I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

When the second reading of the Commonwealth Relations Bill was taken, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Water-son) said that that was not the appropriate occasion and that a later occasion would need to be taken in order to take out a balance sheet of profit and loss on our departure from the Commonwealth. I think that this is an appropriate occasion, more particularly in that it links in with the discussion of our economic affairs and our isolation. In the discussion which took place yesterday, it was the contention of this side of the House that we had suffered very greatly economically through our departure from the Commonwealth and that we would suffer further. I would like to take up that strain. It is perfectly understandable that members on the other side would like to draw a veil over this fact because one always likes to draw a veil over one’s mistakes. But at the same time I think that it is most essential that that balance be struck since it is now possible to get a better view of what in fact has occurred, and there are other reasons which I would like to mention. During the course of this session of Parliament and indeed in this debate, there have been utterances from the Government side which suggest that they do not believe that any disadvantages of a serious nature have followed from our withdrawal. I think also that there is not a full appreciation by members on the Government side and its supporters of what a serious loss and blow this has been to the people of the Opposition, and how they feel about it. I think that this misconception has partly arisen because people who were against the establishment of the Republic have in fact taken the new position in such good part; they have taken it in a very good spirit. They have taken it in a spirit of realism but there is something more than that. They have realized that there was a heartfelt longing on the part of people on the other side to establish a Republic and they have realized how much history has gone to make up that longing on their part. I am not here, however, to discuss the question of the Republic into which we on this side will throw ourselves wholeheartedly. Indeed, I feel there is even more need for people who hold the ideals and views which this side holds to work and throw themselves into this South Africa of to-day so that our contribution can be felt and so that our help can be forthcoming to ensure that the ship of State is safely piloted.

Apart from those reasons, Sir, why a balance should be struck to-day, there is the further reason that we must attempt to get it across to “die volk daarbuite”, the people outside, how dear it has cost them to have this Government with this particularly serious mistake. It is most essential that they should come to realize that the price which they are paying for the impulsiveness, for the lack of balance on the part of the Government which, I suggest, has led to our finding ourselves outside the Commonwealth, is very high. I think we do not yet appreciate to what an extent the slowing down of our economy is due to factors linked with that fateful decision. Fortunately we have the riches still to give a reasonable standard of living to our people. But what the people do not realize—and this is the tragedy—is what they have missed and how much better off they would have been.

I would like to give 11 points here to-day of serious disadvantages which we have suffered. I have yet to be told by a member on the other side of any substantial benefit which has occurred. These are big points which I shall mention. Other people could add further points.

My first point is our weakened position in the international sphere. It is most noticeable how at UNO, since our withdrawal from the Commonwealth, the nations which hitherto had held back, went in and attacked us. There is no doubt whatsoever that that in fact was the case. They may not have had any special friendship for us, but they were holding back because of their unwillingness to offend Britain or Australia or Canada who were members of that family of the Commonwealth of nations.

May I ask a question? Has the hon. member read Mr. Macmillan’s speech which he made in the dining room here. Was that before we left the Commonwealth or after?

I am very glad the hon. member has asked that question. I was not going to cite it, but this is the only passage which I have been able to find in Mr. Macmillan’s speech which warns of possible lesser support from Britain in the future. I would like the hon. gentleman to note its terms because this is what it says. It certainly does not say that Britain will not support us at the Commonwealth in certain circumstances. In any case that is not an answer to my question that our withdrawal has cleared the way for others to go in against us. I will read what Mr. Macmillan said—

That is not a statement that in no circumstances will Britain continue to support us and still less is it an answer to the fact that other countries, who had held back, thereafter felt free to come in against us. We have seen the hardened tone of the United States against us.

We have seen that Holland voted against us even in that entirely unjustified attack following the speech of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs at UNO when there was a vote of censure against South Africa. Even Holland was prepared to vote against us there. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of life and death, this matter of our position in the international sphere. [Interjections.] Every friend that we have at UNO counts; every friend particularly in the Security Council counts when there are questions of vetos and possible complications in the African sphere.

Order! I must ask hon. member to give the hon. member an opportunity of making his speech.

Nobody would deny, Sir, that we are courageous people, people who have shown their courage and skill in war, but nobody will claim that we can take on the world. We must seek to keep as many people at bay by diplomacy and this was a most shattering defeat for our diplomacy.

Let me now give an instance of a direct value of our Commonwealth association. It has been said by members on the other side that there was the question of Goa. What about Goa? India attacks Goa and Britain is the ally of Portugal. But so strongly was Britain influenced by the fact that India was a member of the Commonwealth that she admittedly overrode here treaty with Portugal and informed Portugal in advance that in fact she would not be prepared to act against India, because India was a member of the Commonwealth. How valuable would that not be to us in a similar situation.

I move now to my second point. And I say again that our increased expenditure on defence has a direct link with our departure from the Commonwealth. Consequently the increased taxation which this country is to pay has a direct link with our departure from the Commonwealth. Let me mention what the increases in our defence expenditure have been. In 1959-60 our actual expenditure was R40 million. In the year 1960-61 our actual expenditure was R44 million. In 1961-62 it was R72 million; and our estimated expenditure for 1962-63 is R120 million. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there has been, over a period of three years, an increase of 300 per cent in our defence expenditure, an increase of R80 million. These figures are taken from the Main Estimates. Between the years 1961 and 1963 alone there has been an almost threefold increase, namely from R44 million to R120 million. These were the years when we were changing our position in relation to the Commonwealth. I say again that there is a direct relation between our leaving the Commonwealth and this defence expenditure.

When this point was raised, the hon. the Prime Minister, under his Vote, said that it was not correct to say that there was a direct link between our departure from the Commonwealth and this expenditure, because he said

Australia, Canada and the Federation and the United States of America had increased their expenditure on defence. But, Mr. Speaker, figures, which I shall cite, do not support the Prime Minister’s contention. It must be remembered that our increase over these two years has been very nearly 300 per cent. Let me tell you at once that the Canadian defence expenditure, according to the latest figures, shows a declining tendency. The Australian figures on defence have increased by approximately five per cent which is nothing, bearing in mind the increase in the cost of living. The Federation’s expenditure has been of the order of two per cent and the American increase over the same period has been about six per cent. I will give the figures. I have here the Canada Year Book for 1959 published by the authority of the Ministry of Trade …

May I ask a question? The fact that the increase is bigger in South Africa than in other countries over the last two or three years, is that not also an indication that we were under-spending during the former years?

When the hon. the Prime Minister was answering the points made under his Vote, he did not refer to that. He did not suggest that there had been a failure by the Government before to take the proper steps. I do not want to delay the House too long. The hon. the Prime Minister did not suggest that the Government had failed in its duty before. He cited the countries to which I will now refer. Let us take Canada first. From the Canadian Year Book, the last one available, published in 1960, it says this, that the National Defence item in 1956 was 1,750 million dollars, in 1957 it was 1,759 million dollars, a mere 9 million extra, and in 1958 it was 1,668 million, actually a decline in that year. Now let us take the Federation of Rhodesia. These figures are taken from the Handbook of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland for 1960 and it deals with Government expenditure from Revenue on Defence, and the actual expenditure for the year 1956-57 was £4.3 million, for 1957-58 it was £3.9 million, for 1958-59 it was £4.2 million and for 1959-60 it was £4.4 million, a paltry rise of about four per cent in a comparable period, but here we had 300 per cent. Take Australia, which was also cited by the hon. the Prime Minister. These figures were given to me by the Australian Ambassador at my request. In 1955-56 it was £A191 million, in 1956-57 £A189 million, in 1957-58 £A186 million, in 1958-59 £A190 million, in 1959-60 it was £A194 million, and in 1960-61 £A200 million, and in 1961-62 it was £A205 million. Here again, the increase is a paltry five or six per cent. The United States figures are very much the same. Here my authority is Whitaker’s Almanac. The expenditure on “Major National Security” in 1957 was 44 billion dollars, in 1958 it was 44 billion dollars, in 1959 it was 46 billion dollars, in 1960 it was 46 billion dollars, and in 1961 47 billion dollars. Now, with great respect, these figures are quite conclusive against the defence that has been advanced.

But that is already the maximum.

But you neglected your duty.

Now I move to my third point. While we deal with defence matters, let us deal with another important matter, namely our position in regard to defence information and equipment. I would like to quote from a speech by the Minister of Defence, reported in the Cape Argus of 12 March 1962, where he said that “we had lost one of our major sources of information I would like to cite a second passage from the Cape Times of 8 June, 1962—

When we left the Commonwealth one doubts very much whether the Government’s eyes were open, but now our eyes are well opened. The Minister of Defence told us during his Vote how it was necessary to convert some of our ships at great expense most unexpectedly because there had come to light some new information about submarine tactics. Is that one of the matters which is costing us dear, because we were not let into the secrets in these matters?

I want to come to my fourth point, and I want to deal with a certain number of items which involve damage to our economy through this step we took. Firstly, I would like to link up with the comments made by members on this side, who dealt with the Common Market. It seems to be likely that the Government did not really appreciate that our departure from the Commonwealth could have vast repercussions in this field. Only now are they beginning to realize what they have diddled South Africa out of. Admittedly it is not yet a foregone conclusion that Britain will in fact join the Common Market, but the likelihood is very great that she will. What have we seen already? We at last have had an admission from the Government of the dangers and the disadvantages to South Africa of her secession. I quote from a speech reported in the Burger of Mr. Diederichs—

I am very glad there is that awareness at last and I sincerely hope that he can, in the words of the Minister of External Affairs, “reconstruct” something for us. But it is most necessary to have some reconstruction. What have we seen already so far as the Common Market is concerned? We have seen that, so far as Canada, Australia and New Zealand are concerned, their manufactured goods will have a privileged position in the Common Market in comparison with South Africa. There is to be a transition period which is likely to last until 1970 during which their manufactures will receive favoured treatment, and they will have the benefit of consultations with this market in regard to how their economy is being affected by any reduction in preferences. But this is the most important point: It is for our primary products that the most serious disadvantages will follow, and the probability there is that there will be appreciable advantages in regard to these primary products for the old members of the Commonwealth, and those will be negotiated by Britain. Let me refer to a recent article in the Economist of 9 June 1962, where, dealing with this matter, it is said—

In other words, the great advantages which I have already mentioned for the old members of the Commonwealth are thought to be the most adverse part of the bargain for them.

“Ever since Britain first applied to join the Common Market, it has been clear that The Six were not going to exempt the manufactures of rich countries like Canada from the common tariff. These products, they forcibly argue, compete with their own and have no claim to the special consideration due to exports from the undeveloped world.” The clear implication is that in regard to primary products a much more favourable position is hoped for.

I come to my fifth point of the disadvantages: the loss in industry that has not been established here, and the loss in capital that has not come to this country. I do not say that there is no capital still coming here, and that no new industries are coming. But I have yet to be told of any industry or any capital which says: “Ah! Now that you are out of the Commonwealth, we will establish ourselves in South Africa.” On the contrary, they say: “Mmm, now that you are out of the Commonwealth, that is a warning sign for us and we will not come here.” And let me say this. We have seen, directly, the effect of this. We had to place currency restrictions upon our people, which in themselves clearly will frighten investors away. When investors know that a country has had to resort to something like that, they may well decide not to invest their money there lest it happen again. So that alone is a most serious disadvantage. Then again, we have the position that we have had to impose import control 14 years after the war in a country with two-thirds of the gold of the world. It is unfortunate, but it was necessary, and we are glad to see that the balance has risen. But the Government must not puff out their chest when they refer to these balances, because these are not balances like we had in the good old U.P. days, when money could come and go as it pleased. It is not easy to calculate these things, and it takes time to show the opportunities for work and employment which are denied to our people as a result of these things. I do not doubt that some of the unemployment we have, and some of the slower development we have, is due to these factors. The great thing that is not appreciated is that all these results which have flowed from the Government’s policy have removed the cream from the prosperity of our people. Our people do not know what they have missed in the way of prosperity. There are many people who struggle to make a living, many Whites and even many more non-Whites.

Now let me come to my sixth point, which includes some smaller financial disadvantages, but the first one I shall name shows that this is not a matter of chicken feed. I mention at once the disadvantages that our sugar people have suffered. Admittedly their position has been compensated to some extent, but only at the cost of putting up the price of sugar to the South African consumer. Our Press telegrams are more expensive. Our postal rates are higher. Our cable rates are higher. We will soon have to pay for consular services throughout the world. There is also the fact that our local loans cannot be placed on the London market any more. They are not regarded as trustee stocks any more.

Next, this has set back our chance of incorporating the Protectorates. I know the Prime Minister and his party do not believe in that, but that has not always been so. I think I am correct in saying that as late as the time of Adv. Strijdom it was still the intention of the Government to incorporate the Protectorates. There may still be many people opposite who would like to incorporate them, and there certainly are people on this side who believe that it is necessary to include these Protectorates in our race federation. [Interjections.] There is the eighth point. It has prejudiced our relations with Rhodesia, not very gravely, but it has led to a measure of estrangement. We are not members of the same family any more, and there is no doubt about it, as my hon. Leader has said, that it is most important for us in attempting to reconstruct our position, to try and establish a sphere of influence in the southern part of Africa with Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories and try to make it a bastion of Western culture and civilization. [Interjections.]

I come now to my ninth point, our increasing isolation in countless spheres. Many people could add much to what I have to say. I just want to mention a few. Think of our isolation, of our being cut off from so many of the sources of culture and wisdom in the Western world. I mention the Prime Minister’s Conference. It must have been of immense value to our Prime Ministers in the past—and they have said how valuable it was to them—to hear what other people are thinking. All of us in this House have had denied to us the opportunity of going to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, which has been an invaluable experience to many in the past. I have mentioned our isolation in military affairs. In cultural affairs there are countless matters that could be mentioned. I just happened to notice in the Press that our dancers may be denied the right to dance in the Royal Ballet in London. We are a small country, but we provide wonderful dancers; but they will be denied that opportunity. [Interjections.]

Order! Why do hon. members become so excited about dancing?

I believe it will be very difficult for our people now to get admission to the English universities. It is valuable for our people to go there and to Holland and on the Continent, and many of our people have done so to great advantage in the past. Take sport. We have been cut off from the Commonwealth Games. Even our cricket tests are now unofficial. And I have no doubt that there are many other instances. We have been denied access to Chatham House, a place where international affairs are debated and ideas can be exchanged, which is most valuable. Take our Merchant Marine. Our people have not got access to the fleets of the Commonwealth to find employment. Take the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, the Commonwealth Forestry Bureau, the Commonwealth Committee on Minerals, Natural Resources and Geology, and the Commonwealth Economic Committee. All those are of immense value to us in every field, to have contact with minds in other places. They are denied to us. I sincerely hope that we will have access to as many international bodies as possible, but we know what difficulties we have to face there. Speaking of isolation, I say generally there is a cutting off of contacts with our sources of culture which must prejudice us in maintaining the western culture here. I wonder whether we appreciate fully the extent to which we have been able to maintain ourselves here partly on the strength of the contact derived from overseas, and I am not referring only to Britain in this respect.

A tenth point is that I believe it will be much more difficult to attract immigrants now that we are out of the Commonwealth, and not only because we are a Republic. A person coming from Britain or Kenya will be much less inclined to come here when he knows that he will become an alien to the country where he was born. We do not want immigrants only from Britain, but even hon. members opposite are keen to keep our population in the proportion that we have it now. I believe this simple fact will lose us a lot of immigrants.

Finally, as my eleventh point, I believe that in prestige we have lost immensely. I remember as a student at Oxford being told by a Greek, who is the professor of Mediaeval and Modern Greek Muse, a most illustrious man—at a time when there was no question of our leaving the Commonwealth, he said to me: “I am a Greek and you do not know how lucky you are to be in this big family of nations; you do not know what prestige it gives you; it gives you a prestige which we as a small country, unassociated, cannot have.” I believe that is very true.

Now what advantages can be set against these 11 points I have mentioned? I ask the Government to tell me what they are. Where is the extra interest from other countries of the West? Where is the new interest that was not there before? We could have done away with dual nationality long ago, without leaving the Commonwealth.

Why did we leave the Commonwealth?

One cannot add up figures and strike a balance in a case like this; but I believe it is quite patent where the balance lies. Making all allowances for the fact that members who wanted this step and who supported the Government which took this step have consideration for the feelings of those who were against it, there is no heart or mood in this country to celebrate the Republic. That is the clearest indication that, when the balance is struck, even members opposite realize the great disadvantages. Sir, there is much else that could be said, but I say that I see nothing coming from the other side, no concessions, no softening of the attitude to the ideals that this side holds dear. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Pine-lands (Mr. Thompson) spoke for himself and a few other people in South Africa, but for the rest he did not express anybody else’s point of view. He tried to do two things. He tried to show that South Africa had suffered great losses as the result of our having left the Commonwealth. But he also tried to do something else; he tried to suggest that he was dissatisfied and unhappy about the fact that we were a Republic.

Not about the Republic. I said that I accepted the Republic.

He said that these things were happening because South Africa was a Republic. His argument is that there are two reasons, the first being that we are out of the Commonwealth and the second that we are a Republic. Let me say at once that it was not the policy of the Prime Minister and of the Government to leave the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister went to London after having given this undertaking, and for days he did his very best to ensure that South Africa could remain in the Commonwealth and yet retain her self-respect. He did not succeed in keeping us within the Commonwealth but he did make it possible for South Africa to retain her self-respect. Let me ask the hon. member this: If he or his Leader had been in London, would he have remained within the Commonwealth under those circumstances?

There was no motion asking for our expulsion.

I do not want to go into the whole history; we all know it, but I want to say that if the Prime Minister had kept us within the Commonwealth, bearing in mind what happened at the Prime Ministers’ Conference and the attitude of the Africa States at that Conference, he would have caused South Africa to lose her self-respect. We left the Commonwealth because the character of the Commonwealth had changed. I am not going to ask hon. members opposite whether we did the right thing; let us ask Mr. Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia. He said that he would have done the same thing. I do not want to play the role of prophet, and we are not certain when the next Prime Ministers’ Conference is going to take place, but it seems to me that the possibility is not excluded that Australia and other countries will be forced to leave the Commonwealth too, because the Commonwealth is going to split up. It is as clear as a pikestaff that no self-respecting country that wishes to retain the control of its domestic affairs in its own hands can remain within the Commonwealth as it is constituted to-day. But I want to leave it at that and come back to the first argument of the hon. member, and that is that because we left the Commonwealth “there is a slowing down of our economy”. I wonder whether I should reply to the hon. member or whether I should let the Argus of the day before yesterday reply to him. This is what we read on the front page, “Reserves soar to peak not touched for 14 years”, and then it says—

Which period of 12 months is this? Is it not the period of 12 months during which we have been out of the Commonwealth? In those 12 months the South African economy has not only maintained the rate of development over the past 14 years, but its development has reached unprecedented heights. The Argus says—

And that is not the position in one sector only—

How does one trade with countries abroad? You can only increase your trade with the outside world if you increase your domestic production in the agricultural sphere and in the industrial sphere. It says the following—

Let me just give this last figure. In 1960 exports amounted to R341,000,000; this year they amounted to R407,000,000, but the hon. member says that there is a slowing down of the economy, and his argument is that because we are out of the Commonwealth, South Africa is worse off, and that South Africa is in a bad position because it is very likely that Britain will join the Common Market. It is rather strange that I should be quoting from this newspaper, but let me quote from the leading article which appeared in the Argus of the day before yesterday, the 20th—

Canada is a member of the Commonwealth—

There we have another Commonwealth country. It goes on to say—

Australia, Canada and Britain herself are experiencing financial difficulties. Britain’s entry into the European Common Market will probably affect those Commonwealth countries adversely. And then the hon. member comes along and says that we are in trouble because we are out of the Commonwealth. But let me give the hon. member one final reply to this argument that the South African economy has been adversely affected as the result of the fact that we have left the Commonwealth. This is what was said by Sir Nicholas Cayzer, of the Union-Castle Line, according to the Burger of 22 February—

Mr. Speaker, all these remarks apply to the period of 12 months that we have been out of the Commonwealth, and yet the hon. member’s argument is that because we are no longer in the Commonwealth, we are worse off economically than we were before. I say that it was not the Government’s policy to leave the Commonwealth; the changed circumstances within the Commonwealth made it essential for South Africa to leave the Commonwealth if she wished to retain her self-respect.

Is it the United Party’s policy to seek re-admission to the Commonwealth?

I am coming to that point now. I want to ask the hon. member or his Leader whether it is the policy of the United Party to seek re-admission to the Commonwealth?

Our policy is well-known.

Let me put it more simply: The Commonwealth still exists and one of these days there will probably be another Prime Ministers’ Conference. The Prime Minister and this Government withdrew South Africa from the Commonwealth last year. It is not our policy to go back to the Commonwealth. We are satisfied with the situation as it exists today. Let me ask the hon. member whether he is satisfied with the situation as it exists to-day, or does he want to go back to the Commonwealth?

My Leader has already stated our attitude.

What did he say? Did he say that he wanted to go back or not?

He explained our policy.

Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen such a fiasco here? I am asking the hon. member a simple question. His heart overflows with love for the Commonwealth and for Britain, and my question to him is whether it is his policy to go back to the Commonwealth, yes or no? He tells me that his Leader has already explained their policy. I am asking him now what his Leader said. Did his Leader say that he wished to go back or not?

He does not know himself.

I do not know what the hon. member’s Leader said, that is why I am asking him. But I do know what the Leader of the United Party in Natal, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), said. He said that he was not going back to the Commonwealth.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for “Danskraal”…

I do not mind being called the member for “Danskraal I am proud of it.

Talking about dancing, the hon. member said that he wished to mention 11 points which represented losses to South Africa because we were no longer in the Commonwealth. And amongst those losses he mentioned “Dances in the Big Pool”. We are supposed to have suffered a loss in respect of dancing also. I take it that he meant ballet dancing.

All that is left is your “egg dance”.

The hon. member says that our withdrawal from the Commonwealth “has weakened South Africa’s position in the international sphere Let me say here perfectly clearly that that is not true. Who were the greatest enemies of South Africa—Commonwealth countries or countries which are not members of the Commonwealth—in the days when we were still within the Commonwealth?

Just look what India did.

Our greatest enemies were countries like India, members of the “family”, of the “close association”. At UNO the countries which attacked South Africa were not countries outside of the Commonwealth but countries within the Commonwealth. In what respect has our position weakened because we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth? Britain is at the head of the Commonwealth, and what is Britain’s position? The case of Rhodesia is before UNO at present, and what did Britain herself say in talking about the motion which is at present before UNO? “Sponsors of the resolution (against Britain) include five members of the Commonwealth.” And the hon. member saw what was written some time ago in the Ghanaian Government newspaper, namely that the time had come when Britain should be expelled from the Commonwealth. The hon. member says that our position has weakened in the international sphere because we are out of the Commonwealth. Let me say here perfectly clearly that our membership of the Commonwealth has never meant anything to us in the international sphere. As far as UNO is concerned it makes no difference at all whether you are a member of the Commonwealth or not. That is why Mr. Macmillan said to us when he was here, “There are certain matters in which I cannot support you.” The fact that we were a member of the Commonwealth did not count with him at all. It plays no role whatsoever.

The hon. member linked up with this the question of South Africa’s isolation. Mr. Chairman, this story of isolation has become nothing more than a parrot-cry in South Africa, because South Africa has never been less isolated than she is to-day. We are less isolated to-day than ever before because during the past 14 years that the National Party Government has been in power it has concentrated specifically on a policy of not isolating South Africa. Let me give the House the facts. In this period of 14 years that the National Party Government has been in power, South Africa’s diplomatic representation abroad and the diplomatic representation of the outside world in South Africa has increased, not only in numbers but also in status. On every conceivable occasion this Government has raised the status of our diplomatic representation abroad, as well as the status of diplomatic representation here. Many consulates have become embassies. But in the second place, all three Prime Ministers of the National Party Government since it came into power—Dr. Malan, the late Adv. Strydom, and the present Prime Minister—have gone abroad whenever it has been necessary to do so; all three went to Prime Ministers’ Conferences. If there is one criticism that I have in that respect it is this, and this is where the hon. member makes a further mistake: The hon. member thinks that the world consists of Britain. As far as the outside world is concerned and as far as visits abroad by our Prime Ministers are concerned, whenever such visits do take place, there is one thing that we must always bear in mind and that is that the world does not consist of Britain only. Britain is a good friend of ours and an important country, but the world consists of more countries than Britain, and if only the hon. member for Pinelands will realize that, he will not come along with the stories that we heard here from him this morning. The hon. member says that this Government’s policy is to isolate South Africa. In the 14 years that we have been in power, Ministers of this Cabinet have gone overseas whenever it has been necessary to do so, not to isolate South Africa but to spread South Africa’s wings as far as foreign relations are concerned. Just recently the Minister of Defence visited more than one country overseas. Is that a sign of isolation? We know that the Minister of Immigration, the Minister of Labour, will be going overseas to-morrow. The Minister of Economic Affairs has already travelled throughout the whole of Europe and at the moment he is in London. Does that look like a Government that wants to isolate South Africa? But let me go further. I want to put an end to this story of isolation once and for all. What about our military people? Whenever the opportunity offers they visit countries abroad and they keep in touch with the outside world. Is that a sign of isolation? Last year we sent three economic missions abroad—one to Europe, one to America and one to the East. The hon. Minister of Information was a member of one of those missions. Does that look like a Government that wishes to isolate South Africa? But let me go further. Would a Government that wishes to isolate South Africa see to it that it is represented at every Session of UNO? Moreover, would it have a permanent ambassador at UNO; would it place on the shoulders of the Minister of Foreign Affairs the burden of spending months on end in the cold city of New York?

Give him an overcoat.

The hon. member for “Danskraal” treats this jocularly, but the charge against this Government is that we wish to isolate South Africa. Are these signs of isolation? But let me go further. Take the visit of Mr. Macmillan to South Africa. He did not come to South Africa on his own initiative; he was invited to come here. Is it a sign that we wish to isolate ourselves from the outside world when we invite Mr. Macmillan to come here and give him a cordial reception? Visits have been paid to South Africa by Ministers of West Germany and others. But apart from Government policy, when we look at South Africa’s contacts in the sphere of sport, does it look as though we want to isolate ourselves? The Lions are in South Africa at this moment; we have visits by cricket teams every year. Our tennis players are overseas at the moment; we take part in the Olympic Games. But this is the country that wishes to isolate itself! The hon. member wants to make South Africa to believe that this country is isolated from the outside world. But let me give a further example. Think of the number of airlines that come to South Africa and operate services from here to the outside world. That is being done with the co-operation of this Government. As a matter of fact, Lufthansa started here this year, actually the entry of Lufthansa, to which the Government readily agreed, is not a good thing for the South African Airways because Lufthansa takes away some of our passengers. But we are not looking at the narrow interest of our own Airways; we are looking at the broader interests of South Africa and we want the friendship of West Germany, and that is why Lufthansa was allowed to come in. What is the position in the military sphere? When other members of UNO isolated themselves and failed to meet their financial obligations towards UNO, what did South Africa do when there was trouble in Korea? We sent troops there. Does that look like a country that wishes to isolate itself; does that look like a Government that follows a policy of isolation? South African troops were sent to Korea; our young men won great prestige for South Africa and, moreover, South Africa paid her account in respect of those obligations. But let me go further. Is our agreement in respect of Simonstown the sort of agreement that would be entered into by a country that wishes to isolate itself? Take our relations with the United States of America as far as tracking stations are concerned? Would a country that wishes to isolate itself give those facilities to the U.S.A.? So as not to isolate South Africa we overlook the steps taken at UNO and elsewhere against South Africa by the U.S.A. and we give her those facilities. But take international conferences that we have attended over the past 14 years. If I wanted to mention the names of all those conferences it would take me an hour to do so. Does that look like a country that wishes to isolate itself? South Africa took part in the geophysical year. Take Onderstepoort. Let me quote from the Sunday Times of the other day—

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you why I am going into this matter in such detail. This is the last day of the Session, but it is time we exposed to the country and the public the hollow and false cries with which the United Party have come along this Session. That is why I have dealt with this matter in detail. But I want to go a little further. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other United Party speakers have said that we have few friends in the world to-day. Let me put this question to the hon. member: Which friend of ours have we lost? Let him mention just one country in the world. Which country is no longer our friend to-day? Is Britain no longer such a good friend of ours as she was? Let the hon. member mention any country in the world whose friendship we have lost. Let him mention any such country in the Commonwealth. Can he mention a single country that was a greater friend of ours when we were within the Commonwealth than that country is to-day, now that we are no longer in the Commonwealth? Let the hon. member for Yeoville mention a single example.

Take the countries which vote against us at UNO to-day and which supported us in the past.

Which country voted for us at UNO because we were a member of the Commonwealth and now votes against us because we are outside the Commonwealth? Can he mention one?

Britain.

Two years before we left the Commonwealth Mr. Macmillan already warned us that Britain was going to do so. I think it is an unreasonable charge against Britain that she votes against us because we are out of the Commonwealth. Does the hon. member look upon a great country like Britain with so much contempt as to suggest that Britain would be so petty as to vote against South Africa simply because we are out of the Commonwealth? Britain votes against South Africa because she is opposed to our racial policy. Neither Britain nor any country in the world voted for South Africa at UNO because we were a member of the Commonwealth, and the hon. member knows that as well as I do. I say that this cry that South Africa has fewer friends to-day is a false one without any substance whatsoever.

You are talking against your better judgment now.

Why do you not mention a country then?

Let the hon. member for Yeoville mention just one country. I ask him now to mention a single country that was our friend when we were in the Commonwealth and which is no longer our friend to-day.

At the last Session of UNO, when we had left the Commonwealth, not a single country voted for us.

That is an interesting reply—as though it matters to the rest of the world whether we are a member of the Commonwealth or not!

It definitely does matter.

The hon. member knows as well as I do that, not this year perhaps but next year or the following year, not a single country will vote for Britain at UNO on this same Rhodesian question.

A Paul amongst the prophets!

Mr. Speaker, Britain has already lost at UNO, although a few countries did vote for her and a few abstained from voting.

And even Commonwealth countries voted against her.

Five Commonwealth countries voted against her—Ghana, India, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika. Here I have the British Information Service, which contains this complaint—

It has nothing to do with the Commonwealth—nothing whatsoever. Hon. members on the other side are so perturbed about the Commonwealth; let me ask them what they would be prepared to do to remain within the Commonwealth or to go back to the Commonwealth.

We would not have handed South Africa over to Ghana’s mercy.

Let me say this here very clearly: Just as little as Ghana and Nigeria are satisfied with this Government’s policy, so little will they be satisfied with the federation plan of the Leader of the Opposition. There is only one thing that these Blacks want and that is “One man one vote”.

I should also like to say this as far as this debate is concerned. This has been a remarkable Session. Let me mention a few of the matters of lesser importance. I do not think we have had any session in the past where we have seen as much confusion in the ranks of the Opposition as we have seen during this Session. We have never had a session in which there have been as little evidence of leadership in the Opposition as in this Session. Mr. Speaker, do you know to what they had to resort in the debate that we concluded this week? They went so far as to vote against the inclusion of the word “National” in the appellation of the Education Council. They refused to accept the word “National” in substitution for the word “Union”.

The word “National” in the sense in which you use it.

But this Session has been characterized by another thing and that is the fact that in the past few days the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has started taking part in the debates again, whereas previously he did not open his mouth.

And how many meetings did he address throughout the country?

The hon. member for Yeoville has shown in the course of this Session that he no longer has the enthusiasm that he had formerly.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for talking such nonsense.

But what has really happened? This Session we have seen backbenchers of the United Party taking the lead.

Capable young men.

They may be capable, but it is a remarkable fact that the Opposition party finds itself in this position that the lead has been taken by members who came here for the first time at the beginning of the Session and half-way through the Session. It has been suggested by one of the newspapers that the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has taken over the leadership. That is not true.

How do you know it is not true?

It is not true; after all, we sit here and we listen to them. But let me also say this: We have also found this Session that the United Party has gained an additional man, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson).

What a pity there is not a man in the Nationalist Party.

Mr. Speaker, you will have noticed in the statement issued by them that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and Senator Fagan did not come over to the United Party on grounds of principle. They did not say, “We are joining the United Party on the following grounds.” No, they said, “We think much along the same lines.” And Senator Fagan and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—I am not so sure of the latter—are allowed to have their own opinion on the question of the Coloured vote.

There is parallel development in the party!

They agreed to differ. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the national chairman and the hon. Senator Fagan is the national leader of the National Union. Now that they have joined the United Party the whole party disappears. They announce that the two of them are joining the United Party and—have you ever seen such a thing?—not a single other member of the party joins them in going over to the United Party. Here we find two people saying, “Our party is going to join another party”, but they do not take a single other person along with them. What a fiasco! These two people went over to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition without taking a single follower along with them.

You are talking nonsense, of course, and you will have to swallow your words.

The name of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was announced and he duly went over to the United Party; his leader’s name was announced and his leader went over to the United Party, but not a single other person; and in order to get those two people the United Party had to relinquish two seats—Bezuidenhout and a Senatorship. I think the Argus or the Cape Times is right; the United Party is going to have trouble with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Mr. RAW: Why do you worry about it?

No man stays long in any party, not even in the United Party, unless he has principles, and that is the trouble with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Without principles he will not remain in that party long.

But this Session has also been characterized by other features, and I want to mention just one or two of them. In the first place there is the tremendous support that the attitude of this side of the House has received in South Africa during this Session. There is ever-growing support from all sides, and if there is one thing that characterizes this Session it is the fact that the prestige of the Prime Minister and of the Cabinet of South Africa has increased more than in any previous session. Mr. Speaker, wherever you speak to people, whether travelling in a plane or in a train, whether they be United Party supporters or Nationalists, you will find that no Prime Minister and no Cabinet in the whole world are held in higher esteem than our Prime Minister and our Cabinet.

You are still not a Deputy Minister!

This Session has also shown another thing. We have always said in South Africa and we have always known that the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking sections can co-operate, whether it be in the field of sport or any other field, but the opinion has always been expressed that Afrikaans speaking and English-speaking cannot cooperate in the political sphere. I think if this Session has shown one thing it is the fact that we have now reached the stage in South Africa where Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking are able to form a closely knit unit in the political sphere. That is possible because that unity is based on principles. Why is the hon. the Minister of Information, an English-speaking person, happy in this party?

Of course he is happy.

He is happy because he sits on this side on the basis of principles, and also because this Session has shown more clearly than ever before that nothing that this Government does is aimed against the English-speaking section in South Africa or against the Jewish race in South Africa. We listened here yesterday to a tirade about the Jewish race. One thing is certain and that is that the Jews are discriminated against in South Africa; we all know that there is an anti-Semitic feeling in South Africa. That is so, but it has nothing to do with political parties and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the National Party. Where we do find discrimination against the Jews is in the clubs of the hon. member for Pine lands—and he knows that that is true. He will not deny it. They simply do not allow a Jew into their clubs. I am sure that the hon. member for Germiston (District) belongs to one or two clubs which do not admit Jews.

Come on, deny it!

A Jew is simply not allowed to become a member of those clubs. I think the hon. member for Hill brow (Dr. Steenkamp) is a member of a club to which Jews are not admitted. How he was admitted I do not know. Let me say this as far as the Jews are concerned. There is one thing with which the Jews in South Africa can help us, particularly the leaders of the Jewish race in South Africa.

May I ask the hon. member a question. Does he approve of the statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs during the war?

The hon. member for Germiston (District) wants to conceal his embarrassment now by going back to the war years. My reply to the hon. member is this: Whatever we may say, the test is how the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs treated Jewish businessmen in South Africa while he was Minister of Economic Affairs. He said certain things during the war years. He proved by his deeds that he did not discriminate against the Jews, but it still remains a fact that the hon. member’s clubs do discriminate against the Jews. The hon. member is a member of a club and the refusal to admit Jews to that club meets with his approval. He discriminates against the Jews; he is a racialist, a hater of Jews. Then there is my dear old friend, Mr. Ross, the hon. member for North-East Rand or Benoni. He is a racialist; he is an anti-Semitic because he is a member of a club, and it meets with his approval that Jews are refused admission to that club. There sits the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog); he does not have the privilege of becoming a member of a club of which the hon. member for Germiston (District) is a committee member perhaps. That is the naked truth, Mr. Speaker. And then they want to tell us that we are anti-Semitic! I want to say to the hon. member for Springs that perhaps he can help us.

You are talking absolute nonsense. I belong to no club …

I apologize for the fact that I mentioned the hon. member’s name or rather his constituency by mistake. I was referring to the hon. member, Mr. Ross. If I mentioned the hon. member’s name then I apologize because I am well aware of the fact that no club would admit the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). If I did any club an injustice, by insinuating that the hon. member might be a member of that club, then I apologize.

Sink even lower; it does not matter.

I want to say, however, that neither the National Party nor the Prime Minister nor any member of the Cabinet discriminates against any racial group in our country, whether it be a Jew, an Englishman or a member of any other race. The people who do discriminate are the people who hold sway in the United Party.

You know that that is untrue!

The hon. member for Germiston (District) must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Mr.

Speaker. I used them because the hon. member annoys me so much.

I want to point out that there is one respect in which the leaders of the Jews can help us. It so happens that nine out of every ten people who are guilty of incitement in South Africa, who have to flee this country and who are communists, are Jews. That sort of thing can only harm the Jews. I say, therefore, that the leaders of the Jews can help us in this sense that they can use their influence …

Those are individuals!

Yes, but those individuals are harming our reputation, and in this respect the leaders of the Jews can help us.

Another thing that hon. members would be well-advised to do is to leave the National Party and Robey Leibbrandt in peace and to make a real effort to persuade the hon. member for Germiston (District) to throw open his clubs to Jews. It grieves me to think that discrimination is practised in this way against a racial group in this country! Take the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), for example. Mr. Speaker, do you know that the hon. member for Constantia discriminates against the hon. member for Hospital? He refuses to have him in his club, and yet the hon. member is a person who is held in high esteem because he was Mayor of Johannesburg! The time has come to make some attempt to put an end to this discrimination, and if the hon. member for Hospital needs my assistance I am prepared to offer it to him because it grieves me to think that there are still people here who discriminate against another racial group.

It has been insinuated here that the hon. the Minister of Justice is acting as the protector of Robey Leibbrandt, who said a nasty thing about the Jews. Let me say very clearly, however, that if there is one thing which is very far from the truth, it is this insinuation. This discrimination, this anti-Semitism in South Africa, is to be found in the hearts of members of the United Party, some of whom are members of this House. [Time limit.]

If the position is as you say, why is it then that the vast majority of the Jews in South Africa are strong supporters of parties other than the Nationalist Party?

The quality of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) surprises me. He states that, because the Commonwealth had changed its character, South Africa could no longer remain a member. But if that argument had any validity, then what about UNO? UNO has changed its character even more than the Commonwealth. On that basis the hon. member must then adopt the standpoint that we should also resign from UNO.

We have not yet been forced to make the choice.

UNO has already made it clear that we are not welcome there. My argument, however, is that when the hon. member says that one must leave a partnership if it changes its character, it must be consistently applied in respect of every alliance in the world. A country like South Africa should surely rather try to remain a member of as many friendly alliances as possible. I am not one of those people who say that Dr. Verwoerd could have done anything else but what he did when he was faced with the choice in regard to the Commonwealth. At that stage he had no other choice; it was already too late. The point I have always made, even when I was still a member of the party opposite, is that over the years the Government should have arranged its policies in such a way that it would not have become a black sheep in the eyes of the rest of the world. When the Prime Minister left to go to the Commonwealth Conference, where the decision was taken in regard to our membership, it was already too late. Our internal policy by that time had already taken such a form that it was clear to everybody that we would systematically be ejected from every body in the world. It was just a question of time. It is just a question of time before we will have to leave UNO also. We have already been kicked out of every organization in Africa.

Why?

Because of the extremist racial policy of the Government! I did not think that a man could get up on the Government side and say that we should be glad that we have fewer friends than we had before. We can argue about the Commonwealth as much as we like. The bare fact is that we gain nothing by having left it. On the contrary, we have just lost. I myself am convinced that time will show that we have lost infinitely much by leaving the Commonwealth. If we cannot even work together with an organization like the Commonwealth…. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Boksburg must please keep quiet.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to say that it is to-day part of the whole spirit revealed by the Government side to shout down the Opposition, as also happens outside at meetings. It stands in the sign of the General Law Amendment Bill. The time when a member of the Opposition could get up here and state his case on its merits, undisturbed, is evidently past.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entitled to cast a reflection on the Chair?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. I did not intend it as a reflection on the Chair. I can, however, tell you that in the 12 years I have sat in this House I have never made myself guilty of personal attacks. You can look at my record, and you will find that is true. You will not find a single speech in which I, on my own initiative, made a personal attack on another hon. member, except by way of defending myself. I do not, however, get the same attitude from the other side. In any case, I just wanted to point to the spirit which prevails on the Government side in not allowing other people the opportunity to state their case. It is not only in this House that that happens, but also outside, and particularly at elections.

As I have said, if it is to be our policy that we must leave any body because it changes its character, then we shall not be able to be a member of any body in the world. And what value can we then attach to the assurance of the Prime Minister that South Africa wants to co-operate on a friendly footing with the rest of Africa?

For the past three years I have been in the position of an independent member in this House. Although it may not perhaps seem so, it is a fact that an independent member is faced with particular difficulties. It is not so easy all by oneself, and without the help of a caucus, and the assistance of the study groups which the larger parties have, to remain sufficiently au fait with the work of the House, or to keep pace with the mass of legislation produced here. It is difficult to take part in the debates, to attend them all and, at the same time, as happened in my personal case, still to do the administrative work of a party, however small that party might be in comparison with others. But, irrespective of all these difficulties with which an independent member in the House of Assembly has to cope, independence is, nevertheless, the nearest that a Member of Parliament can get to the political paradise. It is an experience which I would like to recommend to every Member of Parliament before he lays down his political head and again becomes a member of “the people outside”. I should like to make use of this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the Secretariat of the House for the consideration shown to the whipless minority. I was, of course, at liberty to retain my independence, and to retain it for as long as I wished. I was under no obligation towards the United Party—not even in respect of my seat, and nobody emphasized that more than the Leader of the Opposition himself. During the election we had the position that the United Party fulfilled its obligations towards the National Union, and that the latter did its full share in the 13 seats it contested. The fact that the Opposition as a whole did not fare better is not anybody’s fault, nor did it place either of the two under the obligation to do something in return after the election. I was completely at liberty to continue my independent status for as long as I liked. However, as I see matters, there is a pattern developing in South African politics which places a new responsibility on all of us. Since the establishment of Union, and until the time when the Republic was established, the historical division in our politics was mainly based on a difference of opinion in respect of constitutional problems in regard to sovereign independence, Afrikaans-English equality, South African citizenship, one flag, our own national anthem, and the establishment of a Republic. It is generally known—and therefore I will not expatiate on it—that, in respect of these matters, my sympathy and support were for the standpoint adopted by Gen. Hertzog and his successors in the National Party. We have now, however, reached the stage where these problems have finally been solved. Together with their disappearance, the struggle between Nat and Sap, as we always knew it, has become out-dated and futile. Now there is only one problem which, in future, will dominate our internal politics, as well as our position externally, viz. the relationship between the White and the non-White citizens of our country. In addition—and of equal importance—there are our economic problems and the material prosperity of our country and its people. Personally, however, I believe that the problem which will completely dominate the scene in South Africa will remain the racial problem. And in this regard it is my firm conviction that a policy which is based on an unreasonable and enforced caste system; on a denial of the dignity of the individual on the grounds of colour alone; and on the political domination of one group of the population, to the total exclusion of every form of participation by the other groups, must eventually have catastrophic results for the White man in South Africa and for South Africa’s position in the world. Whilst the historical standpoints of the National Party in regard to constitutional matters therefore attracted me as a young Afrikaner and persuaded me to support that party, its racial extremism and its concern with colour had just the opposite effect. It is the type of policy which will bring no peace and no solution and, therefore, can have no future. Therefore I believe that another answer, which is not based on baasskap apartheid, must be found as soon as possible for the problems of our country.

Now I do not say that the United Party, as the alternative Government, claims that it has spoken the final word in this regard in terms of a bend or burst policy. Even the Burger recently, on 14/12/61, said in regard to the policy of the National Party: “We are not living in a time of final answers in regard to our racial problems.” That is true, and it is because developments in the world are too fast and too radical. There are, however, certain things which we know about the United Party. We know, e.g., that whatever faults can be found with the United Party in regard to other matters, throughout the years it has consistently opposed the crass injustices of legal apartheid; the humiliation of the non-Whites which results from it every day, and the harm it caused our country in the society of nations, and still causes regularly. During the past 14 years the United Party took the lead in the opposition to these things. We know, further, that the Opposition is determined to remedy the mistakes and everything that is wrong in the Government’s racial policy, and thereby to restore the honour of the White man and of South Africa. In this regard it is my view that the federal idea, which has been accepted in broad terms as its policy, is the best starting-point for a new beginning. I repeat—and with the greatest conviction—that time will teach us in South Africa that in any country where there is a diversity of group and regional interests, the federal principle is the only effective means to prevent the domination of one race over another, or of one group over another, or of one area over another.

We had an example of this a few years ago in our own constitutional set-up. In 1948 the Union Government, under Dr. Malan, negotiated with South West Africa in regard to a new constitution. That territory was then at liberty, within the limits of the mandate, to choose one of two directions: It could choose, for the purposes of its administration, to link up with our unitary system, and then to be governed in the same way as a province; or else it could choose to be linked up with the Union Federal; in other words, to subject itself to the Central Parliament only in matters of common interest on a high level, but to retain its autonomy over matters affecting its own interests. I participated at the time in this forming of a constitution for South West Africa, and the people of South West Africa of both political parties unanimously chose a policy which in essence amounted to a federal link with the Union. They did so particularly because they were afraid that their regional interests would otherwise suffer, and also that their identity would be lost if they were to link up with the Union on a unitary basis.

We therefore had, within our own constitutional set-up, a case where federalism protected the regional interests of a territory. According to the same principle, the federal structure is the only means which can naturally afford protection also to the interests and identity of a particular racial group, whether it is White or Black. A little while ago I was talking to a prominent British Member of Parliament. He is one of the leaders of the Africa group of the Conservative Party. He informed me that it is now generally realized that the difficulties in Ghana are mainly due to the fact that the country was given a unitary constitution, and that, therefore, not enough attention was paid to the conflicting interests of the various regions, religions, and the variety of racial groups existing there. It was, therefore, a unitary constitution, more than anything else, which opened the door to a dictatorship for Dr. Nkrumah. The chaos which resulted in the Congo can also, to a large measure, be ascribed to the fact that that state did not have a strong federal constitution right from the beginning. But it was given a unitary constitution which, immediately after the Belgians left, resulted in a terrific struggle for domination and for the control of the country between the various tribes and regions. That led to the secession of Katanga and everything which resulted from that. What is interesting is that this British Member of Parliament stated that the British had realized the mistake they made in regard to Ghana and, therefore, did not repeat that mistake in regard to the constitution of Nigeria. Tribal, religious and racial differences are so sharp in Nigeria that that country had to be given a federal constitution with a safeguarding measure of autonomy for the various groups. And the result of it is that things are going a hundred times more smoothly in Nigeria than in Ghana. The same policy will, therefore, also be adopted in regard to Uganda when it becomes independent. It is interesting to note that the British realized their mistake in granting a unitary constitution—one man, one vote—in Ghana and, therefore, do not intend repeating that mistake in Uganda, nor did they repeat it in Nigeria. One man, one vote, forms the basis only of a unitary system. In a federal system it is rather the interests of population groups or regions which count; and with the introduction of federal constitutions in the new states of Africa, the principle of one man, one vote, is being shifted to the background, because, in order to apply the policy of one man, one vote, a unitary constitution is necessary. Therefore, I say that the federal direction is a mighty weapon against the danger of the domination of any group in a unitary one man, one vote, system.

I know that hon. members opposite seek to discredit the federal idea. They generally refer to the difficulties in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nayasaland. But there is a difference. It is that in Nigeria, and also in Uganda, federation has been established after proper mutual consultation and with the approval of the interested parties. That was not the case in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It is not the policy of federalism which is responsible for the difficulties in our neighbouring state, but it is, as far as I can see, due to the way in which the Federation was established there. One of the Native leaders in the Federation, Josua Nkomo, recently stated: “We want a federation, but not one imposed on the people.” The difficulties in the Federation, therefore, have nothing to do with the policies of federalism, but are to be ascribed to the fact that Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland did not willingly enter the Federation. It therefore became a matter of prestige to them to continue opposing it.

Therefore to attack federalism on the basis of what is happening in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is to ignore the facts of the situation. I do not want to go into this matter in detail further, but wish to conclude by stating that I am convinced that on the basis of federalism we will be able to find a satisfactory solution for our racial difficulties, which will be able to satisfy reasonable people of every racial group and which will again be able to ensure for South Africa an honourable position in the society of nations. And I can say that more and more people in South Africa are beginning to realize this to-day. During his time Dr. Malan showed sympathy for the federal idea as a means of settling our racial problems. He pointed to Switzerland as a model. Professor H. J. J. M. van der Merwe, the well-known Africa expert and commentator on African matters in Government newspapers and over the radio, also fully supports the principle of federalism. An observer of worldwide repute, Walter Lippman, recently wrote—

That is the idea towards which Dr. Malan was also sympathetic. I am therefore convinced that federalism holds the possibility for a satisfactory solution of the racial problems in South Africa, and particularly that it will again open the way to South Africa to regain its position in the society of nations.

When did you gain that conviction?

During all the years in South West I stood for the federal principle, and I can quote from speeches I made 15 years ago. Mr. Speaker, this House already has a federal element through the representation of South West Africa as a territory and through the representation of the Coloureds as a group. The basis of a racial federation has already been laid in this existing Parliament, and in both cases it was laid by steps taken by this Government.

I believe that in order to have an improvement in our external relations, we shall have to have a change of Government. I believe that nothing which the present Government can do will be able to restore our external relations even with the Western countries, in any case not as long as it has the wooden block of forced apartheid tied to its leg. I believe that as long as we retain the Government we have now, we will increasingly continue to land in international difficulties. The Government may build up a strong army. It is necessary for us to have a strong army, and nobody has any objection to that, but an army without allies is of very little use in the sort of struggle in which the Government is involved. Even the chief mouthpiece of the National Party stated this very clearly when it wrote—

And allies we can only get if we can evolve a just political system in South Africa based on sound ethic principles. The Government can also continue with its steps in regard to the Transkei, and give them political autonomy. That is a further decentralization of political control and another step in the direction of federalism. In so far as the Transkei eliminates a sphere of discrimination, it will undoubtedly have a favourable effect. But its effect is limited. In my opinion, those steps do not yet get to the root of our difficulties in the world. The basic objection the world has to us is that we are maintaining a system here which drives people out of their residential areas, areas where they have lived for generations, just because they are Coloureds; which prevents people from doing the work for which they are fitted, simply because they are not White; which prevents a White man from riding in a taxi owned by a Coloured, simply because the owner is a Coloured; which lets a woman stand in a bus …

You know that is not true.

Is the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) entitled to say that the hon. member is saying something which he knows is not true?

Has the hon. member for Wakkerstroom said that?

I said that the hon. member knew that it was not true that one was not allowed to ride in the motor-car of a Coloured.

The hon. member may not say that the hon. member knows it is not true.

Then he is very stupid if he does not know it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite wrong. What I said was that a White man is prohibited from riding in a taxi owned by a Coloured, but because he is a Coloured, and that is so. If a taxi belongs to a Coloured owner, only Coloureds may ride in it. [Interjections.] The hon. member does not know the policy of his own party. As long as we maintain a system in South Africa which makes a woman, if she is Coloured, stand in a bus when the few “Coloured seats” are occupied and all the “White seats” are empty; as long as we follow a policy which makes a Minister say that he has no objection to eating together with non-White colleagues on a professional basis, but which prevents him from entering a public building by the same door as they do just because they are non-White; as long as this type of thing goes on in South Africa we have not the least hope, and the Government can spend all the money it likes on advertising and on disseminating information overseas, but it will be of no avail; the basic problem in South Africa is the whole humiliating process of forced apartheid.

May I put a question to you? May a Coloured become a member of the United Party?

As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to it. [Interjections.] I say, Mr. Speaker, that as long as we maintain the whole humiliating process of forced apartheid in South Africa—I am not referring to natural human relations, where there is continually a diversity of religions and people voluntarily form their own groups and apply some measure of exclusiveness; I am referring to legal apartheid, to forced apartheid where the State, which should be protected, puts its stamp of humiliation on the non-White just because he is non-White. As long as we in this country have laws like the Immorality Act which, whatever we might say about it, is regarded by people overseas as being on the same level as the racial laws of Nuremberg, nothing this Government does can wipe out the harm which its internal policy does to South Africa overseas. So I can continue : Race and colour, and colour and race, remain the daily bread of the country, and that is how it will remain for as long as we have the present Government. Therefore I say that the Government can do as it likes, and it can spend as much on giving explanations as it likes, but as long as it follows a racial policy the basis of which is the continual public humiliation of the non-White, the continual derogation from a man’s dignity simply because he is not White …

That is another untruth.

Why may a non-White not enter by the same door as a White man? We have this stupidity in South Africa that a White and a non-White may not enter the post office by the same door. But when they walk out, they can enter the same shop on the opposite side of the street, which perhaps belongs to a Nationalist, and they can buy at the same counter. What do we solve in this way? In other words, we have here a system whereby the State puts the stamp of inferiority on a man, simply on the basis of the colour of his skin. For that reason alone he may not enter a public building by the same door as I do. That solves nothing and that is the crux of the troubles we have today. The current policy is in conflict with the basic principles of what is Western, civilized and Christian. I wish my hon. friends opposite would ride on the bus from Sea Point and see the absurdity which goes on. There are a few seats at the back for Coloureds; the rest are for Whites. But day after day one sees elderly White women having to stand in the aisle, even though there is only one Coloured sitting on the Coloured seats. The aisle is very narrow and they often have to stand close to Coloureds, but they may not sit on those seats. That does not solve racial problems. It causes irritation and trouble. Every day the regulations of the Government are causing friction and making South Africa ridiculous in the eyes of the civilized people of the world. I hope that we will soon reach the stage in South Africa where another White government will take over from this Government, and do so in time to remedy what is wrong. Let us pray that the day will not come when the non-White attains a political position in South Africa where he can say: I am going to apply all these laws, with this difference, that the White people of Sea Point must now go and live in the desert areas of the Cape, and the Coloureds will live in Sea Point, and in regard to job reservation, the Whites can do the manual labour and the non-Whites will occupy the high posts. What objection in principle can hon. members opposite then have if such a situation arises? Because in principle they approve of it. I hope that day never comes. If that day comes, the White man has no future in South Africa. If I were a very old man, I would probably have supported the racial policy of the Government because its after-effects could not have affected me. But because I am a young man with children, I dare not support the policy of the Government. If I were very old, I would realize that I would have to die soon and it would not matter what happened after wards. But as a young South African I cannot support the Government’s racial policy. No young man can do it if he attaches any value to a future for himself and his children.

Reference was made here to isolation. In a sense we are isolated and are becoming increasingly isolated. But in another sense the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is correct in saying that we are not isolated. The extent to which we are not isolated is that I have no doubt that in the years that lie ahead no country will receive the attention in the world which South Africa will receive. But it will be unwelcome attention. It will be unwelcome interference in our affairs. To that extent we will not be isolated.

The defence of the Government that nobody overseas has anything to do with our domestic affairs is, strictly speaking, correct. But it is an out-moded standpoint. It no longer counts in the world. Race relations have everywhere in the world become a world problem. It is no longer merely a South African problem. Until such time as we get a Government which realizes this, and realizes that we are dealing with a world problem, the Government is neglecting its duty towards the future interests of South Africa. And, Mr. Speaker, it is for this reason that I personally feel that the time has arrived for members of the Opposition to forget about their minor points of difference and to exert all their energies to unite against the Government—in the best interests of the White man and of everybody in South Africa. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) was the hon. member for Namib, I addressed a number of meetings in his constituency with him, and I can give you the assurance that he then propounded a policy diametrically opposed to what he is propounding to-day. Then he was a fiery supporter of the Government’s colour policy.

What apartheid? The Sabra apartheid?

A few years ago he was in America, one of these study bursaries having been granted to him, and at that time we were busy at UNO and I granted him the privilege of consulting with us in regard to our course of action at UNO. At that time he heartily supported the Government’s action at UNO. But now he is telling a different story.

Mr. Speaker, when he was still a member of this party he made certain statements here for which he got great publicity in the United Party Press. A question was put to me about him at a meeting in Beaufort West, and my reply was that Mr. Basson still had many of his old United Party traits. But now he is back again where he was before and should always have remained. It seems to me the Opposition was a little concerned towards the end of his speech, judging by the expressions on their faces, when he said that as far as he was concerned he was in favour of Coloureds also becoming members in good standing of the United Party. He is again adopting a deviating attitude. It seems to me he has taken the wrong decision. He should rather have joined the Progressive Party, because after this speech of his to-day, he is really at home amongst the progressives.

But they have no seats for him.

It seems to me that since he has been sitting next to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) she has been influencing him. He has made his introductory speech to-day, and it is questionable whether the Opposition can really be congratulated on their new recruit.

If any proof was necessary of the sad state in which the United Party finds itself, we had that proof in the debate which we have now had for the past three days—and not only their actions in this debate but during the whole Session. Small wonder that voices are heard in their own ranks complaining about the attitude of the Opposition. I receive many letters—I received one again yesterday—from their own people complaining that the party to which they belong has no definite policy and flits like a bird from one branch to another, just like the member for Bezuidenhout flits from one party to another. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) the other day in his speech, which I can call his clownish speech, because the hon. member then gave us an exhibition of buffoonery such as we have seldom seen …

I can never compete with you.

He makes what he considers to be jokes, and then he turns round and looks at his own supporters and says: “Now you must laugh, chaps.” In his clownish speech he said: “This Session has run true to the pattern of previous sessions.” That is quite correct, in so far as the behaviour of the Opposition is concerned. Their behaviour during the past three days and during this Session has been in the same pattern as their behaviour in all the previous sessions. What this Session has particularly shown is to what extent the United Party suffers from the pressure exerted by the Progressive Party. [Interjections.] That is so. There are members sitting in their ranks who really should have belonged to the Progressive Party. There is, e.g. the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). At the time the split came in Bloemfontein he decided to join the Progressives, but the Leader of the Opposition asked him please not to do so, and then he again changed his mind and remained in the United Party. But he is not the only one. There are others amongst them whose actual political home is in the Progressive Party and not in the United Party.

This debate has shown to what an extent the United Party is divided amongst itself. The recent statement by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, namely that Coloureds should also become members of their party, has proved that. But what has really become apparent, as it also did in the past, is their lack of any policy. The poor member for Yeoville was compelled in recent months, even before the Session, to issue numerous statements and to make speeches explaining precisely what the racial federation policy of the United Party is. I think he does not understand it either! Nor do I know whether the Leader of the Opposition understands it.

I know just as much about it as you know about apartheid.

Just look at the letters which appear in their own newspapers—that is, those which are published. People write to me and send me copies of letters which they send to the United Party newspapers but which are not published. The newspapers select only a few for publication. It is clear that there is a deep disappointment amongst the members of the United Party about the lack of policy. The result is that the United Party in its desperation now grasps at anything. We have had that during the past three days and during the course of this Session. They grasp at anything to distract attention from their lack of policy and from their inner division. We had the Bill which was intended properly to define the position of the non-Whites. Some of them are evidently terribly afraid that their descent will be investigated—that there will be a witch-hunt. The next thing they grasped at was the General Law Amendment Bill. As far as the Opposition is concerned, they do not care if innocent people are killed by plastic bomb explosions, as has already happened in telephone booths and other places. They are not prepared to take heed of warnings, and when the Government takes the action it ought to take, we get this opposition. The hon. members know of a certain Bantu leader, Mandela. Mandela published a long article in a newspaper issued in Accra, The Voice of Africa, in which he says this—

He says action must then be taken. He continues to say—

Not the National Party, but “White South Africa”—-

Those are the military preparations about which the hon. member for Pine lands (Mr. Thompson) now complains so much—

Here we have a Bantu leader who clearly recommends and encourages sabotage as a method of taking action against what they call “White domination” in South Africa. But, as I say, the Opposition is indifferent to all this. If women or children are killed as the result of bomb explosions, the Opposition washes its hands in innocence. But they will not be able to wash their hands in innocence, because they have contributed to such things happening. Mr. Speaker, then there was the Education Advisory Council Bill. The Opposition grasped at that and made a tremendous fuss. And then we had the lowest depths of despair—or should I rather say the peak of despair—of the United Party in this debate when they tried to make capital out of the fact that maize prices had been reduced. They say the small farmers will suffer because of it. They do not want to admit that higher prices lead to overproduction. And the Opposition also tried to belittle the gigantic Orange River scheme. That was done by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). But he cannot belittle that scheme.

Mr. Speaker, I now come to the motion before the House, namely, the story about isolation which was introduced to-day by the hon. member for Pine lands. It is clear that the hon. member for Pine lands made a thorough study of the subject. I am sure he spent a lot of time in the Library and he has read his Cape Times very carefully. He and the rest of the Opposition still persist in saying that South Africa voluntarily left the Commonwealth. [Interjections.] Yes, I know that the hon. member for Yeoville said that the Prime Minister allowed himself to be misled and frightened by Ghana, and all that sort of nonsense. The Prime Minister has explained what happened. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who now laughs so loudly, knows that in fact South Africa was forced out of the Commonwealth and that the Prime Minister did his best to keep South Africa within the Commonwealth, but that he was compelled to resign. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) rightly referred to Mr. Menzies’ statement a few days after the conference, when he said that he would have done the same had he been in Dr. Verwoerd’s position.

Yes, but he does not place himself in that position.

Mr. Menzies was present at that conference and he knew what he was talking about. To-day we again had these tedious complaints, led by the hon. member for Pine-lands. Unfortunately, I have not got it here now, as my papers are all packed, but last week I received a Canadian journal, containing a report of a meeting of the Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Association. The president of that great organization referred at their congress to “the fact that South Africa was forced out of the Commonwealth”. He went on to say that—

And the election there has now proved that.

But at that time there was in Canada a visitor from South Africa, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, and I have a newspaper report of his speech, in which he said very clearly: “It is unfortunate that South Africa was forced out of the Commonwealth.” Now, if the Opposition will not believe the Canadians, they will surely believe Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, who was always one of the leading lights of their party. There was also the statement in an official organ in Nigeria—

Mr. Speaker, it is now being suggested here to-day that South Africa suffered tremendous harm as a result of her leaving the Commonwealth. That was more or less the main theme of the speech of the hon. member for Pine-lands. In fact, the position, if I am to judge from the information I received from our Embassies in various countries, is that South Africa’s prestige has increased since we left the Commonwealth. The hon. member for Pine-lands, and also other hon. members, made a great fuss about the economic losses they say we will now suffer. If the hon. member reads his Cape Times so studiously, he will have seen—or perhaps it was not in the Cape Times, because it is interesting to note how the Cape Times does not publish certain Sapa reports or, if they do so, they abridge them. I now quote from a Sapa report which appeared in the Burger. It refers to a leading article in the Financial Times. There is nobody on the opposite side who does not acknowledge the status of the Financial Times. The Financial Times is the leading British financial publication, and this is what it said in a leading article—

That is what the Financial Times states—

And that is correct. Seeing that so much is being said about South Africa’s isolation, as the result of the possibility of Britain joining the E.E.C., I want to ask why Mr. Menzies has now gone to Europe so hastily to try to safeguard the position of Australia, and why the Prime Minister of New Zealand made the statement he did? Surely they are members of the Commonwealth; they are still in the Commonwealth. From what I can understand of their statements, they are just as fearful of their own position as the hon. member for Pinelands and his friends are about the position of South Africa.

The hon. member for Pine lands referred to a statement made by Mr. Macmillan, of course also taken from the Cape Times—

Mr. Speaker, we have never had any particular support from Britain at UNO when we were still a member of the Commonwealth. There are members of White Commonwealth countries, who, even in the days when we were still a member, took steps against South Africa. Mr. Macmillan’s statement has nothing to do with our having left the Commonwealth! But what is very interesting in regard to this statement by Mr. Macmillan is that in the past British delegates told us that Section 2 (7), which provides for non-interference in domestic affairs, no longer applied. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also said so to-day. Now we have the peculiar position that it is the British Government which now relies on Section 2 (7)! Now Britain is being attacked. In the past the impression was created, and it was also done by speakers here to-day, that South Africa was the only country which was in trouble, because of its racial policy, but now Britain is in trouble too. At the last session of UNO last year, attacks were made on Britain, and also on America, because of the way in which racial discrimination was applied in their countries. Last week there was a report about the racial position in Nottingham, where serious objection was raised because a West Indian was appointed as a magistrate. The White people there say that they will not allow a White man to be sentenced by a Coloured magistrate. I Mr. Speaker, the position in regard to all these attacks on South Africa is this: The delegates of certain countries come to UNO to attack us, but they do not come there with clean hands; discrimination is applied in their countries also. Then they say: “Oh yes, but you have laws which allow it, and we have no such laws.” Mr. Speaker, what difference does it make if one has a law against discrimination and it is ignored, and discrimination is applied in practice? If hon. members would just note what is written in newspapers overseas they would realize to what extent discrimination is applied there.

Did you say that Britain relied on Section 2 (7) in regard to Rhodesia?

Yes, quite correct. I can also tell the hon. member that yesterday I instructed our representative at UNO to vote against the Afro-Asian group when this matter is discussed, not only because we, ourselves, have always relied on Section 2 (7), but also because a neighbouring state, Rhodesia, is concerned. I am not concerned about the fact that Britain is involved, but I am concerned about the fact that a neighbouring state, with which we are on a very friendly footing, is now being attacked, and we will certainly support our neighbour.

The hon. member for Pine lands also said: “Every vote counts at the United Nations.” May I just point out—I think hon. members know it—that the status of UNO has been considerably reduced during the past few years. If there is one country which has always used UNO as an instrument for its foreign policy, it was the United States of America. Here I have a report, from which it clearly emerges—a report dated March of this year—that prominent Senators in America, where, as hon. members know, the Senate is a very important body, are now beginning to express doubts as to the position of UNO. Serious doubts are being expressed in regard to the fact that America uses UNO as an instrument for its foreign policy.

Senator Fullbright, a prominent man, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, wrote in the Foreign Affairs Quarterly—

Mr. McCloy, whom I know personally, and who, until recently, was an intimate friend and also an adviser of President Kennedy—

Also the former Vice-President, Nixon, whose Government, under President Eisenhower, was a strong supporter of UNO, now has his doubts—

UNO is now trying to obtain money, because that organization is literally insolvent. Now they are trying to persuade member-countries to lend them money, and many countries do not want to do so, because who wants to lend money to an insolvent business? This is what Mr. Nixon said—

Now I come to Senator Jackson, a very prominent Senator. This is what he said—

He said, further—

And then Senator Jackson made this statement, which gives me particular pleasure, in view of what happened at the last session, when Mr. Adlai Stevenson was responsible for the bitter attack on South Africa by Mr. Plimton, the U.S.A. representative in the Special Committee—

That is the position in regard to the United Nations, and now this hon. member is concerned that we will now face opposition at UNO! What surprised me, if I understood him correctly—and if I did not he can correct me—is that he practically approved of the attack made on Goa by Nehru. He said: “Yes, but India warned Goa beforehand.”

No, you are wrong.

I am surprised that any member of the Opposition could make such a remark, and that he could try to find an excuse for India’s deliberate aggression against Goa. [Interjections.] If I have misunderstood the hon. member, I will refer to his Hansard, but that is how I understood it, because he said that India warned Portugal previously.

No, warned Britain.

I am prepared to give the hon. member an opportunity to tell us what he said.

I said that, because of India’s membership of the Commonwealth, Britain warned Portugal that she would not take any action against a member of the Commonwealth.

Then it is still worse! It means that this Commonwealth, of which hon. members of the Opposition are so anxious that we should remain a member, now condones aggression—and that in spite of one statement after another in which Nehru protested that India stands for peaceful methods, that India is opposed to any form of aggression. It is true that Lord Home reprimanded India in a weak, half-hearted manner. The fact is that the Western nations have a real fear—something about which I have often complained—of the Afro-Asian group. Because of this fear of the Afro-Asian group, South Africa is today also being attacked by certain Western nations. They attack us there, but in the Lobby they tell us: You must not take this too seriously; we are compelled to do so. There was the case of Holland supporting the motion of censure. They frankly admitted that Holland had two Black Provinces, and that they could not afford to get into disfavour with their Black Provinces. In the second place they were afraid, because of the position in Indonesia. Therefore, in their own interest, they voted for the Afro-Asian motion of censure of South Africa.

The same applies to the behaviour of Israel. The President of Israel stated—I have his statement here in their official publication. I read what appeared in their own publication, The Israel Digest. The Prime Minister, Mr. Ben-Gurion, explains why they voted for the motion of censure—

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

In the ten minutes remaining to me, I just want to mention one or two points in connection with the matter we discussed this morning. I return to the hon. member for Pine lands (Mr. Thompson) and certain submissions he has made. Inter alia, he has said: “South Africa no longer has access to British information.” That is not quite correct. We no longer receive the regular reports, such as those from embassies, etc., but I have entered into a personal arrangement in terms of which we still exchange information on matters of common interest. We do this not only with Britain, but with certain other countries as well. In this regard we are therefore not worse off.

Then he has said: “The United States put pressure on Great Britain to exclude South Africa from receiving information of a military nature.” That is not correct.

No, I did not say that. I quoted something and I said it appeared in the report, but I am almost certain that I did not quote that part.

There was such a report. This report was denied by the British Government within a day. What is more, it was immediately denied by the United States Government. There is therefore no truth in that story. Both Governments immediately denied it.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition, the United Party, have relied particularly on the attacks made on South Africa at the most recent session of UNO, but what is especially interesting is that in the case of the motion of censure on South Africa (I think I have said this before, there was, as far as I could ascertain, not one American newspaper of status which did not deplore unreservedly the attack on South Africa. The Washington Post described the majority which voted for the proposal as “a lot of fishwives”. But the American newspapers also criticized their own delegation strongly “for sitting on their hands” instead of supporting South Africa. Hon. members will therefore see that there is a feeling of goodwill towards South Africa. The newspapers immediately reacted to the motion of censure.

Then I want to ask this question: If it is really the position that South Africa is isolated, why have the boycott movements practically all expired? Those which are still in existence, are dying. They have practically all been called off. The British boycott has been called off completely; the Swedish boycott has been called off, and even Egypt is having difficulty in keeping the boycott going. These boycott movements have practically disappeared, as we prophesied. If we are then so isolated, why has there been this big increase in immigration, an exceptional increase? Only recently practically a shipload of British immigrants arrived here—more than 200 of them, if I remember correctly.

Is that the new Minister?

No, it has nothing to do with that. It is due to confidence in South Africa. These people do not pay any attention to the stories which try to place South Africa under suspicion. That is why there is this increase. There is the question of armaments. We are obtaining the armaments we want. We are buying them from America, Britain and also from France. Recently certain arrangements were again entered into regarding armaments from America. This is not isolation. There are good reasons for the improved attitude towards South Africa. One of the main reasons is that in our country we have peaceful conditions. Yes, there are subversive organizations, but compare our position with conditions to the north. Start at the top with Ghana and Nigeria, Kenya, Northern Rhodesia and recently even in Southern Rhodesia where on two or three occasions several Natives have been shot dead during disturbances. Our country is calm and we want to keep our country calm. That is the reason for the precautionary measures which we recently took by adopt-ting legislation to combat sabotage. While the position is calm here, it is not calm elsewhere. Britain is now being attacked. Mr. Macmillan told us here in this building about the “winds of change That was a warning which he directed to us. Now Britain, and Mr. Macmillan, have the “winds of change” in their faces! To-day they are having far more difficulty with the “winds of change” than South Africa.

What I have found particular noticeable about the Press in South Africa is that a greater degree of sympathy is being shown for Britain in leading articles and elsewhere, now that Britain is being attacked at UNO, than those newspapers have evinced towards South Africa. The reason for the attacks on South Africa is of course the attitude of the African States. That is the underlying reason, but to-day they are attacking Britain in exactly the same way! We have seen what happened at UNO this week; we see what is happening as regards Kenya. It is not only South Africa that is being attacked.

Another factor which contributes to these attacks is the attitude in the first place of the Opposition. The speeches which they make here are sent abroad, and are used at UNO against us. The speeches made on the Sabotage Bill for example were all sent abroad. We can therefore be certain that at the next sitting of UNO those speeches will be quoted against us, just as the speech by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) was quoted in full at the last session. And there are the Press reports by certain correspondents in South Africa which contribute greatly to the attacks on South Africa. There is Stanley Uys. His reports are used against South Africa. He is now abroad. What harm he is doing there I do not know. This represents Press sabotage of South Africa. That is what I call the distasteful attacks which are being made on our country through the pen of a certain Stanley Uys. Recently a report appeared in the Toronto Telegram in Canada containing one of the most distasteful attacks on South Africa which was written by a certain MacClellan who is their correspondent in Johannesburg. I have sent it to the hon. the Prime Minister for his information. This was a report which swarmed with untruths and distortions. Fortunately these reports are exaggerated, with the result that these attacks no longer have the effect that they had previously. If I am to judge by the reports which I receive from our embassies, there is not the slightest doubt that a change in South Africa’ favour is taking place.

Mr. Speaker, it is not South Africa which is in isolation. It is the United Party. They sit there in political isolation. They have recently gained three recruits in the persons of the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman), the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) and Senator Fagan. There is old saying to the effect that if you can’t get crumb you must fain eat crust”.

How very different the speech of the hon. the Minister was from what we would have liked to have heard from a Minister of Foreign Affairs! How we would have wished to have had an intelligent assessment of our international position. How we would have wished to have had a statement on the dangers that lie ahead. How one would have hoped for an appeal to the whole of South Africa to support a foreign policy that would have been acceptable to all the people of this country! And what have we had? We have had a speech based, as always in the past, on a huge number of cuttings. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in his youth started cutting out paper dolls, and then went on from paper dolls to cutting out comic cuts, and from there taking up the shears and graduating to the Cape Times until now he has his huge collection of cuttings. Judging by his speech, Sir, I am afraid that he is rapidly returning again to the old paper doll phase.

The hon. Minister had scarcely started his speech, he had scarcely opened his mouth when he put his foot in it, in a way which underlines the completely ludicrous, stupid and inane policy of this Government during this Session of Parliament. You will remember, Sir, that early in his speech the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs quoted from a speech by a certain Mandela. Does the hon. the Minister not know that only a few weeks ago we passed a Bill in this very House which prohibited, under the most dire penalties, the quoting of the words of people such as Luthuli, Mandela and Sebukwe? Indeed, Sir, if this sort of thing goes on the hon. the Minister might be the first victim of the Sabotage Act. He should remember that he is not allowed to quote Mr. Mandela and those who think like him. I should like to know if I were to quote Mr. Mandela in a country district like Beaufort West whether I would be run in under the Sabotage Act?

The hon. Minister spoke about the European Common Market and our relation to it. He was quite happy about it. He said that the fact that we had left the Commonwealth would not in any way affect our position in relation to the European economic community or the European Common Market. In support of his statement he read a cutting from the Financial Times. He himself admitted that the Financial Times was one of the most authoritative financial papers in the whole world. I accept that, Sir. But, Sir, I also have cuttings from the Financial Times. The hon. the Minister is not the only person who collects cuttings. Recently there appeared a feature in the Financial Times “The South African Scene” in which the following words appear about the European Common Market. This article says that a report was made by the Federated Chamber of Industries, a report also sent to the hon. Ministers of the Cabinet and I believe very thoroughly studied by them. That report, amongst other things, contained the following. I now read from the same Financial Times from which the Minister quoted—

Then it adds—

A complete negation of what the hon. the Minister quoted from the Financial Times. The Financial Times adds:

When you collect coins and stamps, Sir, the most valuable ones are the oldest ones. However, when one collects newspaper cuttings the most valuable ones are the most recent ones. I should like to know from the Minister what the date of his Financial Times is. You see, Sir, mine bears the date of last Saturday. It was printed five days ago in London; the ink is still wet on this air mail edition. I believe that my cutting is probably more recent than that of the hon. Minister.

The first point made by the hon. the Minister was the oft-repeated cry on his part that South Africa was forced out of the Commonwealth. After hearing that statement repeated over and over again I am beginning to attach some belief to it. But if I do admit that we were forced out of the Commonwealth, agreeing with the hon. the Minister, then I add that we were forced out of the Commonwealth through the stupidity of the actions of our representatives at the Commonwealth conference. It was aptly described in a copy of the American magazine Time in which an observer at that conference said the following about the hon. the Prime Minister—

That is Dr. Verwoerd—

Had this been the uncorroborated report of a single observer, one might still have doubted it, but if we look at the statement made by Mr. Macmillan after we had left the conference, or at the statement made by Mr. Duncan Sandys, we realize that the greatest blame attaches to our representatives at that conference. Mr. Macmillan stated in his speech that there had been discrimination in the past under Gen. Smuts and under Gen. Botha, but that it had been discrimination which had led to the advancement of all sections of the people, while the discrimination practised by this Government …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he also prepared to read what Mr. Menzies said after that conference?

I am sorry the hon. member was absent when the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke. I do not blame him for being absent. That particular speech of Mr. Menzies was quoted. In support of what I have said, I want to quote to the hon. member what Mr. Duncan Sandys, the Minister of Commonwealth Relations of the House of Commons, said. He said this—

That is Mr. Macmillan—

Our membership of the Commonwealth hinged on such a small issue, Sir! Yet the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs could not take that chance; he was not resilient enough; he did not have sufficient diplomatic finesse to maintain our relation with the Commonwealth.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the debate we have had over the last few days. Never before in my recollection has a new Government of a new Parliament accomplished so little, disappointed so many and destroyed so much as this Government during this present Session. This debate has revealed the complete incompetence, the cynicism and lack of concern for the common man which this Government has to-day. All the indignant stutterings of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) cannot hide the fact that our unemployment figure is as high to-day as it has ever been. All the bombast of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) cannot hide the fact that there are more summonses for debt to-day than ever before in our history. They are signs of real misery, of the suffering of people. The sufferings of those people are being ignored by this Government in an absolutely cynical and indefensible way.

When we hear all this talk about the huge reserves which we have built up in this country, I admit that those reserves exist. Admittedly having big reserves is better than having no reserves. Big reserves are a fine thing in a free economy—then they are a sign of great prosperity and economic advancement. But are our present reserves a sign of that free economy, or are they symptoms of economic dropsy, of economic elephantisis, symptoms of the ills forced on to this country by excessive import controls, by excessive exchange controls, of sins caused by the riotous living of this Government on the London Stock Exchange, where they cannot decide whether they should be a bull or a bear on the Kaffir market?

What about the election at Kroonstad?

I have no idea what the hon. member is talking about. He can come and stand against me at Orange Grove. Mr. Speaker, do we realize how the common man’s interests in South Africa are being ignored by this Government to-day? It is not only unemployment, it is not only the wages which are being paid to people in industry and in mining which make the position of the common man unbearable. What is the position of the people employed by the Government itself—members of the Public Service, of the Railways, of the Post Office? They are suffering under this Government to-day. There are 300,000 of them. Are hon. members opposite telling me that there are no complaints to-day from the Railways, from the Post Office, from the Public Service? Do they realize that a commission of inquiry had to be appointed to inquire into the Post Office complaints? Mass meetings of postal employees are being held throughout the country.

I can now reveal something in connection with the Railways, Sir. Do hon. members realize that last year in September a directive went out from the hon. Minister, saying that no further graded posts which became vacant had to be filled unless they were absolutely vitally necessary? Yes, there was a deliberate introduction of stagnation into the Railway personal position. No further graded posts were to be filled, Sir. That was the directive sent out by the General Manager of the Railways and it has not been withdrawn since. The General Manager and the Assistant General Manager have been told to make a report every month of how many of these vacant posts are still being forcibly kept vacant.

This debate this Session has indeed been cold comfort to the agricultural community. I have been in the constituencies of many of the hon. members sitting on the other side. Do you know, Sir, that I was told by a Nationalist maize farmer in the Western Transvaal that one-third of the maize farmers in that area were threatened by bankruptcy within the next 12 months unless something radically was done to assist them?

You are politically bankrupt.

Is that the only comment that hon. member has to make? Is that all the sympathy he has for those people who are suffering under the policy of this Government? They should indeed hear what the farmers are saying about them in their own constituencies, amongst others the constituency of the hon. member for Brits. There is a growing dissatisfaction and a feeling that they are being sold down the river by this Government. What are we doing to find markets for the produce of our farmers? How can we find markets inside South Africa? Surely we can do that by expanding immigration, by creating prosperity among the people.

What is your solution?

My solution is to improve the economy of the country by changing the Government. Then you could spend more money on assistance to the farmers and less on defence. The Department of Agriculture has sent a mission to America to study the quota system. In other words they want to enforce lower production, to enforce the limiting of the production of our soil while thousands and thousands of citizens of this country lack the necessary nourishment for a full and healthy life.

One of the main features which I deplore in this Government and which has become increasingly evident in this past session, is the growth of this vast propaganda machine on which this Government has its hands to-day. It is a machine which is being made into a brain-washing implement, not only for the Whites but for the Indians, the Bantu and the Coloureds in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has now become one of the biggest Press barons in this country. He has gained control in the biggest city of South Africa of all the Afrikaans newspapers, the morning, evening and Sunday papers. Few people have had such Press control in their hands. We all remember the debate earlier this Session in which we stressed that however innocent a person may be—and I grant he is innocent—it is utterly undersirable for a member of the Government also to be on the board of directors of a newspaper company. Instead of heeding this warning, the hon. the Minister has indeed become a second Lord Rothermere with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) as his Horatio Bottomley. The hon. the Prime Minister is at the head of a newspaper empire to-day which controls Dagbreek, the Transvaler, Hayne & Gibson etc. I have a long list of publications which he publishes and partly controls, published at the expense of the taxpayer of South Africa. Do you realize, Sir, that these firms have publishing contracts for more than R500,000,000 a year? The list of their publications is endless.

Less than the Cape Times.

The hon. member says less than the Cape Times, but there are no directors of the Cape Times sitting in the Cabinet. I am sure that if these firms, in fair tender procedure, make the lowest tender and get the contracts we would all accept it. Let them print these things, but I say it is wrong that a director should be a member of the Cabinet. It is not only the Press but also the radio which has become an organ of the Government. The Prime Minister and his Government have increased their hold on the minds of the people of South Africa. One cannot deny that indoctrination is growing and getting worse. There is to-day a Bantu Control Board on the S.A.B.C. It is not a Bantu Control Board, Sir, it is a Bantu Brain-washing Bureau. And who are the people in charge of it?

What is even worse, Sir, the Department of Information, which should be an instrument for stating our case abroad and fighting our case in other countries, has to a large extent—I believe under the direction of the Prime Minister—become an organ of internal propaganda. Do we realize that the Bantu information service, the Coloured information service and the Indian information service have all been placed under the hon. the Minister of Information? Will it be he—I do not know whether he will only be a puppet—or will it be his secretary, Mr. Wentzel du Plessis, who will be the big boss of that brain-washing outfit?

Order! I do not think it is proper to refer to the hon. Minister as a puppet.

I withdraw that, Sir, and I say that I trust that he will take a firm stand when the strings are pulled. Do we realize what is happening to an organization such as the South African Broadcasting Corporation? Taxpayers’ money is invested in that body and no shareholder knows where his money goes. Mr. Speaker, there is a veil of silence over the S.A.B.C., apart from the noise which comes over the radio. There is a veil of silence over the financial administration of the S.A.B.C. I can almost say this: Miss Bridgitte Bardotte, Miss Jayne Mansfield and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs share one common problem and that problem is: How much should one reveal? However, Sir, unlike the other two, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs plays it safe as regards the S.A.B.C. He has not even lifted the tiniest part of the hem of the first of the seven veils.

We have had this year a re-statement and a re introduction of this Bantustan problem. It has become practical policy to-day to dismember our country into eight independent states. The country which we love will be cut and torn asunder by the policy of this Government. If ever there can be a damning indictment of the Government, it will be one which says: You cut up our country; you tore it to pieces. If these eight states are to become independent then the logical consequence will be that they will have their own armies. The logical consequence of the policy of the hon. member for Brits and of the Prime Minister is that they will be blamed by future generations as the people who handed two or three million rifles over into the hands of the Bantu. They will be blamed by future generations for opening the borders of South Africa to communist infiltration. They will be the people who will have to carry the blame in the eyes of the generations of the future.

I should like to say something about the third clause in my hon. Leader’s amendment, the one in which we deplore the way in which, because of the policies of this Government, we have incurred the enmity of the countries of the West. Some months ago a Nationalist newspaper called our country the polecat of the world. Since then, unfortunately, we have not risen in international status and we have been in as bad odour as ever before. Why are we becoming estranged from the West? I do not believe that this Government is deliberately hostile towards the West. I believe that the Government would really like to make friends with the Western nations and Western democracy. Why have they failed? I say that it is because they are wooing the West the wrong way. They are wooing the West clothed in clodhoppers, a hair shirt, and with straw sticking in their hair, instead of going clothed in a decent and a proper way.

The greatest mistake that this Government is making is that it is taking too little heed of recognized Western values. This Government must realize that there are values which are immutable, which are unchangeable, values in which the rest of the democratic world believe in. These are the values of freedom, of democracy, and of the dignity of human beings. These are the values which were stated by Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill at the Atlantic Conference—freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom from fear, freedom from want. These are not mere words to the West; they mean a great deal to those people and they cannot understand what is happening when they see certain events in our country.

I am not denying that we have freedom of speech in this country. We do still have it. But when you find that dozens of people are prohibited by law and by regulations from addressing meetings, it is an infringement of freedom of speech. When you find an area such as the Parade in Cape Town or the City Hall steps in Johannesburg being declared out of bounds for political meetings, then you do have an infringement of freedom of speech. When you have threats to freedom of the Press, such as those voiced by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark or the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), then you get an infringement of freedom of speech. These threats are made known abroad. The Minister of Information knows they are published abroad. It is then that the people abroad ask: “What is happening in South Africa?” When they read that a paper is to be banned, a paper called Contact which in its attitude is not very different from the London Daily Mirror, a paper which I do not particularly like, can you blame them for wondering: “What is going on in that country? Are they undermining democracy? Is that the end of freedom in that country?”

I do not deny it, Sir, that we have freedom from fear in South Africa. But that does not apply to every citizen in this country. The threat of house arrest and the threat of arrest for not carrying a proper document are hanging over thousands of citizens of this country. The threat of banishment is a threat hanging over the heads of thousands of people. Sir, the West does not understand these things. These things infringe Western values and Western standards. Unless we follow a policy which does not contain these unnecessary infringements, we are doomed. We still continue to make more and more enemies in the rest of the world. We are losing the support of the West because we do not pay sufficient attention to the Western value of the dignity of the individual. Pass laws, the breaking of family life by preventing male and female Natives who are legally married from living together, are things which infringe on the dignity of the individual. The forcing of a Native labourer out of the big urban areas after 72 hours if he cannot find a job, is an infringement of his dignity.

On of the great Western values is parliamentary democracy. We believe in it. What is the West to say, what are our friends to say when they read that the Minister of Bantu Administration said at a meeting the other day that “there might be radical changes in Parliament”? What did that mean, Sir? We should like to have a reassurance from the hon. the Prime Minister on the situation. What is happening to conceptions of freedom in South Africa when the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) gets up, as he did the other day in this very debate, and says “Die Verenigde Party se beleid moet met ge-weld uitgeroei word”? You will find those words in Hansard, Sir.

Didn’t you want to do that to us?

It is now admitted by the hon. member for Brits. A member gets up in this House and he says that the Opposition’s policy must be eradicated by force. What concept will the rest of the world have of our parliamentary democracy if such things are said here, Sir? I believe in the integrity of our courts and their independence. But things are taking place and have taken place during this Session which horrified many of our friends in the Western world. Let me remind hon. members opposite that every time a law is made giving more arbitrary powers to a Minister, the light of justice is dimmed; every time we are told that compulsory punishment, be it five years or the lash, should be imposed the scales of justice are thrown out of balance. You may say these are small matters, Sir, but when viewed accumulatively the impression they make on the Western world is a vast one and an adverse one. It is the policy of this Government which is leading us away from our friends in the West.

Let us look at some of the major and minor blunders made during the past months. There was the International Labour Conference. There was a long discussion about who the delegates should be, but ultimately the Government did the right thing and allowed Mr. Deane to go abroad as one of our representatives. But with what ungraciousness did they do it! With how many reservations did they agree, and with how many dark forebodings as to what would happen next time! Here was a chance indeed to do something splendid, but they spoit it by their own actions. Take job reservation. Do hon. members realize the harm that policy is doing us in the rest of the world? In Britain there will probably be a Labour Government within the next five or ten years. There is a strong possibility of a Labour-Socialist Government in Western Germany, and the Socialist Party is growing in Italy. What is going to happen to South Africa in the eyes of the West when you have Labour Governments in those important countries and they find what is being done to-day in South Africa under job reservation?

I believe that the Bantustan policy is one of the major blunders of this Government. They wanted to placate the West by means of that policy but they will not succeed in doing so. Indeed, they are going against the interests of the West with their Bantustan policy. Should these areas become independent, they are making it possible for seven more African anti-White representatives to go to UN, where they will vote with the Afro-Asian group against the West. That is the consequence of the Bantustan policy, eight Black babies left on the doorstep of UN by this Government, and it will open the country to communist infiltration.

There have been major blunders in the sphere of defence and blunders have dogged the footsteps of the Minister of the Interior. We in the West value the individual. What will the West think when they see what is happening in this country in regard to race classification, whereby if you say you belong to one race it does not mean that you are accepted as a member of that race, where pigmentation depends on pig-iron, where you have such a cuckoo-land that a Chinese citizen may not live with his legally married Chinese wife under certain circumstances. No wonder the West waves its hands in despair and says: What on earth is happening in South Africa? Are the people there going mad? Are they off their rocker?

The hon. the Minister of Information will not be able to dispel those ideas. These problems will grow. We shall have to find markets not only in the West but also in the East for our surplus products and the products of our industries. I believe there is a very good market for maize in the East, in Formosa, but that again brings the problem of delegates coming from there to make arrangements here, and petty apartheid measures are making these things more and more difficult. I also believe that there is quite a strong possibility of developing a big market for our brandy in the Philippines. [Laughter.] Instead of that, we are being made the laughingstock of the world to-day.

It is, however, in the sphere of foreign affairs that we see our worst failure. Nowhere is our isolation more obvious. Unfortunately the time seems to have passed of talking only at UN. The time has now come when UN has been adopting resolutions calling for definite action against South Africa. Do we realize the dangers we are in should one of those resolutions calling for action find a two-thirds majority at UN, a resolution calling for boycotts, for breaking off diplomatic relations with South Africa, and for refusal to unload our ships and grant landing rights to our aircraft? These are resolutions calling for action against us and the votes against us are growing. Thank goodness there is still not a two-thirds majority against us, but in six months the vote against us grew by no less than twelve. Therefore it is essential that we should alter our policies. Even if the Government wishes to retain the basis of their apartheid policy, let them at least cease with the petty apartheid measures which are making enemies for us abroad. The people there can understand differentiation, and as Mr. Macmillan said, they can understand the type of discrimination as applied by General Smuts and General Botha, but not these petty measures.

My time is running out, so I can only say that we are now in the last day of the Session. We are leaving the Western Cape. We are leaving the cold front coming in, and we are leaving the fog and the icy North-west wind. But wherever we may go in the Northern Provinces to escape this weather, there is a cold front that we cannot avoid, and that is the cold front of world hostility. There is an icy blast that we cannot escape, and that is the icy blast of growing unemployment and difficulties for the common man in South Africa. There is a fog which will continue to penetrate our country, the fog of this vast brain-washing propaganda machine of the Government. If that is a gloomy picture, I can only say there is a great deal of light in the fact that we have in this Parliament a responsible alternative Government, a Government which will be able to send the flood of capital running through the veins of our economy, a Government which will bring prosperity to our industries and our mines, a Government which will show deep concern for the common man and the unemployed, a Government which will uphold the honour of South Africa in the world and make friends for us in the West, a Government which will prevent the Balkanization and the cutting up of South Africa, and a Government which will maintain in a race federation the unity of our country, the prosperity of its economy and the dignity of all its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the criticism has already been expressed during this debate that what we have had has not really been an Appropriation debate, a debate which one expects to be devoted to important matters of policy and the criticisms of the Opposition regarding these important matters. As far as the first two days are concerned, that has been the criticism. It has been pointed out that what was said during the first two days should really have been said on the Votes of the Ministers of Agriculture, Labour and Foreign Affairs, and that that was the time and place to discuss those matters. I just want to say at once that to me this criticism seems a little unreasonable. I think it is unreasonable in the sense that it shows no understanding of the difficult position in which the Opposition finds itself. I think it is unreasonable because it is a little inhuman towards the United Party in the sorry plight in which it finds itself. Let us start with the Leader of the Opposition. He was in a dilemma. On what should he base his speech? What should be his main criticism of the Government? What should be the “Keynote” of his speech? I want to ask those people who are now so quick to criticize: Have they ever thought of what they would have done in such a position? Do not be too hard on the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite. If one was in the same dilemma, one might have tried something else, but it would probably have had the same tragic results. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition eventually decided on agriculture with unfortunate consequences.

Yes, for the Government.

This was obviously a very clumsy and ham-handed attempt to make political capital, to seek votes. They had to try to get the votes of some of the farmers. They had to try to get some of the votes of the Jews. That is why they have concentrated on these aspects, and this was the main theme of the whole debate. I say the consequences have been rather unfortunate because the speech of the Leader of the Opposition has to a large extent been contradicted by his main speaker on agricultural matters, the new member for East London City (Dr. Moolman) and because the Leader of the Opposition learnt over so much towards the farmers that he has got into difficulties with the consumers. But what is still worse. I wonder whether he really thinks he has helped the agricultural industry by describing South Africa as a beggar who is approaching the European Common Market? The word he used was a “mendicant”. I immediately objected to this. At this stage when the Minister of Economic Affairs is negotiating to obtain the best conditions for us in Europe, does he think he is helping the agricultural industry when he sticks him in the back and says he is a mendicant? Is a country a mendicant with such a high import potential as South Africa, one of the highest in the world? It is nearly 30 per cent of the national income. Is a country like South Africa a mendicant for markets when it has available strategic material which all other countries would very much like to have? It is in a wonderful bargaining position, but the hon. member says it is merely a mendicant. And the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) was very cross with me when I made that interjection. We have had the customary outburst from the hon. member, and I want to say at once that I always admire the energy of the hon. member’s indignation, but at the same time I always deplore the fact that it is not used for a better purpose. After the first two days, when it was clear that this attack was getting them nowhere, that the whole debate was going off the rails despite the fact that the attacks on the Ministers of Agriculture were launched to a large extent after they had already spoken, and despite the fact that these were matters which could have been discussed on their Votes, then the leaders, the front-benchers of the Opposition, rose to criticize them. But this was an obvious failure, and then the debate took a different turn. To-day we have had the speech by the hon. member for Pine lands (Mr. Thompson). Allow me to say at once that this is the type of speech which should be made on this occasion. I am not referring to its contents. But what I do want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is this: Was his speech a true reflection of the opinions and the policy of the United Party? Because if it was, why was a newcomer to this House appointed to make this type of speech? Why was it not one of the front-benchers who did so? Or were they perhaps afraid that if they committed one of their front-benchers to the opinions expressed in that speech, it would be disastrous for the United Party. I want to ask the hon. member that question, and he must tell me. The trend of that speech was that it was in South Africa’s interests to return to the Commonwealth, and I want to know whether that is the attitude of the United Party? I am referring to this new Commonwealth which is predominantly Black. If I am not mistaken, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition expressed himself very cautiously on this point not so long ago. He spoke of returning to the Commonwealth if it was in South Africa’s interests. But the hon. member for Pine lands has indicated quite clearly that it is in the interests of South Africa; she has lost far more than she has gained. She has gained practically nothing and lost everything. I think it is a reasonable inference that in order to regain what we have lost, we must return, and that it would be in the interests of South Africa to do so. I now want to ask the Leader of the Opposition: Does he agree that under present conditions and bearing in mind the new character of the Commonwealth it would be in the interests of South Africa for us to return to the Commonwealth?

Will you become a member of the new Black Commonwealth which you want to establish in South Africa?

I can appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition finds it difficult to answer my question but he must do so. But he is obliged to evade it, and I therefore say that he or one of his front benchers did not make that speech but that he left it to one of the newcomers to this House.

Before turning to a more positive aspect of the debate, I just want to deal with certain of the contributions which have been made and the information which has been requested. In the first place the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) has asked whether the time has not come for us to be more emphatic in advocating an increase in the price of gold. I want to tell him that there are also tactical reasons which one must take into account. I do not want to say that we shall not do so, because at the moment it seems to me as though gold is speaking for itself and speaking far more emphatically than I or anyone else could speak. When we examine what is happening in the world to-day, when one sees the persons who are now advocating a rise in the price of gold, including a former member of the House of Commons in England who has been a deputy minister and when one sees his plea and the reasons he has given, I think we should let gold speak for itself for a while. But we are watching the position and if it is necessary for South Africa to add her voice, we shall not fail to do so.

The hon. member for Pine lands has already been answered to a certain extent by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. But I just want to say one thing for his consideration. If we had remained in this Black Commonwealth and if we had continually quarrelled with our fellow members of the club, what effect does he think that would have had on the economic position of South Africa? I think that we are now in any case removed from the immediate heat of those surroundings and that partnership, and although they can still irritate us from afar, it causes far less confusion in the economic position of South Africa than would have been the position if we had remained in the Commonwealth and had continually to listen to the statements by our fellow members which they are still making to-day, but not as fellow members of the Commonwealth. I do not know which Commonwealth the hon. member for Pinelands is championing and to which Commonwealth he wants to return. If he wants to return to the old Commonwealth, there may be justification for what he has said. But he himself has indicated—and I think this is something of an injustice to Britain—that Britain did not criticize India for an obvious case of aggression simply because India was a fellow member. I think that it is a very dangerous position if it has become the custom for the Commonwealth to violate its own conscience and not to raise its voice against a fellow member, and we are already seeing what thanks Britain has received for her attitude. As regards Southern Rhodesia, has India shown the same understanding towards Britain as Britain showed towards her, by not criticizing her, and by not associating herself with those who are attacking Britain? No, they have been quite prepared to vote with the communist countries in the Afro-Asian group against Britain. I am not even referring to the other members of the Commonwealth such as Ghana and Nigeria, who have done the same thing. I do not think that this is a Commonwealth to which even the hon. member, if he will reconsider the position, would want us to belong.

The hon. member for Pine lands has also discussed our prestige in the outside world. Does the House know that it was my experience during my trip through Europe last year that the prestige of South Africa has never been higher than it has been since she became a Republic? The people on the Continent are not so familiar with the constitutional position prevailing in the Commonwealth. To many of them it now seems as though South Africa has for the first time become an independent country and they now treat us with the respect which is the due of a strong independent nation, and they do so to a far greater extent than they did in the past when they were under the impression that in some way or another we were still tied to Britain.

Then I just want to say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). We have listened to a tirade such as we have often heard before. It consisted of a lot of warmed-up points which we have already heard when considering the Votes of the various Ministers. I think I can honestly say that there was nothing new. But the hon. member to the accompaniment of a great fanfare asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs who had quoted from the Financial Times: “What was the date of the issue you have quoted, because I have quoted from the issue of 15 June; it is the latest; the ink is not yet even dry.” I just want to tell the hon. member that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was reading from a leading article of the Financial Times, not an article written by a correspondent, nor the report of one or other association, but the editorial opinion of the Editor, and it appeared yesterday. [Laughter.] If the hon. member was equally careful in reading the newspapers and not only the Cape Times he would have seen that in this morning’s Burger it is reported that in the opinion of the Financial Times of London, South Africa should not be in a worse position than a Commonwealth country such as Australia for example as a result of the arrangements being made by the European Economic Community and Britain’s proposed entry. This paper discussed the matter yesterday in a leading article. And it is reported in to-day’s newspapers. I hope the hon. member will now know what the position is. That particular Financial Times has not even been received here as yet. I am afraid the hon. member’s powder (twak) was a little wetter than the ink on the newspaper.

I now want to deal with certain questions which have been put to me. The hon. member for Pine town (Mr. Hopewell) has asked me certain questions. The latest figures relating to the revenue and loan accounts for 1961-2 are as follows. On revenue account revenue totalled R732,500,000 and expenditure R717,500,000, leaving a surplus of R15,000,000. On loan account the balance at 31 March 1962 was R38.4 million. All these figures however, are still provisional. They have not yet been finalized. I shall return to these figures presently. He ha asked what the Government intends doing about the high level of our reserves. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has also discussed this matter, and in parentheses he has made certain proposals regarding taxation reforms which we shall take into account when we consider the matter. I just want to say that this high level is not only due to import and exchange control, but our exports have also risen greatly and our gold production has increased considerably. Our exports have been at a considerably higher level than that of the previous year. In 1961, including gold production, they totalled R1,502,000,000 and in 1960 the figure was R1,409,000,000. This is an increase of nearly R100,000,000. But I also want to say that the level of approximately R400,000,000 which we have now reached is not particularly high in relation to our imports and in comparison with other countries. The hon. member has said that this is a test which is often applied, one must have sufficient reserves to be able to pay for one’s imports over a certain period, and the usual standard is that the period should be four to six months. One of the members of the Fund who has been here has calculated that a safe period is six months. But I just want to tell hon. members what our position is at the moment. Our reserves cover the imports for approximately 4.4 months, and this is not particularly high when we compare it with the position in other countries. In Australia the period is 6.1 months, and in Belgium the period for which the reserves must cover the imports is 4.7 months. In France it is 5.8 months, in Germany 6.7 months, in Italy 7.9 months, and in the Federation 5.1 months. Our reserves are therefore not yet at such a high level that bearing in mind the changed circumstances we can be satisfied with the position, particularly when we take into account that we are now entering the lean period as far as our reserves are concerned, and particularly when we bear in mind the vulnerability of our capital account, especially with this large amount of portfolio investments in South Africa which is estimated to total between R600,000,000 and R800,000,000. During the 18 months from 1 January 1960 to the end of June 1961, approximately R121,000,000 in net capital left the country to purchase these portfolio shares for South Africa. Despite the R120,000,000 which we have bought back, over and above what we have bought in the meantime, there is still anything between R600,000,000 to R800,000,000 worth of this type of investment held abroad. We must bear this in mind when we decide whether our reserves are such that we can relax the position somewhat. We must consider our imports; we must consider our foreign loans which we have to repay from time to time. These are all matters which we must take into account. Hon. members will remember that in my Budget speech I said it was desirable to maintain our reserves at a higher level in future and I said at the same time that this did not mean that no relaxation in exchange control was possible. And, what is more, I later announced certain relaxations, and have recently done so once again in the case of travelling allowances. As regards capital control, we have just introduced the blocked rand loans and the scheme for the purchase of shares in London, steps which must inevitably have an effect on our reserves. We shall first have to see what the results of this scheme are, and whether it may not endanger our reserves. I think this may also be a good opportunity to tell hon. members that the applications under the blocked rand loan scheme totalled R3,476,000 during the first month. We have just completed the first month. As hon. members know, we open this scheme from the 9th to the 21st of the month. In view of the very favourable conditions attaching to the loan, this relatively small demand is to me and I think to anyone who is interested in these matters proof of the renewed confidence amongst foreign investors. They have not been overhasty to take out their money through the medium of a blocked rand loan. If they had little confidence they would have taken the very first opportunity to do so. The difference between the London and Johannesburg Stock Exchange prices has also dropped considerably, and to-day the difference between the two is perhaps anywhere between 10 per cent to 15 per cent. We shall grant further relaxations, as in the past, when we consider that this can be done, but we must not think for one moment, seeing that we should like to maintain this new level, particularly at this time of the year when we are almost at the peak, that we can make concessions which may endanger our reserves.

I now come to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). The hon. member has once again spoken in terms which sometimes makes one wonder whether he does not get into difficulties with his bank. He has dealt particularly with our unemployment figures and he has cast doubt on those figures. He has read from a certain journal to show that a different system is used in America. I do not know which is the best. There are other systems as well; it is all a matter of definition. To a certain extent he has reason to cast doubt on our unemployment statistics, but what surprises me is this. He immediately proceeded to use the employment statistics for his own purposes; then he had no doubts about the reliability of those figures. But this is what the head of the Department of Economic Research and Statistics of the Reserve Bank has said about the employment figures in the quarterly bulletin for March of this year. He says that this index which is based on the information gained from sample tests, underestimates the actual increase in industrial employment. But the hon. member is prepared to accept these figures when it suits him. However, he does not want to accept the other figures because they do not suit him. But the hon. member has also referred to the small increase in the retail turnover, and here he has once again referred to these statistics; then they suited him. He says that there has only been a slight revival in the retail trade, but once again he has forgotten what the Reserve Bank has said about these same statistics on which he now relies—

Which statistics can one then use?

Exactly, but that is not my point. It may be that all three of these statistics suffer from deficiencies, but I say that when it suits the hon. member they have no deficiencies, but when they do not suit him he keeps quiet. I do not expect that from the hon. member. He must then accept all of them, with deficiencies and all, or he must say that they are all riddled with deficiencies. For the moment I accept all of them. As regards our employment statistics, he has said that the average increase in our population is approximately two per cent per annum and for this reason additional employment opportunities should be provided at the rate of two per cent per annum, that was his argument. He then said: Let us take the last four years. On the basis of the test he has laid down, there should have been an increase of eight per cent in employment opportunities, that is to say four years at four per cent, and in actual fact the figure is only two per cent. But the hon. member has been very careful in picking his basic year. If he had taken eight years ago, then he would have found that it has risen by between 14 per cent and 15 per cent during those eight years, and this is very close to the two per cent he has mentioned. If he had only taken the figures for the last year, which might have been fair, he would have found that during this year the index in the case of manufacturing industry has risen by more than three points, i.e. just over two per cent, and in the case of the construction industry when we compare May 1961 with March 1962, it has risen from 103 to 110. In other words, during this one year it has risen by nearly seven per cent.

After it had first fallen by 15?

Yes, but the point is that it depends on which year one takes as a basis! I know the hon. member for Jeppes by this time; he is very clever in picking the best basic year for the sake of his argument, and I am merely mentioning the point so that we can also bear it in mind in future. I also doubt very much, if there is a two per cent increase in the population, whether it necessarily means that there is a two per cent increase in the labour force every year. I think that if the births show an increase of two per cent, there are still the persons who have reached the age where they can no longer work. There is always a certain degree of “wastage”. We do not have an exact percentage, but there are after all far fewer people reaching the age of 16 years annually than the number of births.

We have had a great movement from the platteland to the cities by people who cannot find employment.

I am now referring to the increase in the population. It is is 2 per cent, it does not necessarily mean that 2 per cent of the population turn 16 or 15 or 18 every year. That is a doubtful submission which the hon. member has made; however I leave it at that. I say it is doubtful; I do not want to put it any stronger than that.

The hon. member has also alleged that our fiscal policy is too conservative, that we over-tax the country, that we should rather budget for a deficit. I think the hon. member referred to America which does not mind budgeting for a deficit.

No, it is just the reverse. I said that countries in the European Community did not mind budgeting for a deficit.

I wonder whether the countries of the European community also have two accounts, a loan account and a revenue account.

Some of them have.

America has only one account, and if she budgets for a deficit on that one account, then on that basis we budget for a deficit nearly every year because if we put the two accounts together, there is a deficit. We do not cover all the amounts in the loan account from revenue account. If the hon. member is using America or the countries of Europe who have two accounts as an example, then he is on completely the wrong track; then these are two things which cannot be compared. It also depends to a large extent what is in the loan account and what in the revenue account. It is dangerous, particularly under the present circumstances, to try to have an unbalanced revenue account in South Africa, especially when we have a large loan account which we in any case cannot cover from revenue. Although our policy must always be flexible—and I have said from the outset that I do not want to be dogmatic about these matters—it is not desirable under present conditions to budget for a deficit on our revenue account. The big liquidity rate of our economy means precisely that inflationary pressure is going to be revived if at any time during this year there should be a strong economic revival. The Government has gone as far as it can safely go; it is now for the private sector to build on that basis.

The hon. member has discussed the decline in the consumption of food which now only represents 23 per cent. The general trend is for expenditure on food not to increase as rapidly as income, and this applies especially to foodstuffs such as mealies. But it is precisely for that reason that the Government is keeping the price of foodstuffs such as mealies and other products at a low level, and is making provision for food subsidies from year to year, the amount this year being approximately R30,000,000; this is being done to make food cheaper. But we also know that the weighting of the cost of living index has to be reviewed from time to time. The living pattern does not remain unchanged. It is for this reason that we could not continue with the basis of the 1938 index because it had become obsolete; new weighting had to be introduced, and in 1953 we adopted the new index. The hon. member does not take that into account. I asked him on what the other 77 per cent was being spent and he did not answer me.

The hon. the Minister completely misunderstood me. I said that an investigation by the University of South Africa had shown that of every R10 which was added to the earnings of people living on the poverty datum line, no less than 23 per cent was spent on food.

But on what is the other 77 per cent then spent?

My point was that if the standard of living was rising, then the per-capita consumption of food should also rise.

If I understood the hon. member correctly, then he said that in the case of workers at a certain income level, 23 per cent of every additional rand which they earned was spent on food. On what is the remaining 77c being spent? It means that that money is still available for spending on food if they wish to do so. It is not that they do not have the money, but that they are using it for other purposes. The reply which I could not get out of the hon. member was what the other 77c was being spent on?

It seems to me you are completely misunderstanding me. I said that when people became wealthier, they ate more.

I now want to proceed to another aspect. We are now at the end of the first year of the Republic and I think this is a suitable opportunity to see how we have progressed economically during the first year of the Republic. I just want to remind hon. members once again of how the Republic started, because it is just a year ago that the Republic was established. To indicate how we started, I think I can do no better than to read what hon. members opposite said of our economic position at the time the Republic was established. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said that our unfortunate position a year ago was due to our racial policy. We have not yet changed our racial policy. Let us see what truth there was in that statement because if our position was due to our racial policy, then that position should have gone from bad to worse, as the hon. member also prophesied would happen. I want to quote what he said on 20 June, approximately a year ago—

I have just given the hon. member the figures. The expectation expressed in my budget was that we would balance our accounts. During this year in which we would not reach those heights, we have received R15,000,000 more than we expected. The hon. member went on to say—

I assume with our racial policy—

I think I should at least, as a little light relief, also quote the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). I am sorry he is not here, because he would appreciate it himself. He became almost lyrical in discussing the difficulties with which we would be faced. He said—

“Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall,

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall,

All the King’s horses and all the King’s men,

Could not put Humpty Dumpty together again.”

He then qualified this statement and said that we should really say: “President’s” instead of “King’s”. But the fact remains that Humpty Dumpty is back! That is the position with which we started; we started this year with a capital out flow of R120,000,000, i.e. during the 18 months before we became a Republic. That is the position with which we were faced when we became a Republic. We were at that time practically at our nadir. The out flow had commenced long before we left the Commonwealth. We only left in March, but this out flow had already started in January, 1960. We started with a tremendous backlog, as I have indicated, and immediately before the initial year of the Republic, we left the Commonwealth, a step which was supposedly to bring all these disasters upon us.

Mr. Speaker, thus we started the Republic, and I now want to give the House a few figures to show we have progressed during this first year of the Republic. Our gross national production has increased tremendously. I do not want to give all the details at this stage. Our exports for the second half of 1961, that is to say the first six months of the Republic, totalled R475,000,000 that is to say R66,000,000 more than for the corresponding period during the previous year—for six months. Our mineral production has increased by approximately R19,000,000. The generation of electrical power rose from 176 to 186, that is to say by six or seven per cent. Our Railway revenue also increased. At 16 June 1961 our reserves stood at R162,000,000; at 15 June 1962, just a year later, they stood at R398.2 million, in addition we must remember there is still the R21,000,000 which we could draw to-morrow from our revolving credit with the American banks. When that is added, our reserves total practically R420,000,000. As far as our rates of interest are concerned, the hon. member for Constantia said here a year ago: “How can we expect to progress when we have these high rates of interest?” Our interest rate, our bank rate, was 5 per cent in July 1960; in July 1962 it was 4 per cent. The rate in respect of tendered Treasury bills was 4.73 per cent a year ago; last Friday, 15 June, it was 2.76 per cent. The rate in the case of our long-term Government stock was 5⅞ a year ago; to-day it is 5⅝, a reduction of a ¼ per cent. There as been a small rise in our unemployment figures, even on the basis of the hon. member’s figures; I give him that as a present because I do not want to do what he has done. In June of last year we had 31,600 unemployed, and the figure to-day is 32,500. Our exports for the period January to May of last year totalled 86,500,000; those were the five months just before we became a Republic; the figure for the first five months of this year was R406,000,000, that is to say R20,000,000 more. As regards share prices, the index in May last year stood at 82, while in May of this year it stood at 102. That is the index for gold shares. As far as industrial shares are concerned, the index in May of last year stood at 80; and in April of this year it stood at 116. Take our Government stock abroad. One hon. member opposite said last year: “Look how bad the position is; we can now buy Government stock abroad at a cheap price.” The Switzerland loan which at the time stood at 68.25, now stands at 88; it has risen by 20 points. The 5½ per cent loan in the U.S.A. stood at 86 a year ago and to-day it stands at nearly 96. In London the price last year was 761; this year one cannot buy for less than 871. This shows the confidence which the outside world has in the Republic; this is the picture formed by these figures. Take the South African share prices in London. Last year the difference between the London prices and the Johannesburg prices was approximately 20 per cent; I think it was more than 20 rather than less—and now it is perhaps 12 to 14 per cent. The gap between the two has narrowed considerably. As regards the blocked rand loans, I have already indicated what a small amount has been taken up because the people concerned have confidence in South Africa’s future. The value of the total permits issued for the purchase of shares is R889,000. I have already referred to the employment position. The value of approved building plans is less. Wholesale and retail sales, as the hon. member has said, have not been very lively during the past year, but they are still at a higher level than they were last year.

As far as the growth rate of our economy is concerned, I already said last year that it was not what it should be and that we should like to have a more rapid rate, but there are two reasons especially why the rate is not as high as it should be. The problems with which we are faced in this regard are set out in “A Survey of Contemporary Economic Conditions and Prospects for 1962”. Here the author says—

These were the problems which he had to try to solve in order to correct the psychological climate and to create increased spending power. I now just want to give the House one or two examples of the progress we have made in these two respects. I am reading here from a document which has been drawn up by a prominent member of the Reserve Bank. He has studied the various monetary and financial developments, and he says that the following inference must be drawn—

In other words, here we have the climate, which has now greatly improved. But just let us examine what other improvements have taken place. I do not want to read from the newspapers which normally support the Government, but here we have the Sunday Express of 3 June saying in banner headlines on its front page—

The reporter then discussed various aspects and said inter alia—The crisis atmosphere in business; last year has almost disappeared.

All this in the first year of our Republic! He then gives an interesting list of proposed investments with which the State and the private sector have initiated, and he says that the amount mentioned of R2,000,000,000 “which is to be spent on Government, semi-Government and private projects is an underestimate This is the activity to be found in the investment field. Here are the signs of revival and this is the point I want to make. The climate is right and there are signs of revival. I turn to another paper, the Sunday Times of a little earlier this year, that is to say towards the end of April—

The reporter then mentions all the plans of the private sector—

Then he refers to the new railway line which is being built in Swaziland and points out that a large proportion of the contracts will be carried out by South Africa. We have been given the contracts for that line. Then he refers to the fact that—

These are the signs of revival, and this in the first year of the Republic which, according to the Jeremiahs opposite who prophesied such terrible things for South Africa, was to be such a disastrous year. In every field in-improvement can be seen. I have here many other facts. Here we have another newspaper which has never really supported the Government, namely the Financial Times which said recently—

These are the opinions not of our supporters, but of people who do not normally support the Government. But I also have here opinions which have been expressed abroad. I have here a circular which has been sent out by one of the big brokerage firms in London which invests large amounts for its clients all over the world, including South Africa. I shall not give the names, but just read an extract—

And this is his report—

When one listens to the attacks by the Opposition on the Government, one really forgets that hardly six months ago we had a general election in our country which placed this side of the House, the Government, in an even stronger position than ever before. When one listens to hon. members opposite in their fruitless and clumsy attempts to make a little political capital, one would almost think that we are near the end of our five-year term of office. When we wanted to hold an election last year—normally an Opposition is only too eager to have an election—hon. members opposite were not at all enthusiastic, and rightly so. Their feeling was correct. We now understand, and they understand still better, why they were not enthusiastic about an election last year. He continued—

He says—

And he does so as well. This is a person who visits this country from time to time. He was here two years ago and has now been here again. He judges the position objectively, and these were his observations. This is the difference he found in the first year of the Republic, the amazing improvement which has already taken place. Here we have this position. Our State accounts show a surplus which is R15,000,000 higher than it was a year ago, despite everything hon. members have said, despite the fact that we have gone through very difficult times, despite the fact that we have had a balance of payments crisis, despite the fact that we have left the Commonwealth, despite the fact that our reserves were at their nadir. Despite all this, and I almost want to say despite the Opposition we have made this amazing progress in our first republican year. And why have we done so? Because the Government party has faith in South Africa, and faith in itself. It has shown its confidence, it has set the example.

And I now want to tell the House what the Government has done to restore confidence, to create the new psychological climate which is essential for economic revival, and which we are already seeing. Allow me just to give hon. members a few of the figures: We believe in private enterprise and the Government’s resources for bringing about a revival are therefore limited, but we can play our part in the first place through our fiscal policy. This is one of the methods which we can use not only to create confidence and not only to create an improved climate, but also to create a stronger incentive for investment. One of the aspects of our fiscal policy is increased expenditure by the State, for example on defence, a large part of which will be spent in South Africa, and which must serve as a stimulus in our overall economic revival. Then we have the Orange River scheme which is going to make a tremendous contribution to the expected economic revival, and this stimulus will not be neutralized by a moderate increase in taxation. Our taxes have been so designed that they are not intended to restrict production in any way. Moreover once P.A.Y.E. has been introduced, as has now been decided, the consequent exemption from the purchasing of tax redemption certificates will restore a considerable amount, i.e. plus minus R10,000,000 to the private sector which will also help to encourage investment and consumption. There is the repayment of the loan levy of approximately R18,000,000 during the course of this year, money which will be pumped into the private sector. There is the amount which we have given to the pensioners, namely R2,500,000. All these funds are available for consumption spending. This is what we have done as far as our fiscal policy is concerned and this represents a big contribution.

As regards our monetary policy as well, we have tried to provide encouragement. I am now not referring to the direct encouragement as regards exports or the encouragement we are giving in the form of initial allowances and investment allowances to industry. I do not even mention those aspects, but there is the recent reduction of the bank rate by the Reserve Bank, which means that this rate has been reduced by a total of 1 per cent since December. I understand that the rates of the commercial banks have already been reduced, and that the others will also now be reduced. In other words, there can no longer be the complaint that capital for investment purposes is too expensive. Our monetary policy has been so designed that we are facilitating this development. This is what the Government has done through the use of its second weapon, i.e. its monetary policy.

But it still has its third weapon, namely the development plans of the large public utility companies, these semi-State corporations, such as Iscor, Sasol, Foscor and Escom. Their large plans have already been announced and they will soon get into their stride and can exercise a very marked stimulating influence on the economy.

This is what the Government has done, and I think we have succeeded because we have established a measure of political stability in South Africa. When one looks at the other countries which are now facing difficulties, we see that one of the greatest assets we have is the political stability which prevails here in South Africa. Together with this there is our economic stability. These are not “fancy schemes we have not lightly budgeted for a deficit; these are not paper schemes, but constitute a conservative yet flexible policy which has been followed for years past, and was also followed by my predecessors and to a large extent when the United Party was in power as well. They also followed a conservative policy because for a long time they had a good Minister of Finance. This is our contribution towards improving the climate and to overcoming the investment tardiness, the hesitation to invest. We have played our part. Now it is up to the private sector to step in and to play its part, and when we look back over the history of South Africa, we find that the man who has dared, and the man who has had confidence in South Africa, the man in the private sector, has never regretted it. The man who had confidence in South Africa in the early days and through all her difficult times, has been richly rewarded because we believe that private enterprise should be encouraged; the private sector must also make its contribution towards the general financial and economic progress of this country.

But there is a third factor. The Government has made its contribution. I think the private sector is doing so. But what is the Opposition doing to overcome this investment tardiness? What is the Opposition doing to strengthen confidence abroad? It is not the Government which they are criticizing; it is South Africa which they are criticizing. What contribution is represented by the type of speech we have heard during this debate? I ask hon. members whether they can point to one contribution by hon. members opposite towards overcoming this investment tardiness? Can hon. members point to one speech which was calculated to increase foreign confidence in South Africa? Hon. members have had the opportunity but I want to tell them: Whether or not they make use of this opportunity, this Government and South Africa will go ahead because they have confidence in themselves, and by so doing will also create confidence abroad.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—74: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and D. J. Potgieter.

NOES—41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedules and Title of the Bill, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

The Department of Lands has asked for the insertion of this clause. Hon. members know that under Act No. 8 of 1886 certain occupation farms were allotted in the district of Zoutpansberg in the days of the old Transvaal Republic. The principle was that those farms should be allotted for White occupation. The principle of White occupation was later affirmed by Ordinance No. 25 of 1904 of the Transvaal, that is to say, still during the Milner régime, under which such farms had to be occupied for at least eight months in the year by either the owner or a White male substitute over the age of 18 years. Transfer of the land could not be registered unless a certificate of occupation was submitted to the Registrar of Deeds. Moreover, in the case of non-occupation the land could be taken back by the State, that is to say, if it was not occupied for eight out of the twelve months. Seeing that the object of this condition has been achieved, the State since as ago as 1924 has not taken steps to ensure that the occupation requirements are complied with and the prescribed certificate of occupation is issued without any further formalities. In other words, successive Governments since 1924 have no longer insisted on the occupation period of eight months and have issued a certificate. The obtaining of a certificate merely results in delays and increases the transfer costs of such land because every owner is of course subject to the provisions of the old laws. Because it no longer serves any purpose, we are consequently proposing in this clause that the relevant legal provision be repealed.

This amendment deletes the words “by night”. That has the effect of removing from two of the cut crimes mentioned in the section which is being amended, the requirement that the crime must be by night. Could the Minister please explain to us exactly what the reasons are.

I should like to do so. I should once again like to suggest with all due respect to the Committee that as by agreement we did not have a second reading, I shall immediately explain each clause as the Chairman puts it. Then hon. members will have the background to each clause. Hon. members know that in the Transvaal and Natal it is an offence to be in possession of housebreaking implements without lawful cause during the night. In other words, in the Transvaal and Natal house breakers have the advantage that during the day they can have as many housebreaking implements as they like in their possession. They must just ensure that they do not have them in their possession between the hours of sunset and sunrise. In the Cape and the Free State one may not have such implements in one’s possession by day or by night. All we are now doing by this provision as it stands—I am not only referring to Clause 4 but also to Clause 4—is to make the position uniform, namely by adopting the position which prevails in the Cape and Free State, where one may not have housebreaking implements in one’s possession by day or by night. It is merely to remove this anomaly that the provisions contained in Clauses 3 and 4 are being introduced.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

This clause deals with the position in Koppies. I think most hon. members are familiar with the position at Koppies. In the municipal area of Koppies a liquor licence may not be granted by virtue of the provisions of the following two regulations which were issued in 1910 under the Irrigation Colonies Act of 1909. Regulation No. 4 reads as follows—

And regulation No. 6 reads as follows—

Later Act No. 50 of 1926 provided for the establishment of the Municipality of Koppies, and at present the repeal of the above two regulations by the municipal council is specifically prohibited. Moreover, a condition has been registered against the title deeds of every plot in Koppies to the effect that a liquor licence cannot be issued in respect of such a plot. If this clause is adopted, it will be possible to grant liquor licences in the municipal area of Koppies. Hon. members know that the inhabitants of Koppies have for many years past been agitating for a hotel. To-day they may not have a hotel. Not only have successive town councils submitted representations, but public meetings have even been held and I can give hon. members the assurance that this clause has the approval of the residents of Koppies. Moreover an anomaly has now been created in that under the Liquor Act which we adopted last year the Bantu of Koppies can buy liquor, but the Whites cannot. In other words we now have the position that if one needs a bottle of liquor, one has to send one’s Native servant to buy it for one. I think hon. members understand these circumstances and I can give the House the assurance that I know that the adoption of this proposal will create very great satisfaction amongst the residents of Koppies. Allow me to say frankly that it is not because the people would like to have liquor. The mayor and the members of the town council have assured me that they are in the difficult position that no commercial traveller spends the night at Koppies; no conferences can be held there because there is no hotel accommodation. Under these circumstances I recommend this clause to hon. members.

Does the hon. the Minister not think it may be better to leave this anomaly so that we can show that there are areas in the Union in which the non-European section of the population has greater rights than the Europeans?

We still have Fish Hoek.

Clause 6 deals with the question of valuations. For the purpose of valuing estates, appraisers are at present appointed by the various Masters. The amendment of the section concerned will transfer this whole matter to the Department of Justice as a whole. The reason for the position which has arisen is that originally, as hon. members will understand, and particularly those who know the history of the matter, an appraiser was merely a person who dealt with estates and that is why it fell under the Master. But we have long since left that position behind. The valuation of estates is only a very minor part as far as valuations in general are concerned. Under the Group Areas Act, under the Expropriation Act and other Acts, we are now dealing with appraisers who have nothing to do with the Masters, and it is to eliminate this anomaly that this clause is now being introduced and I move.

I can well understand the reason for the amendment. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us whether the safeguards which existed, the procedure for the appointment, the method of application, the qualifications, etc., will be on the same basis?

Yes, on the same basis.

Will the matter still be referred back to the magistrate for recommendation, although I see that the area covered can exceed the magisterial area?

The reason for that is that the valuations have to be done for the Group Areas Board, and that exceeds the boundaries of certain magisterial districts.

But the procedure will remain the same, I take it. In general, Mr. Chairman, will the practice still be that a person will be appointed for a particular district with the right to go outside?

Yes. Of course, appointments which have already been made will remain.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

This clause is merely a consequential amendment. As hon. members know the oath to which every appraiser must subscribe will now, as a result of the adoption of Clause 6, be sent to the Secretary for Justice instead of the Master.

Clause put and agreed to.

I think we can save a great deal of time. We have been through all these clauses. I do not think we need put the Minister to the trouble of explaining each one.

I wonder whether he would leave it to any member to ask him to explain? The next clause, for instance, Sir, speaks for itself.

I appreciate that very much.

On Clause 10,

I wonder whether the Minister could give us any idea as to how the figure of R4,000 is arrived at, being the amount which the Master can pay out without reference to court?

This amount is to a certain extent an arbitrary amount. But the Master is guided in fixing that amount by the increased costs of university education. The hon. member will remember that when he and I were at university, one could manage on far less than to-day. He is guided by the increased cost of education, especially university education.

I feel this is right, Sir. There are very responsible officials and it is for the benefit of the child, I believe, that they should have this extra discretion.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

Sir, I take it that the words “and re-unclaimed” are intended to be “and are unclaimed”. Is that a correct reflection of the original Act?

I also thought it was extraordinary. I looked it up. Apparently it is a method of expression which has gone out of use since.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

This clause provides for a new offence in respect of which there is to be compulsory imprisonment. The offence which is created is failing to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1). Subsection (1) says—

The court has the right to give him a warning.

I don’t think so, Sir.

Maximum sentence, a compulsory maximum sentence, if he ignores the warning.

The Minister is quite right. But the court may feel that he should get some sort of punishment; the court does not just want to warn him, caution and discharge him, but on the other hand the court does not want to send him to prison …

Mr. Chairman, the same provision we have here is also contained in Section 138 (a) of the Insolvency Act in respect of the insolvent himself. All attorneys who have worked with insolvent estates will know that this is the position and that this should be the position. The hon. member who is merely an advocate and who has not had the privilege of practising as an attorney can take it from me and other attorneys that this should be the position. This clause refers to the first and second meetings; one needs the insolvent at those meetings; he must attend those meetings. That is why Section 138 provides that the insolvent who does not attend the first two meetings can be punished with a maximum of six months’ imprisonment. There we have the same position as we shall now have here. That section also provides that the director or the manager of a company must attend the meetings in the case of an insolvent company, but unfortunately a provision has not been inserted in the Insolvency Act similar to the provision we are now inserting here. All we are now doing is to correct that error. Assuming he refuses to attend the first meeting, the court can fine him and can suspend that fine on condition that he attends the second and subsequent meetings, because without him they cannot continue. If one fines him, he simply pays it and does not attend the meetings. From a practical point of view we must therefore insert this provision. Hon. members on both sides of the House who are attorneys and who have worked with insolvent estates will grant me that point. One simply cannot do otherwise, and all we are now doing is to provide that the director, manager and secretary of the company which cannot pay its debts must attend the first and second meetings. The old legislation makes the same provision.

Why the secretary as well?

He is probably the best man to have at such a meeting. He is the officer of the company. Because we are now dealing with a company. The company has directors and a manager, but the main person who knows most about the company’s affairs, is the secretary. Just take the House of Assembly as we meet here. We are all very important persons, but with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, take the Secretary away from the House of Assembly and the whole place would collapse. I think it is essential that the secretary should be included and I therefore recommend this clause to the House.

I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s point of view but I think there is a distinction here. I do not think the Minister’s advisers have gone fully into this distinction. Under the Insolvency Act it would be silly to fine the insolvent because he would have to pay the fine out of the insolvent estate. Here it is the directors of an insolvent company …

His mother-in-law can pay the fine.

The point is that if he were sentenced to a fine and nobody else paid it, he would not be able to pay it, being an insolvent all his assets would be frozen.

His relatives can pay the fine. The whole idea is that you must have him at the meeting. If you fine him he will not attend the meeting, because he does not want to attend it.

If there is a flagrant breach of an instruction to attend a meeting, I think it is far better for the court, in the particular circumstances which present themselves there to the court, to determine whether the man should go to gaol or whether he should be fined. Here it is the director who is a body completely separate from the company which is insolvent. It would be a very salutory warning to him to know that he would have to pay a fine of £250 if he did not attend the meeting. That would prevent him from missing that meeting. I think the distinction ought to be drawn in these circumstances. What worries me even more is this: I think if we laid down a rule like this we will have to lay down a rule to meet each and every individual circumstance. You cannot do it. I hope the Minister will consider giving the courts a discretion in this sort of thing.

The court has a discretion.

It is very much of a Hobson’s choice, Sir. The court either has to let him off free or give him a prison sentence.

Or suspended sentence.

Or a suspended sentence, yes. Let us take the example where a man gets out of a taxi and he gets run over and taken to hospital. In that case the court will have to convict him because he has committed an offence, but in the circumstances it would caution and discharge him. Let us take another case where the man is a bit absent-minded. He goes to Johannesburg and he forgets about it or he receives a letter and he does not do anything about it. In those cases, Sir, I am sure that a prison sentence is not quite the answer.

If he does so wilfully he will be found guilty.

No, Sir, it is not wilful. If he does not go to a meeting about which he has been notified then he commits an offence. That is the difficulty. To that end I move—

In other words, here is the deterrent of a fine of R500 or six months’ imprisonment or both if he does not attend that meeting. The magistrate can then sentence him not only to imprisonment, in a bad case, but to a fine as well, but he can use his discretion.

I think the Minister will agree that in respect of an insolvency a similar provision has proved successful. We know the object is to ensure attendance. It may be necessary to have the secretary or a director or the manager present at the meeting of creditors. They may stay away because they do not want to answer certain awkward questions in regard to the mess which has been made of the affairs of the company or possibly something worse than that. But I hope the hon. the Minister will consider including here a provision which permits of a fine. I believe it would be better that it should be so. I do not feel as strongly about this as I do about a compulsory sentence with a minimum. I am all for giving the courts the greatest discretion possible. They should judge from the circumstances of the case what is the right sentence to impose.

I do not quite agree with the Minister that the secretary should be included in this. I know of many firms who are nominal secretaries of companies. I know of many men who are nominal secretaries of companies. They merely sign the form which was prepared by the accountant. The accountants of a company fill in all the details in forms A, B, C, D and E for return to the Registrar of Companies and the secretary, who may be a clerk in the accountant’s office, signs them. I cannot see why that secretary should go to prison if he does not attend the meeting.

That is the whole point, he need not go to prison.

The point is this. He can, if required, by subpoenaed by the liquidator to attend that enquiry. I appreciate that a director or a manager and sometimes it should even be the accountant should be there. The most important man is the accountant. He can explain the various figures and the transactions. But I do submit to the hon. Minister that a secretary of a company in very many cases is a man who knows nothing about a company, somebody who has no other function to perform in the company than to render certain returns to the Registrar of Companies once a year. I think hon. members will agree with me. I want to repeat that I know of articled clerks in attorney’s offices being a secretary of a company. All they have to do is to sign that form. When that firm goes in liquidation this man knows nothing about it, but according to this clause “Any director, manager or secretary who fails to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1), shall be guilty of an offence…” I think the Minister should delete the word “secretary”. I submit that if the secretary is required he can be subpoenaed to attend that enquiry. This can be very difficult for people who are only nominal secretaries.

According to the old Act if he is subpoenaed and he does not come there is nothing you can do about it because there are no sanctions. That is why we are bringing in this clause now.

Then you must bring in a provision that any person who fails to comply with a subpoenae issued for attendance shall be guilty. You cannot make it obligatory upon a secretary who is often a youngster who knows nothing about the company.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has in his attempted opposition tried to place the work of the secretary of a company in a very irresponsible light. I do not think we can agree with him. In the first place the secretary of a company is responsible for keeping the minutes and as such he has control over the minutes book and the share register. I therefore do not think that the fact that in certain instances articled clerks and certain irresponsible persons are used to do the secretary’s work can be an argument why the secretary should not accept responsibility. But the hon. member’s objection has nothing to with the amendment which has been moved. As regards the amendment, I want to point out that this provision does not lay down a minimum penalty. All it lays down is a maximum penalty in the form of imprisonment, and the magistrate is quite free to give such a person a warning and to let him go. What hon. members are now proposing in this amendment is that in addition to the imprisonment, there should also be provision for a fine. Hon. members are forgetting that the provision made here for imprisonment is not a minimum provision but a maximum provision, and the penalty could just as well be a warning.

I am quite sure that no court would send a person to gaol if he failed to come to the meeting the first time. In other words, you will not have a sanction the first time. Much better take a finer instrument, which is offered by the suggestion of the hon. member for Durban (North), in terms of which even on the first occasion a fine can be imposed if it is a bad case.

That would defeat the whole object of the clause.

Why?

A judicial officer who hears the charge will hear all the facts and will be able to decide. But I am quite sure that nine times out of ten judicial officers would not be prepared to send a man to gaol for a first offence, whereas a fine might well be deserved.

Allow me to explain. It is not a question of deserving a fine. The position is simply this, that according to the original Act to which an addendum is now being made, in every winding up of a company unable to pay its debts all directors, the manager and the secretary shall attend the first and second meetings of creditors and every adjourned second meeting of creditors, but this shall not apply to any director, manager or secretary to whom the previous written permission of the Master or other officer who is to preside at such meeting has been granted in consultation with the liquidator to absent himself. A director, manager or secretary shall also attend any subsequent meeting of creditors if required to do so. The whole object of this provision is to have the man there. Hon. members who know anything about this will know that you must have him there. It is imperative that he must be there. You can subpoena him, but according to the old Act, if he failed to obey the subpoena it was not an offence, and we now want to make it an offence. So the hon. member for Boland is completely out of court. But this is the answer to the argument of the hon. members for Pinelands and Durban (North). The whole idea is to have the man at that particular meeting. Now the meeting is held and he fails to attend. Now the hon. member says the magistrate must give him a fine, but what is the position? If he imposes the fine, then he cannot be charged again for not attending the meeting, because then he pleads autrefois acquit and you cannot force him to attend a second time.

But if he fails to attend the second meeting you can punish him.

No, then the magistrate gives him another fine and consequently you defeat your whole object, which is to have the man at the meeting. What happens now? Under the section as it stands, he fails to attend the meeting, and the meeting is then adjourned by the liquidator. You then charge the man because he wilfully failed to attend the meeting. Then the magistrate gives him a suspended sentence on condition he attends the following meeting. But once he has paid his fine, it is out of the hands of the court and the court cannot compel him to attend, and you want him there as soon as possible. That is the whole object. Hon. members who practise as advocates naturally do not come into contact with these things, but let me give hon. members the assurance that having practised as. an attorney I came across it quite often, and it is for that reason that you want him there. It is not that we want to tie the hands of the court, or that we do not want to give the court a discretion, but if you do give the court a discretion to impose a fine you defeat the whole object. I can give hon. members the assurance that people who make a living out of administering insolvent estates insist upon this provision because otherwise they just cannot do their work.

I am sorry I cannot support the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett).

That is all right, forget it.

While I do not want to take part in the argument of the hon. member for Durban (North), I must say that as one who has for many years had experience in company liquidations, I have ceased to take part in company liquidations for some years now, because the position is quite unsatisfactory, because it is extraordinarily difficult to get these officers before the court, and in the end you are winding up an estate without bringing the responsible people to court. The reason is that many practising accountants have for some years past given up doing company liquidations because when they have done a lot of hard work they get no support from the law at all because you cannot bring the responsible officers to book. When the company goes into liquidation, the secretary and the directors think their duties are at an end. They do not always appear before the court. When you bring them before court in a liquidation, they cannot have the assistance of advocates and attorneys, and therefore they have to speak the truth and you have the opportunity of putting them in the box and examining them. While the Minister is expressing his anxiety to bring these people to book, I hope that when this position is remedied and we bring these people before court and submit a report showing that these people have failed to comply with the law and are guilty of an offence, I hope he will see to it that adequately qualified prosecutors deal with these cases, because very often a great deal of work is done and a report is submitted indicating that there have been frauds and contraventions of the Companies Act, and one hears nothing further about it. I want to take this opportunity of underlining the necessity for bringing company directors and secretaries who have transgressed into court so that the Companies Act will mean something and the public can be assured that people who have transgressed will be brought to book, and the basis of this is to have these people before the court at the first and the second meetings where the important examination forms a special part of the liquidator’s duties.

Clearly the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) leaves the law with a satisfactory sanction, where before there was no sanction. The Minister says that if a fine is imposed a man will pay it: But if he fails to go to a subsequent meeting, that is a new offence and then the court can imprison him. I suggest that we are interfering with the discretion of the court in a matter where a court should have a discretion, because all kinds of reasons can be given why people fail to turn up at meetings. This is not the sort of offence for which the only sanction should be imprisonment, and the Minister has really accepted this by admitting that there can be a warning. Let him pay a fine the first time. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

Let me explain again. Supposing he attends the first meeting. He is only required to attend two meetings, the first and the second. He attends the first meeting. Supposing the crucial meeting is the second one and he does not attend then and he gets a fine, then we can never achieve the purpose that the hon. member for Pinetown has so eloquently put to the House. The offence is not having attended the second meeting. Meetings can be adjourned, but the offence committed then is that he did not attend the first meeting and did not attend the second meeting. But if the court has no discretion in regard to imposing a fine, it can suspend the sentence on condition that he attends a number of meetings afterwards. Then it suits the purpose of the hon. member for Pinetown. Then and then only can you achieve that purpose. But if I accept the amendment, I defeat the very object I have in mind. I would be very pleased if hon. members who have only a theoretical knowledge of the matter would leave it to those members like the hon. members for Pinetown and Ceres and Heilbron and I who have practical knowledge of this. I have given this matter a great deal of thought and I have gone into it with the Department very fully, but if I accept the amendment it will defeat the whole object.

I can support the hon. the Minister here. There is nothing more annoying in these cases than to come to meetings where it is believed that a fraud has been committed and to find that the only person who can give the information required simply ignores the meeting, notwithstanding that he may have been subpoenaed to attend. I do not suggest that it should be done now, but I believe that in a proper case the court should have authority to order the arrest of such a person.

We will consider that. The whole Insolvency Act is under consideration.

I can support the hon. member for Pinetown. From experience, the person who does not attend is the person who wilfully does not attend because he does not wish to answer questions which the law requires him to answer. I suggest that the Minister might consider a big fine, because I think the courts are able to deal with it, but if the Minister insists on a maximum sentence I am prepared to leave it at that.

The matter has now been fully ventilated. I can also speak as one who has had experience of having been an arbiter, and in the circumstances I would appeal to the hon. member for Durban (North) to withdraw his amendment.

The Minister says he attends the first meeting, but does not attend the second meeting. Surely that is not the object of this Act. No one would fulfill the requirements of the Act if he went into the meeting, waved to the chairman and then rushed out of the door. If I am wrong about that, it seems to me that the Minister is not approaching the matter …

I said he would attend the first meeting, but not the second, and then he pays his fine and nothing can be done. He cannot be charged again. There is nothing in the law to say he must attend the third and fourth meetings.

The Minister’s case appears to be that if there is a heavy penalty hanging over his head he will not fail to attend, so if the death sentence is imposed he will be less likely to fail to attend. But in view of the fact that I have had very little experience of these matters, and that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), who has such a high regard for justice, asks me to withdraw my amendment, I am quite happy to do so.

With the leave of the Committee the amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell was withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

Our law has for many years been very strange in this regard, in that for the purposes of the law of intestate succession a wife was never regarded as a husband’s heiress. Notwithstanding the fact that she had lived with him for all those years, if he died intestate, completely unknown members of the family had preference over her. This was the position until we amended the law of succession in that regard and we then allowed the wife a preferential amount of £600. That was many years ago, in about 1934. Then Parliament for the first time recognized that a wife had preference to a certain extent over other members of the family and that a wife should automatically, in the absence of a will, become an heiress of the husband.

£600 or a child’s share?

Yes, whichever of the two was the bigger. £600 to-day is no longer £600, and for this reason it was felt that this amount should be increased. The Association or Law Societies felt that it should be set at a far higher figure. The Law Revision Committee recommended that it should be R4,000. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) has, after consultating other hon. members, moved an amendment. I have now set out the position as regards the Law Societies and the Law Revision Committee, and I leave it to the Committee to decide what that amount should be. But we all agree that it must be increased. We must agree as to what the amount should be. Perhaps it will be best for the hon. member for Ceres to move his amendment; then we shall have a basis on which to argue.

I move—

This is a very short clause but it is an extremely important one, and although lawyers have particular knowledge of its implications, I think it is important that every member of this House should give it consideration. With this in mind I want to ask hon. members to give their attention to this matter for a few moments.

In the time of the Romans it was a disgrace for anyone to die without a will. Although hon. members will still say to-day that a man is irresponsible if he does not have a will, we still often find that people die intestate. I should like to ask whether every hon. member in this House has a will that is in order because it is not merely a question of whether a will has been drawn up, but also whether it is in order. If a person dies and his will is not in order, he might just as well have died without a will; then there is no will. One finds particularly that people who are not trained to do so, draw up wills and proper care is not taken to ensure that there is a witness or that the will is dated, and such a person dies without a will. I want hon. members to keep in mind that it is not always the wife who is the surviving spouse. Sometimes it is the husband. The Act which is now being amended, namely Act No. 13 of 1934, lays down that the surviving spouse will inherit. The legislation speaks of the surviving spouse. This does not mean that it must necessarily be the wife; it could just as well be the husband. Provision is made for when the marriage is out of community of property and when it is in community of property, for when there are children, and also for when there are no children. Hon. members will know that in the case of a marriage in community of property, everything is under the control of the husband, but notwithstanding this fact, when one of the partners to the marriage dies, the estate is divided into two and the surviving spouse is entitled to half the estate. The other half belongs to the estate of the deceased and is dealt with in accordance with the rules of succession. This means that in the case of a marriage in community of property the surviving spouse receives half, and of the remaining half the surviving spouse receives a child’s share or £600 together with his half, whichever may be the greater. In the case of a marriage out of community of property, there is no division of the estate and the whole estate of the deceased is then apportioned in accordance with the rules. Assuming that there are two or three children, the surviving spouse receives a child’s share; in other words, if there are three children, the estate is divided into four, and the surviving spouse receives one-quarter. In the third place provision is made for cases where there are no children. These cases provide the main reasons why the amount should be as high as possible. When there are no children, the surviving spouse receives half, and the other half goes to the parents, the brothers or sisters of the deceased, provided of course that if the half which the surviving spouse receives is less than £600, the surviving spouse receives £600 in any case, and what is left is then apportioned. That is the position to-day. In the first place we realize that in 1934 £600 was a lot of money, not merely because it had a greater value and could buy more, but because money had a far greater psychological value. When one spoke of £600 in those days, it sounded like a lot of money, but when one speaks of R4,000 to-day, one thinks less of it than one did of £600 at that time. Apart from that, people who have been in contact and who have worked with this type of case have always felt that the amount laid down in 1934, namely £600, was too low and I want to explain why this has always been felt. The only argument which could be submitted as to why this amount should not be all that high is that the children may suffer as the result because the children should also receive part of the estate and the surviving spouse should not receive so much that nothing is left for the children. That is the only argument which could be put forward. On the other hand, we must also remember that whenever we legislate, we do so for normal circumstances, and not for abnormal circumstances. We cannot legislate for the bad wife who leaves her husband or the mother or father who do not look after their children properly. We must legislate for normal circumstances, for people who are real parents to their children. We must then assume that the surviving spouse is responsible for the welfare of the children. As a matter of fact the law provides for that. We must therefore assume that they will in case provide properly for such children. We have cases—I have recently had such a case—where a man dies without a will. He is married out of community of property; half the estate went to the wife and the other half went to his brothers and sisters. In such a case when the estate is worth, let us say, R10,000, it means that the surviving spouse can only receive half, namely R5,000, and the other R5,000 then, in terms of the provisions contained in this Bill, will go to the brothers and sisters, who perhaps do not need it at all.

Perhaps.

Yes, perhaps. It goes to brothers and sisters who in most cases do not need it. But we assume after all, particularly when it is the wife who is the surviving spouse, that she needs that money to live. But on the other hand we may have the case of a man who was married in community of property, who has saved his money all his life, and everything he has, he has saved himself. His wife dies. He can only claim half the estate, and the other half is divided between himself and the brothers and sisters; this is money which he himself has saved. I do not want to enlarge on this aspect any further. Fixing an amount is always a very arbitrary business because there are no rules in accordance with which we can calculate the amount. But I attach value to the opinions of those people who work with this matter all the time. I am referring to the Association of Law Societies in South Africa. A retired president of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope recently said when he discussed this matter—

The Association representing the five Law Societies of South West Africa, the Free State, the Transvaal, the Cape and Natal, has considered the matter. It has been felt since 1934 that the amount fixed at that time is altogether too little. A very good case can be made out to show that the amount should be R20,000; another person could perhaps make out a good case to show that it should be R4,000, but I am prepared to bow before the people who have really made a study of these cases, and my proposal is therefore, in accordance with the decision of the Association of Law Societies, that the amount should be R10,000.

I have already advised the hon. the Minister that for my part I believe that it would be reasonable to raise this to R8,000, but with the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) I think we must pay great attention to the General Council of the Side-Bar, if I may put it that way, representing the whole of the Republic. They are persons who have very great experience of this matter, and I have pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member.

I should also like to support the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) in his amendment, and I should like to refer to the experience of attorneys on the Witwatersrand in recent years in respect of widows, who usually have a house, the average value of which is R7,000. They can take over this property under Section 51 of the Estates Act, but they have no other income. Nor can they obtain money from the building societies because they have no income. By this amendment we shall be correcting this position. The second example is when there is a bond on a property and the children inherit together with the widow or widower. We then find that a bond cannot be taken on the property because one first has to go to the Supreme Court for permission to take out a bond to pay off the debtors. The result is that by raising this arbitrary amount we shall also make it possible for the surviving spouse to share in the property. The third example is when a house is for example insured and the policy does not cover the full amount of the bond. We find that R1,200 or R1,400 is paid off on the house, but the rest of the bond remains and that debt must be met. The surviving spouse is left for example with small children who must be educated and is not able to redeem the debts. If the amount is increased, the whole estate will go to the surviving spouse who will be able to take up or to pay off the full amount, whichever the case may be, and we shall thereby be safeguarding such persons against the danger of losing the property. Under the circumstances I should like to give my wholehearted support to the amendment.

There is a decision in the latest Law Reports, in the case of Glazer v Glazer which is reported in 1962 (2), in the June issue. In that case the Witwaters-rand Local Division held—and I believe the decision to be correct—that under the Roman-Dutch Law a wife has no right to claim maintenance from her deceased husband’s estate, and that being so it highlights the amendment which appears in this clause, but, Sir, I think it highlights something else; it highlights that this is not the way to go about to meet the situation which arises out of this case, which it is not intended to do. I feel that it is going extraordinarily high arbitrarily to make the amount R10,000, as the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) wants to do, remembering that it is only where a person dies intestate that this is to apply and remembering that if he dies with a will and cuts his wife out, then she gets nothing at all. The hon. member for Ceres admits, of course, that the figure of R10,000 is arbitrary. Any figure that we arrive at here across the floor of this House is going to be arbitrary. But let us consider what is the average. The hon. member for Ceres said that he wanted to legislate for normal circumstances. I do not believe that the breadwinner of the normal average family in South Africa leaves an estate of R20,000. But if this amendment of the hon. member for Ceres is passed and you get an estate of R20,000, which is a lot of money, and the parties were married in community of property, the wife gets every single penny. She gets her half when the community is dissolved and she gets the other half.

If there are no children.

It does not matter if there are any children. If there are any children, under the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres, they will get nothing at all.

You are quite wrong.

No, I am not wrong. Under the Succession Act of 1934 you get £600 or a child’s share, whichever is the greater. I think that is correct. Now it is proposed to give the wife R10,000 or a child’s share.

Together with the surviving spouse’s share, it should not be more than £600.

Yes, but £600 now becomes £5,000; that is the point.

Dr. RADFORD: And that is quite right too.

Sir, I do not like the principle of this thing. I do not like the effects that this will have, which will be to disinherit children. It is a right that children have and always have had. It is part of our tradition, not the principle of primogeniture necessarily, the principle of children succeeding to their father’s estate. If this amendment of the hon. member for Ceres is accepted, I think we are in grave danger of completely wiping that out so far as the lower strata are concerned, and I believe that that is about 80 per cent of the families in this country. In 80 per cent of the families the breadwinner does not die, leaving such a large estate. I hope the hon. member for Ceres will withdraw this amendment and rather leave the amount at R4,000 until after the recess when the matter can be gone into and the whole question of maintenance, which has now arisen because of the case of Glazer v. Glazer, can be gone into by the Department; statistics can be got out and provision can be made that the wife, whether her husband dies intestate by good luck or by bad luck, whether she is married in community of property or by ante-nuptial contract, will have the right to claim maintenance on the death of her husband. I might say that in Scotland they do it by a provision similar to this, where a fixed amount is provided by law on the death of the spouse, and in England there has been provision since 1938 for the court to decide, upon application by the wife, what amount she should be entitled to for maintenance. I hope that the hon. member will not press his amendment at this stage. I hope the Minister will prevail upon him to leave the matter as it stands at R4,000. Let us come back next year and try to attend properly to the real problem, and that is the maintenance of the wife who has been forgotten about by her deceased husband.

We all know that hard cases make bad law. But, after all, we legislate for the general and not for the exceptional case. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) has quoted an instance to support his point of view; I accept that that is so, but I certainly am not satisfied that he has made a case, nor that his supporter has made a case, for this exceptionally large increase in the amount. The £600 or R1,200 has stood for a long time, and the suggestion now is to increase it substantially, because the increase from R1,200 to R4,000 is quite a substantial increase.

It is no increase at all. It is simply giving money its real value.

If there was good reason for £600, then there is possibly good reason for increasing it to the extent that has been suggested, but I do not think that anybody has made a case for increasing it to the extent now proposed by the hon. member for Ceres. We are not legislating here for all time, and I would appeal to the hon. member for Ceres either to withdraw his amendment or to reduce the amount to R5,000, which is not an unreasonable figure. As I say, we are not legislating for all time. If he can make a good case subsequently, I am quite certain that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to listen to him.

I am sorry that I too cannot support the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller). I also want to retain the amount of R4,000 for which the Bill provides because there is this real objection to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ceres, namely that he now wishes to divide our whole law of intestate succession into two parts, one which will be applicable to the estates of the poor, and one which will be applicable to the estates of the rich. When a large estate is involved, this amount will always constitute a child’s share, but if it is a small estate, then that will not be the position. The hon. member says that R10,000 is equivalent to the amount for which provision was made in 1934, taking the diminution in the value of money into account. That is certainly not so.

I did not say that.

I understood the hon. member to say that to the last speaker by way of an interjection.

I said R4,000.

That is not so. We know that the value of money to-day is one-third of what it was in 1934, and three times £600 is £1,800, that is to say approximately R4,000. Let us therefore retain the figure for which the Bill provides. This provision has worked reasonably well hitherto, and the matter has only been raised because the value of our money has diminished. As a matter of fact I even had objections to the arbitrary amount of £600 because it was not based on a principle. It is seldom that I agree with the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) but here I must agree with him. Succession should take place on the basis of principles. The amount of £600 was an arbitrary amount, but seeing that we now have this arbitrary amount, we should not be so arbitrary as to fix an amount of R10,000 and then to have one type of succession in the case of poor people and another type in the case of rich people.

I just want to explain the interjection which I made with reference to the value of money. The position is exactly as the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has interpreted it, namely that if we change the £600 as fixed in 1934 to R4,000 to-day, then the purchasing power of that sum is practically the same. It has been felt since 1934 that the amount fixed at that time was too low. Not one hon. member who has opposed my amendment has offered any reasons. One must after all argue this matter if one thinks the amount is too big or too small. All hon. members have said is that I now want to go too far. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) obviously did not know very much about the subject when he said that when a man is married in community of property and he has an estate of R20,000 it will mean that the surviving spouse will inherit the whole R20,000, irrespective apparently of whether there are children. That is not so. If a man dies and the joint estate is worth R20,000 and he is married in community of property, the surviving spouse will in the first place inherit half that estate, namely R10,000, and the other half will be equally divided amongst the children and the surviving spouse. Let us assume there are four children. Then it will mean that the surviving spouse will inherit R12,000 and each of the children R2,000.

R2,000 or a child’s share, whichever is the bigger.

When the marriage is in community of property the position is as follows—

In other words, in that case he would receive R12,000 and there is no question of his inheriting the whole estate. This is a very important matter, and I want to emphasize once again in the first place that the Law Societies throughout the Republic of South Africa, including South West Africa, have greater experience of this matter. They have found that there are many implications on which I do not want to enlarge to-day, but with all their years of experience they have come to the conclusion that the amount was fixed at a hopelessly too low figure in 1934. These are people with practical experience and, although as I have just said, we cannot calculate and decide upon an exact amount, we must fix an amount which in the light of circumstances will be the most desirable amount. These people, who constitute a very responsible body, have come to the conclusion that the amount should be R10,000. I want to give another example. Let us assume that there is an estate of R10,000. How is that amount constituted in most cases? Hon. members will find that perhaps R5,000 represents a house; we shall perhaps find that R1,500 represents furniture or other odd items; we shall perhaps find that the remaining R3,500 represents insurance or savings. If the surviving spouse is only to receive R4,000 or let us say R4,500, and the balance is to be inherited by minor children, it means that that balance must be paid into the guardian’s fund and the whole home is torn asunder while the surviving mother or father would otherwise have been able to continue to keep the home going with the funds available. It is for this reason that I say that this responsible body after full consideration of the matter has found that the best amount is R10,000, and I ask that hon. members should consider leaving the matter at that.

I want to view this matter for a moment from the humanitarian aspect. I want to say that I hope that the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) will not withdraw his amendment. I think the hon. member started by saying that we legislate for the normal case. The normal father or mother who is widowed takes care of the children, and I think it is wrong to assume that something must be left to the children. The widowed parent as a rule looks after the children. The hon. member for Ceres painted a picture of a house being broken up because the money for the minors has to be sent to the Master of the Supreme Court. I have seen that sort of thing often myself in cases with which I have been concerned as a medical man. I have seen homes broken up, particularly where the surviving spouse is the father who has to work. Instead of keeping a home for his children, where they can perhaps be looked after by a servant while he is at work, he has to break up his home and put his children in boarding houses merely because he is required to deposit the minors’ money into the guardians fund, which he is unable to do. This bears very heavily on the working man. I quite agree with the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) that it is customary for children to inherit but it is time that custom was broken. This idea that you must provide for your children to the detriment of your spouse is entirely wrong. The children are looked after by the surviving spouse. I have seen many a widow struggling to bring up her children; I have seen few children struggling to look after their aged parents.

I have listened to the arguments on this point. To a certain extent I am bound by the amount put forward by the Law Revision Committee, but I have listened with great interest to the arguments of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) and I must say that his arguments impressed me very much indeed. I have just listened now to the arguments of the only layman who has taken part in this debate, and that settles the issue as far as I am concerned. If I am called upon to give judgment now it must be in favour of S. L. Muller, with costs, and I therefore accept his amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

Will the hon. the Minister explain what sort of case this is intended to cover.

The position here is the following: According to the definition of “deal” contained in section 36 of the Arms and Ammunitions Act of 1937, “deal” also includes the persuading and attempted persuading of persons to buy arms. An agent who makes a business of persuading people to buy arms and ammunition from his principal must therefore take out an arms dealer’s licence in accordance with the law.

The commercial traveller who solicits orders, according to the old Act, commits an offence if he himself is not a licensed person under the Act, and it is to obviate that difficulty that this clause is being introduced.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

I consider this provision a good one and I am glad to see it here. This simply restores a practice which existed at the commencement of Union and lasted for some years thereafter. It was only in 1917, as far as I remember, that the practice was abandoned when comprehensive legislation on magistrates’ courts replaced the pre-Union laws. But, Sir, I cannot agree with paragraph (b) because it seems to me to reduce a very serious and important undertaking by a judicial officer to a mere informality. It makes an oath of office no different from an affirmation on some minor matter in order to comply with some technical regulatory requirement. Under the pre-Union law the oath had to be taken in open court before a person competent to administer an oath, and it usually became a public document in that it was recorded in one of the court records. An oath of this nature, in my opinion, has become even more important now than it ever was before because a far greater burden is being placed on magistrates’ courts nowadays than was the case previously. I hope that the oath suggested will serve two purposes. Firstly, I hope it will serve the purpose of impressing upon Parliament the importance of the onerous task which is so often placed on magistrates’ courts by legislation; and secondly, I hope that it will serve to keep unsullied the administration of law and the standards of justice in South Africa which we have had and which are in danger in the light of the prevailing circumstances. The place of the courts in such circumstances has been described very clearly and I think in admirable language by a great Lord Chancellor of England, whose words I think are worth quoting. He says this—

Sir, I commend those sentiments to magistrates’ courts, and in order to revert to what was a very salutory practice and to give this oath of office the dignity which I think it should have and to put in its proper perspective in the due process of the administration of justice, I move—

For the reasons I have given, I hope the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment.

I have listened to the hon. member’s arguments and I think there is great substance in what the hon. member has said. I also think that he has set out the factual position correctly, and I do think that the hon. member’s amendment will improve the clause. It could have been done administratively, but I take it that it is best to put it in the Act, and it therefore gives me pleasure to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 27,

Would the hon. the Minister explain whether or not sub-paragraph (a) does not do away with the proviso that a practitioner cannot be appointed under this section unless he has considered or agreed to act under this section?

The position here is that the court under Section 74 of the Magistrates Courts Act can appoint either a messenger of the court or a lawyer as an administrator if an administration order has been granted in respect of a debtor. Hon. members will know that if a person has fallen so heavily into debt that he has received so many summonses that he can no longer pay his debts in the normal course of affairs, he can apply for an administration order. This means that on the order of a magistrate he pays a lump sum to someone whom the court has appointed who under the existing legislation must either be a messenger of the court or a lawyer, and who then receives the money from him each month and distributes it pro rata amongst his debtors periodically, whether it be monthly if the amount is large or every three or six months if it is a lesser amount. In order to lessen the pressure particularly on messengers of the court, this amendment is being proposed. I may say that probably every practitioner will agree with me that this is a very troublesome job and a time-consuming one. In my time when I was appointed on occasion as an administrator, as many attorneys were appointed, I have had to deal with cases where I had to pay 1d. every three months to a man, so heavily was the person concerned in debt. The House will understand that one then has to write out a cheque for 1d. and it is simply not worth while, and it is extremely difficult in addition to make a messenger of the court who is already exceptionally overworked, responsible for this work. The attorneys (and I do not blame them) do not like this type of work either because it is time-consuming and it really does not pay to do this type of work. Provision is now being made that appointments as administrators can be made from a wider circle, subject to the provision of security in the case of persons other than lawyers or officials. In other words, if a messenger of the court is not prepared to do this work or cannot do it, or if an attorney cannot do it, then this clause now merely lays down that a private individual can be appointed, but that the private individual must then provide a fidelity policy or security to guard against the embezzlement of moneys or any failure to carry out his duties.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 28,

I hope the hon. the Minister will give the Committee an indication of the changes embodied in this important clause.

When the proceedings in a criminal case which has been heard by a magistrate and which is subject to automatic review are not confirmed by the reviewing judge, the judge who considered the proceedings must submit those proceedings to the court of appeal. There is no uniformity at present between the various divisions. Certain divisions of the Supreme Court on occasion treat such a matter as an appeal case and request the magistrate concerned to give reasons for the findings contained in his judgment; other divisions amend the findings of the magistrate without asking for his reasons. I think the hon. member will agree with me that we should introduce uniformity and that it is only reasonable that before the judge changes the findings of the presiding magistrate, he should first hear the magistrate’s side of the matter and ask his reasons.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 40,

Will the hon. Minister explain the meaning of this provision? We have not been able to determine exactly why it is necessary.

When

the Supreme Court Act was adopted in 1959 a series of laws were repealed and that legislation by mistake referred to paragraph XLVII instead of paragraph XLVIII.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 44,

This is the most colourful clause in this Bill, the clause which provides that anyone who commits an offence by writing on a wall, placing a placard, poster, writing, word, letter, sign, symbol or drawing or other mark on any property, movable or immovable, is liable on conviction to certain penalties.

I want to say immediately that in principle we are not opposed to extra penalties being imposed upon persons who deface property by writing slogans all over them, and there is in this clause a very commendable aspect of the penalty in sub-section (2), and that is that if someone is convicted, in addition to any other penalty he must be sentenced to a compensatory fine and the amount recovered is to be paid to the owner. In default of payment he will go to gaol. So far so good. But for the reason that it is possible to commit certain offences and fall under this, offences which I think are committed probably every day at election time, we want to make quite sure what the position is. In Durban for instance there is a bye-law which says that you may only have so many posters up in the municipal boundary in your constituency, during an election, and I have no doubt that those of us who have our constituencies within and without the borough of Durban will probably find that if we counted them, we had a few extra in the Durban Municipality, and if they decided that they wanted to clean up the area and they decided to prosecute somebody, one could be subject to these penalties. What has been worrying us on this side of the House is that there was a compulsory imprisonment sentence involved, and the reason why we object in principle to compulsory minimum sentences, or to compulsory sentences being imposed …

Are you referring to sub-section (3)?

No, the end of sub-section (1). I rise to raise these matters before moving any amendment because we have had the advantage of discussing this matter with the hon. Minister’s advisers and I must say that certainly some of the views which I held initially I don’t hold so strongly any more, and if the hon. the Minister can convince us that this clause does not oblige the court to impose a compulsory prison sentence in lieu of any other sentence, we will not move the amendment. Would the hon. the Minister be so good as to indicate to us what the position is?

The position here is that you generally, as the hon. member rightly pointed out, prosecute these people under the bye-laws. A bye-law usually has a penalty of R4 or seven days, or something like that. It is felt, and I think all members will agree with me, that we must do something about this writing on the walls in our cities and towns. If hon. members will have a look at the photos that I have taken for this purpose, I think they will agree that we must put a stop to this and must put a stop to it immediately, if we possibly can. The hon. the Minister of Lands and other hon. members who have travelled overseas assure me that there are towns and cities which are so disfigured that it is an absolute disgrace, and I think that it is high time that we put a stop to this sort of thing in our country.

*In reply to representations submitted to me earlier in the session by the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser) I warned that such legislation was envisaged. Despite this warning certain people have not listened and there has once again been a wave of this type of activity. We now have the additional difficulty that we have arrested people who have been guilty of this type of offence. We charged them under the bye-laws but they were declared ultra vires, with the result that people have got away with something for which they should have been punished.

Here in Cape Town?

Yes, the position is that we felt that such a bye-law alone is not sufficient. There will be students who will paste up placards and the magistrate has the necessary power under the by-laws. The magistrate does not have to send anyone to prison, I can give the hon. member that assurance, because the clause is quite clear and provides as follows—

And the “any other penalty” which may be imposed in respect of such an offence is a fine under the bye-laws. Consequently, in the normal cases where such a penalty is required, a fine will be imposed. In cases where the magistrate rightly considers, as in the case of those photos, that a person has disfigured or defaced with such slogans the property of another person, which that person has just painted and cleaned up, he does not deserve the sympathy of anyone. It is of no avail merely punishing him. That is why paragraph (2) goes further. We also want him to restore the damage he has done, and were it not for practical considerations, namely that he would make an even worse mess than before, I should have liked to insert a provision here to the effect that such a person must personally repair the damage he has done, but he will only make a worse mess of the wall. We are therefore providing that the magistrate must fix the compensation at the amount which it will cost to restore the wall and the person concerned must then pay that amount. If he refuses to do so, then he must also be sentenced to imprisonment. For the purposes of the offence itself he does not have to be sentenced to imprisonment in the first instance. I give the hon. member that assurance. He can be fined. But if he fails to put right what he has done wrong, in other words, if he does not repay to the owner the amount of the damage he has done that owner, then he must go to prison. I do not think there are any of us who will have sympathy for such a person. Consequently, as far as general election matters are concerned, the hon. member for Yeoville can still put up his placards on my wall and I can put my placards on his, and we shall not go to prison; we shall probably not even prosecute one another, but we shall take down the placards in a good spirit. But if we go to court, we shall only be fined, but people who go around in the night with these spray guns and deface the property of other people with slogans which in certain instances are not only uncouth but, as hon. members will see from those photos, are definitely immoral, action must be taken against this tyDe of person. I am very thankful that the hon. member for Klerksdorp brought this matter pertinently to my notice and this is the reason for the legislation being before us.

I just want to say that the hon. the Minister’s explanation is quite satisfactory and we won’t move the amendments which we thought we would move. I just want to say that I think that there would have been no confusion in our minds if the words “shall be liable on conviction” had been followed by “in the discretion of the magistrate”. I hope when the hon. the Minister goes to the Senate with the Bill, he may still move such an amendment to make the meaning quite clear.

I know that the House wants to get finished very soon; but I cannot refrain from, in a friendly way, drawing to the attention of the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the other side the very different attitude of this side of the House to a measure which stiffens very considerably the punishment for an offence of this kind, when in regard to this offence provision is made for recourse to the courts, when the onus is not affected, and when in every other way the principles of our administration of justice seem to be left untouched. I think the hon. the Minister will forgive me if I do make this point, because he will see that we are prepared to support matters of this kind, when no other harm is done.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

I move as an unopposed motion—

Seeing that this is the last legislation I shall be dealing with this Session, may I take the opportunity to convey my heartfelt thanks to hon. members on both sides of the House for the way in which we have been able to deal with this final piece of legislation and for the way in which its passage has been facilitated without any principles being violated. I am convinced that in this short time we have done good work. My sincere thanks to hon. members for their co-operation.

Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ: I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This Bill is in the main the ordinary omnibus Pensions Bill which is normally introduced every year. A number of amendments are also being effected and in the nature of things many of them are of a technical and administrative nature. For this reason I published an explanatory memorandum some time ago and I trust that hon. members found full details in that explanatory memorandum. I do not intend giving a long explanation because I know that especially the members who take a particular interest in pension matters will have studied the explanatory memorandum carefully.

As hon. members know, this is one of those matters which are never static. Changes are continually taking place and the necessary amendments must be considered year after year. In any case there are a few matters to which I just want to refer briefly. The first is the concessions to pensioners. One of the objects of this Bill is to provide for the concessions to pensioners which the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget speech. Hon. members on both sides of the House are very interested in the position of pensioners. They often live under difficult circumstances and with the improvements in the position of pensioners which have now been announced and are announced from time to time, the object is always to provide financial relief to those who are in the greatest need.

I just want to refer to the social pensioners, in respect of whom provision is made in Clauses 43, 44 and 45. In this regard I can just say for the information of hon. members that in terms of the provisions of Sections 3 (1) and 4 of the War Veterans Pensions Act, 1962, the increased bonuses, as announced by the Minister of Finance, will also be paid to war veterans who are in receipt of war veterans’ pensions. Hon. members will probably ask from when these payments will be made. The payments will be made as from 1 April 1962. As hon. members will understand, the payment of these small amounts represents a vast task for the Department and will therefore take a little while, but we expect these payments with retrospective effect from 1 April 1962 to be made during July/August.

Then there are the civil pensioners. Civil pensions at present are supplemented by the payment of a bonus which is equivalent to 10 per cent of such a pension. The bonus may however not exceed R200 per annum. The Minister of Finance has announced that the amount of the pension which a public servant receives on his retirement is, inter alia, dependent on his average annual pensionable earnings over a prescribed period. There is a certain group of officials who retired at a time when the salary scales were considerably lower. There is sympathy for these officials because the basic salaries at that time were so low and the resultant pensions so small that these people are now living under difficult circumstances. In order to provide relief to these pensioners, it is the intention to increase the bonuses payable to those persons who retired before 1 October 1958. The necessary provision is made in Clause 3 of the Bill. It is also felt that the limitation of R200 per annum which has applied hitherto should be abolished.

The next group of pensioners who are being assisted, are the Coloured war veterans. The ratio between the amount of compensation which was payable to and in respect of White and Coloured war veterans under the War Pensions Act was 5:3 before 1942. In 1942 it was changed to 8:3. As a result of the increase in the amounts payable to Coloureds who draw social pensions, the ratio between the amounts payable to Whites as against those payable to Coloureds as from 1 April 1961, was increased to 8:4. By the amendment contained in this Bill we also want to increase war pensions to the ratio of 8:4. To achieve this aim the benefits paid to and in respect of Coloured war veterans are being increased. The necessary provision is made in a whole series of clauses.

Another provision of general interest in this Bill deals with residential qualifications. The provision contained in paragraph (b) of Clause 42 flows from the fact that the Republic is no longer a member of the Commonwealth. In this regard I can just refer hon. members to the statements by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 26 February and 6 June in this House. At present a citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Eire is eligible for an old age pension if he has resided in the Republic for 15 of the 20 years immediately preceding the date of his application. Other foreigners have to be resident in the Republic for 25 of the 30 years preceding the date of application. This amendment gives effect to the decision to make the residential requirements prescribed by the Old Age Pensions Act in respect of other foreigners also applicable to citizens of Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Eire. I must just mention that the residential requirements—and this is of particular importance—which applied immediately before 31 May 1962 in respect of citizens of Commonwealth countries or the Republic of Eire will continue to apply to such citizens if an old-age pension had been granted to them prior to that date. In other words, they are not affected by the amendment to the residential requirements and they will continue to receive the pensions at present being paid to them.

There is another matter with which this Bill deals, namely the position which has arisen regarding immigrants from certain African territories. In this regard I turn to Clause 51. As hon. members know, events in certain African territories in recent times have resulted in White persons from those territories entering this country, which they are still doing, to settle in the Republic. I do not want to enlarge on the circumstances under which the Whites have decided to leave those countries and to come to the Republic. It is a voluntary matter. It is for them to decide whether they want to come or not. Many of these persons were however born in South Africa or are the descendants of persons who were born in South Africa; and it is therefore clear that the tendency amongst many of these people will be to return to South Africa.

Many of them have come to the Republic and others will probably still come without sufficient means or the immediate prospect of being able to provide for their own requirements. Circumstances in those territories are such that when these people arrive here, they are in need. Nor is this the first time that it has happened in our country. It has happened on many occasions that such people have come to this country. Amongst those who are coming now, are old people, mentally infirm people and even war veterans.

It is also known that many of the persons who have already emigrated from African territories to the Republic possess property and other assets in those territories, from which in the nature of things they cannot derive any benefit at the moment. An aged or incapacitated person or a person who needs other social services, although he still has possessions in such territory, cannot realize those assets. He comes to this country and we receive him and bid him welcome. We think it is only right that in the circumstances we should try to tide him over the difficulties with which he is faced. Apart from the difficulty which is being experienced in getting money out of such territories, there is of course at the moment the difficulty—we do not know whether the position will change; we know that the position is very fluid—experienced in disposing of assets, particularly fixed property, in those territories. With the best will in the world they cannot realize their fixed property and assets. For all practical purposes these assets are therefore valueless at the moment to the owners who come to settle here.

As a result of the residential requirements which the social pensions laws prescribe, these persons would have to live for some years in the Republic before they would come into consideration for assistance under these laws. With a view to the exceptional circumstances under which these people have had to leave their homes and settle here, and the fact that we welcome them here, the Government has taken the following decisions which are embodied in this Bill in order to ease their position in this country. The first is to suspend the prescribed residential requirements in their case. The second is to empower the Commissioner of Pensions to ignore the assets they own in the territories concerned when fixing the amount of the pension or allowance which is to be paid to them. But as I have said, this is a fluid position. As will be noticed from the provisions of Clause 51, the powers which are being vested in the Commissioner will be exercised subject to such conditions as the Minister may prescribe. The intention is inter alia to lay down the following conditions: The first is that the person concerned must submit a written declaration to the effect that he intends residing permanently in the Republic. We have had experience of people who have come from African territories but the Republic is only an interim stop as far as they are concerned. We therefore want stability and we want these people to submit that written statement to the effect that they intend residing permanently in the Republic. In the second place we shall expect from such a person a written undertaking that he will take steps to become a South African citizen within a specified period, for example as soon as he qualifies as such. This links up with the decision of such a person to remain here permanently. It is consequent to that decision. And then in the third place we shall require a written undertaking that he will immediately notify the Commissioner as soon as he disposes of any property or other assets which he may have in the African territory concerned, and has transferred the proceeds to the Republic. Furthermore it has been decided that a date will be fixed and that after that date the provisions of this clause will only apply if the person concerned has entered the Republic under the Government scheme for financial or other assistance to immigrants from African territories. The hon. the Minister of Immigration has already made a statement in this regard. When arrangements are made for the bringing of immigrants from African territories and when those arrangements are in order and a date has been fixed, the provisions of this clause will only apply if the person concerned enters the Republic in terms of the Government scheme.

Cases where pensions have been granted will be reviewed by the Department from time to time to ascertain whether the pensioner has complied with his undertakings. If the pensioner disposes of property or assets in other territories or transfers funds to the Republic, his pension will naturally either be reduced or withdrawn, depending on the circumstances, because he will then be in a position to bring his assets here and to realize them so that he can live on the proceeds.

I want to point out that the provision of the clause will only apply to persons who enter the Republic from other African territories which the Minister recognizes and declares to be such for the purposes of this clause.

I want to come to another provision, namely a change which we wish to effect in respect of the pension position of Administrators. As hon. members of course know, Administrators are members of the Parliamentary Pension Scheme and are obliged to make the same contributions as Members of Parliament. It is therefore desirable that the pension benefits which they will eventually receive will as far as possible be on a corresponding scale. The position is such that the maximum pensions payable differ in respect of different salary scales.

Just as is the position in the case of certain office-bearers of Parliament, provision is made in the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act for the payment of special pensions to Administrators when they retire. The scale on which the special pension of an Administrator is calculated at present is however lower than that which applies in the case of certain office-bearers of Parliament, who receive the same salaries as Administrators, for example the Speaker of the House of Assembly and the President of the Senate.

As a result of the amendments embodied in Clause 5, the scale which applies to the latter office-bearers, will also apply to Administrators. Administrators will therefore be entitled to higher pensions on their retirement in view of the manifold and demanding duties which Administrators have to carry out, as well as the sacrifices they have to make on accepting this post, and I trust that hon. members will agree that the increase is fully justified.

I must just add here, as hon. members know, that this is an agreed measure. Clause 6 also makes provision for the widows of Members of Parliament so that they will retain their pension for as long as they may live after the death of their husbands.

I then come to the Government Service Pensions Act. The Bill also deals with a number of amendments to the Government Service Pensions Act, 1955. I should like to point out to hon. members that certain of these amendments flow from the fact that we have changed over to the rand /cent monetary system and the fact that the Union has become a Republic. The latter amendments are therefore merely of a formal nature and do not in any way affect the rights or benefits of public servants or Government employees on retirement. The main object of the remaining amendments is to remove certain deficiencies and weaknesses in the Government Service Pensions Act which have come to light during its implementation. In implementing this Act certain matters have arisen over the years which we felt should be corrected. There have also been certain differing interpretations and these amendments are being proposed merely to correct the wording and to bring about clarity so that these differing interpretations will be eliminated. Hon. members will find an explanation of these amendments in the explanatory memorandum.

All the amendments to the Government Service Pensions Act have been effected after consultation with the Treasury and the Public Service Commission, and have their approval. As hon. members will understand this legislation is very complicated and of a technical nature. One must be very careful when dealing with it. It would therefore be wrong not to have the necessary consultation with the Treasury and the Public Service Commission.

Then we have the position of the staff of the Africa Institute. Clause 48 of the Bill makes provision for the permanent officers and the employees of the Africa Institute to become members of the University Institutions Provident Fund. This step is being taken at the request of the executive committee of the Institute. This Institute is a State-aided body. It receives an annual subsidy of R26,000 from the Department of Education, Arts and Science.

The work of the Institute is of a university nature, just as is the position in the case of the C.S.I.R., the Bureau of Standards, and the Fish, Wool, Leather, Paint and Sugar Research Institutes. The permanent staff of the latter organizations are already permitted to become members of the University Institutions Provident Fund by special legislation.

Then we have the former employees of the Group Areas Development Board. As regards Clause 49, I can mention that 101 employees of the Group Areas Development Board became employees of the Government in the Department of Community Development as from 1 August 1961. They did not enjoy any pension rights while in the employ of the Board. Their salary scales, leave privileges, etc., were however the same as those of temporary employees in the Public Service. It is therefore considered that the recognition of their previous service with the Board for the purposes of the Government Service Pensions Act is fully justified.

Mr. Speaker, it may be as well if I just sum up briefly the objects of this legislation. The first is to give effect to the Government’s decision regarding pensioners, namely to increase with effect from 1 April 1962 the bonuses payable to social and certain civil pensioners and to increase the compensation payable to and in respect of Coloured war pensioners. The second is to raise the: scale on which Administrators’ special pensions are calculated and to bring it into line with the scale which is applicable to other members receiving more or less the same salaries. The third is to effect amendments flowing from the establishment of the Republic and the change-over to the rand/ cent decimal system. The fourth is to correct certain deficiencies and weaknesses in the Government Service Pensions Act which have come to light during the implementation of that Act. The fifth is to amend the residential qualifications applying to citizens of Commonwealth countries. The sixth is to make provision for pension benefits for the staff of the Africa Institute. The seventh is to recognize the previous service of former employees of the Group Areas Development Board for pension purposes; and the eighth is to set aside the residential qualifications and certain other requirements of the social pensions laws in the case of certain persons who immigrate to the Republic from certain African territories.

Mr. Speaker, these are the general objects of this Bill which is a comprehensive and lengthy one, but which in essence is aimed at doing what is best in the interests of those people who, as I said at the outset, are in the greatest need. I move.

This side of the House has no intention of opposing this Bill. While I agree with the hon. the Minister when he said that he was trying to do the best he could for pensioners and similar people, I must say that I do not think that he and his party have gone about it the right way. I think they have tried to do what they can but I think they have no right to assume that they have a monopoly of wisdom or of kindness or of consideration towards pensioners and people of that nature. They have done a great disservice to these people by bringing this Bill up at this late stage. It does not give us a chance to put forward any amendment or any proposals to try to see if we can do more for them. I admit that they are doing a great deal; they are trying to help these people, but it does not follow necessarily that that is the only or the best thing that can be done. They come forward with this Bill at a time like this when they know very well that we will not do a disservice to these unfortunate people (anybody who has a pension is unfortunate even though he may have earned it, otherwise he would be working and a worker is happier than a pensioner, he is better off). Nevertheless it is possible, I would go so far as to say it is probable, very probable, that had we had more time and a greater opportunity of debating this Bill, had we been able to give it that combined attention and the wisdom of both sides of the House which it cannot now receive, we would have done a greater service to these people.

I would like to say that we welcome the provision which has been made for widows. It is a good principle in general that widows who re-marry should not lose their pensions. We would like to see this principle extended to many other widows who lose their pensions when they re-marry. Those of us who move among the people realize that there are many lonely people going about the world, lonely because they cannot re-marry otherwise they will lose the pension which they have. The principle should be extended that widows, even though they marry again, can retain that small pittance which by chance or by design has come to them from their husbands. We also welcome the provision in respect of those people who may be forced by circumstances in Africa to come to this country and to settle here. I want to say that the Minister’s explanation of the conditions and the reasons for doing this has completely satisfied this side of the House.

The improvement in the amount which is given to pensioners, particularly the Coloureds, we also welcome. On the whole, Sir, we think that the Bill is a good Bill. We do not intend opposing it, but we object most strongly to the assumption that it would not have been a better Bill had we been given a chance to debate it across the floor of this House.

I wish to express my gratitude to hon. members for supporting this Bill. I wish to thank the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) for saying that this is a good Bill. I can only say that I have given an explanatory memorandum to members in due time so that hon. members would have an opportunity of studying it. That was quite a long time ago. That was one of the reasons why this Bill was delayed. As I said in my introductory speech I quite concede that so much more can be spent and done by anybody who has the means to improve the position of these pensioners. I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for saying that so much has already been done. I want to say, Sir, that all the points which hon. members wanted to raise they could, of course, have raised when my Vote was under discussion. That was why I said when my Vote was taken that any suggestions coming from any side of the House would be thoroughly investigated. I extend that invitation to hon. members on all sides of the House that if they wish to make any suggestions regarding pensions they can let me know any time during the recess. They can come and see me any time during the session of Parliament. As a matter of fact I sent an invitation to the hon. member and the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) to come and see the officials of my Department and they had discussions on the Bill. As the hon. member has said the principle could be extended to other spheres. There I quite agree. The principle of providing this pension for widows when they remarry is already observed in regard to civil pensions. But I quite agree with the hon. member as far as that is concerned that this is something that we will have to try to extend to all spheres if we have the means.

I want to conclude by saying thank you to everybody who was concerned on all sides of the House, to all those who have studied the explanatory memorandum and also to all those who did not make a study of that memorandum.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 29,

Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the following amendment to this clause—

and in line 18, to omit “and (c)” and to substitute “(c) and (d)”.

This is merely the addition of a new subsection as a result of the amendment to Section 29. If this is not done, it will result in a certain section of the persons concerned being excluded. This was a mistake and it is now merely being corrected.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 48,

The members of the Africa Institute are now to be included in this pension scheme and in view of the fact that they are going to be treated as if they were members of the State working for us, would it be possible for the Minister to tell us whether or not their findings are going to be tabled in this House or whether they are going to be an independent organization which will only have to report to the university to which they are attached. It is very important for us to know what these people are doing in the line of research throughout Africa, and I would like to suggest that the findings of the Africa Institute should be tabled in the House so that we will be able to study them.

As I have said, these persons are being brought under the Universities Provident Fund. This is therefore a question which falls under the Department of Union Education and I shall bring it to their notice.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 53,

I move—

1. (1) If any person—
   1. (a) who is a member by virtue of the fact that he is an Administrator is on the date of commencement of Section 5 of this Act in receipt of or entitled to a pension in terms of an ordinance made under the powers conferred on a provincial council by the Provincial Powers Extension Act, 1960 (Act No. 42 of 1960); or
   2. (b) who after the said date of commencement becomes a member by virtue of the fact that he has become an Administrator, is on the date on which he so becomes a member in receipt of or entitled to a pension in terms of any such ordinance,

the said pension shall cease to be payable to him—

1. (i) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (a), with effect from the said date of commencement; or
2. (ii) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (b), with effect from the date on which he so becomes a member;

in line 70, to omit “be paid” and to substitute “become payable”; and in line 16, page 31, to omit “paid” and to substitute “payable”.

The effect is merely that the provisions of Clause 6 will not only be applicable to existing cases but in the future as well.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Amendments in Clauses 29 and 53 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I should just like to express my appreciation for the outstanding work which the officials of the Department have done. It has entailed a vast amount of work to draw up this legislation and not only to get it ready for printing, but also to get it legally correct so that the law advisers would agree, and I want to express my appreciation for the outstanding services which they have rendered.

I second.

I wonder if I can take this opportunity of thanking the officials of the Department for the courtesy which they have extended to the members of our group here, firstly in supplying us with the memorandum and secondly in helping us to interpret these difficult passages of the Bill. These gentlemen have been at our disposal on more than one occasion. They have given us a lot of their valuable time and have been very patient with us. We feel that our appreciation should be recorded.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

In moving the adjournment of the House, I just want to announce what the procedure will be tomorrow. We shall meet to-morrow at 10 a.m. I assume the Senate will still be sitting, and we shall then suspend proceedings until such time as the Senate is finished, when the bells will ring to call members together again. I move—

I second.

Agreed to.