have to fall under the new law. That may be fair enough. Now in Natal there are many people who if they had lived anywhere else would have got a decree of divorce on the ground of malicious desertion, but because of the 18-month rule they were not able to do so. But the majority of those people nevertheless have, during the course of the separation, especially where children come into the picture, entered into an agreement, a written agreement as a rule, relating to the maintenance of the wife and the maintenance of the children. Now the courts encourage such agreements, because it is a waste of money and a waste of time for litigants to go to court to get a court order for maintenance pendente lite. The court always asks the parties to try and agree amongst themselves. Now, Sir, these are agreements and they adjust the relationship of the parties. The desertion has occurred, the damage has been done; they have made an agreement; they have arranged their lives and adjusted their financial position before 21 March 1962.

Is there not an interim order of court?

Yes, you can get it made an order of court, but it is only pendente lite. The hon. the Minister of Justice has raised a very important point here. It is not a separation agreement as is envisaged in this clause.

An interim order.

Yes, but then the decision in Johnston’s case, which is very well known to the Minister of Finance, says that a subsequent order of court in which an agreement is made an order of court, supersedes entirely the original agreement. Now the amendment of the hon. member for Park town will cover those cases where there was an agreement of separation, and a judicial separation order of court, but it does not cover the case in Natal where there is no order whatsoever relating to the marital status of these individuals. It does not give them the power to live apart, but nevertheless they have entered into an agreement or had a court order relating to their financial position. Now, Sir, it is no fault of the persons who are domiciled in Natal that they cannot be divorced for 18 months as they can anywhere else. It is no fault of theirs that they cannot avail themselves of the same opportunities and the same rebates as anyone else in the Republic. I therefore propose to move as an amendment—

That will provide that so far as Natal is concerned, the date fixed (21 March) will be extended for 18 months, to put them in precisely the same position.

Change the Natal law.

It will be too late then. It was too late on 21 March, and it should then have been done 18 months before 21 March.

The hon. member for Park town (Mr. Emdin) has consulted me and given me a copy of his proposed amendment, and subject to a few changes I agreed to accept that amendment. He has incorporated those changes and I am happy to say that I think it is a fair amendment, a little bit unlike the hon. member for Durban (North)’s amendment! He himself showed the distinction between the two cases. The case he mentioned may never go to divorce. If this agreement is not carried out, one party cannot sue the other for specific performance. I think that is the position. If the aggrieved party decides not to proceed, what can happen then? In any case, as I said in the Ways and Means Committee, I cannot be expected to legislate for each province which has its own little ways, departing from the common pattern of the Republic as a whole. I think the hon. member’s remedy lies in bringing Natal into line with the Republic, and not to try and make the Republic get into step with Natal. For those reasons, I regret I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell, put and negatived and amendment proposed by Mr. Emdin, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedule and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

This is, of course, the annual Bill which is known as the omnibus Bill. If I had to make a second reading speech on this Bill I would have to take up a great deal of the time of the House, but since there is no principle contained in this Bill and since it deals only with minor matters affecting the different departments, I believe that hon. members will agree with me that this is a Bill which should be dealt with exclusively in the Committee Stage. That is also how hon. members on the other side view the position, and I do not propose therefore to explain this Bill at the second reading.

We agree.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

Clause 1 deals with a very thorny problem, which is known to all attorneys, and that is that in the case of divorce the custody of the children is granted to one of the spouses in terms of an Order of Court. There is a continual tug-of-war because the parties do not obey the Order of Court; there is a constant kidnapping of the children and there is fighting between the parents. Hon. members know, of course, that it amounts to contempt of court not to obey such an Order, but because it is a very expensive process, most people cannot afford to go to the Supreme Court to have the Order enforced by way of a sentence for contempt of court. That is why it has been urged for years by welfare organizations and others who are concerned with this matter—amongst others, by an ex-member of this House, Mrs. Bertha Solomon, who has made particularly great efforts in this connection—that jurisdiction should be given to the magistrates’ courts in respect of this matter. This clause now seeks to make that possible with a view to eliminating the tug-of-war that takes place in that connection. Not only hon. members but all welfare organizations, and at least this one former member of this House, will greatly welcome the introduction of this new measure.

We all agree that this is going to be a much more inexpensive and much easier way of enforcing the orders relating to access where one parent has custody, but I hope the hon. the Minister does appreciate that there are many cases where one spouse has the custody and the other spouse wants access, and where the one spouse can be completely unreasonable as regards demands to see the children. Unfortunately I think the experience of anyone who has had anything to do with these matters, has been that after a divorce order is granted, the acrimony which caused the divorce continued, and one so often finds these people being completely unreasonable. I hope the hon. the Minister will have it in mind, and that he will inform his Department along these lines that in the cases where a complaint is made by a complainant spouse, the police should be very circumspect before prosecuting somebody for the offence which is here set out.

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