Mr. Speaker, since this debate was adjourned we have been startled and shocked by the interim report submitted by the Commissioner conducting the investigation into the Paarl riot, Mr. Justice Snyman, and I think we and the country expect references to be made to that report during the course of this debate. Particularly will the country expect from the Minister of Bantu Administration an explanation of how this situation developed amongst the people for whom he is responsible and how such subversive organizations could have come into being, and also an explanation from the Minister of Justice as to how this situation has spread and developed so far without his Department knowing about it or taking adequate steps to prevent it. The hon. member on this side of the House who will follow me will deal with the subject more fully, but it is not irrelevant to the Budget debate. I think it affects us in two ways. On the one hand, widespread unrest threatens the stability of the whole country and might easily affect the Budget. On the other hand, a thriving economy creates the most unfavourable conditions for the agitator and the revolutionary. It is with the latter aspect of the question that I want to deal this afternoon in discussing the Budget introduced by the hon. the Minister last week. I have said that on a cursory glance at his statement, it appeared to us to be very much the mixture that we had before, with a little sweetening—in fact “a little bit of sugar for the bird”. On further examination I find that the ration of sugar is even smaller than appeared to be the case on first examination, and I think the reaction throughout the country is the same as my own, and that is that on the whole it was a disappointing Budget. I shall give my reasons for saying so.

Let me deal first with some of the things that the hon. the Minister said and later— perhaps much more important—some of the things that he did not say. We agree with the Minister in his general assessment of the present economic position when he cautiously says that “generally the domestic economic conditions present a perceptible picture of economic revival” but “that the rate of personal consumption remains subdued” and that “the rate of gross private investment is nearly static”. So far I am in agreement with the hon. the Minister. But when he says that the increase of R35,000,000 in defence expenditure and the R5,000,000 on police expenditure is what he calls a direct contribution to economic revival, I think the hon. the Minister is on dangerous ground. It is true that a good deal of that amount will be spent on wages and material but, of course, it is quite unproductive. What is more, none of us has the slightest idea as to how much of this amount is going to be spent in this country and how much of it is going to be spent on arms and equipment from abroad, and without knowing that it is quite impossible to judge what the effect of this increased expenditure will be on the spending power of the community. We all agree that defence expenditure is necessary. This side of the House has supported the Minister of Defence in his request for more money, and we shall continue to do so, but the fact remains that defence expenditure, from the economic point of view, is a drag and a deterrent on economic expansion and should not be quoted by the Minister of Finance as a direct contribution made to economic revival. The manpower and the materials which unfortunately it is necessary for us to use for defence purposes could be much more profitably used in other directions and, of course, if the hon. the Minister will think for a moment he will agree with me that if the argument is to be used that defence expenditure is necessary in order to stimulate the economy then it may become a menace. What does the hon. the Minister think would happen in the United States if a substantial disarmament agreement was signed to-morrow? The general impression is that there would be the most awful slump in the United States that they have had for a very long time. Instead of looking at it in that light therefore, let us accept defence expenditure as a necessary evil which we all accept and which we all agree to, but do not let us delude ourselves into thinking that it helps to build the country’s economy. It is in fact a substantial increase in the cost structure of the country, with no compensating increase in the strength of the country’s economy.

Sir, I can deal very shortly with the actual financial proposals of the hon. the Minister because, unlike last year, for the most part they are uncontentious. In fact, many of them have been consistently urged upon him from this side of the House. I refer to the automatic placing of the whole surplus to Loan Account; increasing the money being made available for the development of the Bantu areas; the relief granted to pensioners, the concessions made to the gold mines—and we are very glad to see that as a result of the strong representations from this side of the House, the Government has at last appointed a Cabinet Committee to consider the position of the marginal mines—the relating of the rigid rule laid down by the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the amount to be made available for Bantu Education, the reduction of income-tax, petrol tax and so on. Sir, when the Government moves in these matters it is taking steps, however timid those steps may be, in the direction which we have consistently advocated from this side of the House. Whilst we support the Minister’s proposals we do think that in some respects they are steps which are inadequate and very hesitant but they are steps in the right direction, and we learned from bitter experience to be thankful for small mercies in dealing with the present Minister of Finance and his predecessor. Sir, I will refer later to some of these proposals in greater detail. It is true that the sum total of purchasing power which is being released by this Budget is not inconsiderable; pensions, R4,700,000; taxation R13,600,000, the repayment of the loan levy, nearly R20,000,000, and then, quite apart from the Budget, the increase in the wages of public servants by some R31,000,000, making a considerable total of R70,000,000. But I think we have to remember that nearly half of that or more than half of that really is purchasing power which has been deliberately, and we think unnecessarily, withheld from the public, in some cases for five years. There is also another fact which has to be considered when we try to judge what effect it will have, and that is the new system of income-tax because I think that from 1 March, when people start paying their income-tax weekly and monthly, there is going to be a very considerable drain on consumer buying and on private expenditure for a good many months to come, especially as the loan levy will not be repaid until the latter half of the year and a great many people will be overpaying taxes for many months to come until the Receiver of Revenue gets his machinery in order to make allowance for the deductions which have been made.

Sir, I said that this was a disappointing Budget, and I say it because we had hoped on this occasion to see a new and a bolder and a more up-to-date approach to fiscal policy generally; we had hoped to have an attempt at “growth point” or economic budgeting, as was forecast by the hon. the Prime Minister in his statement of last September. The hon. the Minister’s continual reference to flexibility and his bending backwards and forwards and sideways of the fiscal machine, may show that he is groping his way towards the light—I do not know—but it does make one wonder as to whether next year he will not appear before us as a physical training instructor or perhaps as a manipulator or chiropractor.

That does not even raise a laugh.

Sir, I have an amendment to move; perhaps that will make the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. H. F. Bekker) laugh. I move—

1. (a) to take more active and co-ordinated steps to encourage the rate of growth of which the economy is inherently capable and thereby raise the standard of living of all sections of the community;
2. (b) to place Parliament in a position to exercise adequate control over the expenditure on defence with a view to ensuring the highest degree of efficiency in all departments of defence;
3. (c) to end our ever-growing isolation from traditional friends in the Western world; and
4. (d) to take steps to resolve the continuing crises in agriculture

Ever since Union, with rare exceptions—I can remember two or three exceptions—we have got used to ultra-conservative, unimaginative, stodgy and highly inaccurate budgeting by the various Ministers of Finance. But times have changed and to-day, with the pressing need for meeting the requirements of our people for better living, with the need for inspiring a full exploitation or our natural resources, much more is needed than a mere balancing or an attempt at balancing of our annual accounts. The last thing that Ministers of Finance have done in recent years is to balance their accounts, of course. What happens to-day? The Budget is presented; people look at the newspapers to see what taxes they are going to have to pay and then they forget about it. It makes no impact at all on the country or the people; it has very little effect. It is quite true, of course, that the financial policy of the Minister is fettered by Government policies; the Viljoen Report makes that perfectly clear, and it is quite clear, of course, from speeches by Cabinet Ministers such as those made over the week-end by three of them, that the Budget introduced by the Minister does not reflect their views on the future prosperity and well-being of this country. But, Sir, if the fiscal policy is to play its full part, is to play its most useful part, it cannot possibly do so if it is framed from year to year on the hit or miss basis which is now employed—and I am not singling out this Minister; he just happens to be Minister of Finance for a short time, we hope—without any definite objective for the future. Sir, there are big ideas abroad, there are big schemes afoot and now if ever is surely the time for the Treasury to think big too in framing its Budget. May I give the hon. the Minister a couple of examples of what I mean? Let me refer first to what is known as the Orange River project. We had that report a year ago: this year we are being asked to vote R2,000,000 for the purchase of land along the banks of the Orange River. It is a very big undertaking. It is an undertaking which in principle was welcomed by everyone. The estimated tentative cost—I repeat “tentative” and the Minister of Finance knows what “tentative” means when anybody asks him for money—is R300,000,000 plus another R 100,000,000 for power stations, and it is estimated that it will take 30 years to complete.

It is a wonderful scheme.

It is a United Party scheme.

The Report proposes that the Department of Water Affairs should be responsible for the supervision and control of the construction of all these schemes which are embodied in,the main plan, and that thereafter the Department of Water Affairs should be responsible for its administration and maintenance. To give you an idea of the ramifications of the scheme, one may point out that at least eight other Government Departments were involved in the compilation of this Report. I want to ask the Minister whether he would not agree with me that we are approaching this project, which is a major one by any standards anywhere, in a somewhat haphazard fashion. Sir, it is a bold, imaginative plan involving almost every branch of the country’s life and involving at least R400,000,000 over a period of 30 years. I think the first question that one wants to ask is: Why 30 years? Has the Treasury examined the financial implications of this scheme very closely, and have they told the Government that they cannot make more than R1 10,000,000 a year available over the next 30 years for the completion of this scheme? Because I think the limiting factors in the time it will take to complete the scheme must be manpower and money, and I imagine that as far as money is concerned the people principally concerned are the Minister of Finance and his Department. If that is the case I would like to know why the Treasury have decided that all that they can make available is enough money to complete this scheme over 30 years. It is a good scheme and surely the sooner it is finished the better. Has the Minister considered the possibility of long-term loans for this specific scheme, quite apart from the ordinary Budget? Apparently we are simply quietly leaving it to one Department, the Department of Water Affairs, to get on with the job, and even if it gets on with it with the vigour and the energy which we are accustomed to expect of the Minister of Water Affairs, Parliament will simply be called upon to vote a few million every year for the purpose. I think this project is much too far-reaching and its possibilities for great success and also for disastrous failure are much too great to be left to a Government Department to build and supervise and take the responsibility for it—any Government Department. I am very glad that the Prime Minister is here this afternoon, because he is of course the man who will have the final say. Here you have a major scheme, the biggest scheme ever undertaken in the country, one of the biggest of its kind undertaken anywhere, and I think we should establish a proper Orange River Authority and that that Authority should be manned by the ablest and the best brains in the world. Some of them may be in the Water Affairs Department to-day, but we should get the best and the most experienced people. There are similar schemes in various parts of the world, and I feel that we should form this Authority and give them the authority to run the show untrammelled by Public Service Commissions or political influence or anything of that sort. I believe that if we do not do that, if we handle the Orange River plan in the same pedestrian way in which we have been handling our financial policy in past years, the result is simply going to be costly and inefficient and intolerably slow.

Another example is the development of the Bantu areas. It is nearly ten years now that we have been voting money for the development of the Bantu areas. We vote money and the money is very often not spent. The year before last they had R5,000,000 over; this year they had R5,000,000 over; they do not spend the money, and Parliament and the country have a very dim picture indeed of what we shall have to budget for finally and what we can expect to see when the development is completed. I think it is fair to say that after ten years we are scarcely a step nearer the economic self-sufficiency of the Bantu areas, which is the aim, than we were and that there is very little prospect of our catching up with the enormous backlog which has to be made up if we are going to succeed. Well, Sir, there are two major issues which are completely ignored in discussing the planned budgeting of the country for the immediate future and the years to come. I would like to see more imagination and courage in framing the country’s accounts and preparing the country’s balances for the years to come. Meanwhile the hon. the Minister has two main immediate problems, to which he himself referred. One is to stimulate consumption and the other is to find adequate and skilled manpower for the work which has to be done. Sir, we shall discuss both these questions in the course of the debate, but as to the first one, the question of stimulating consumption, what is required at the moment, I think, is not more factories. Our factories at present have an estimated spare production capacity of some 20 per cent, and if the new report recommending the shift system is introduced, that spare capacity may easily be increased to 50 per cent. But what those factories do want is more customers and more purchasing power which mean, of course, higher wages, particularly in the lower income groups. The net income of the country doubled itself over ten years, but if you make adjustments for the rise in prices, the net national income increased by about 46 per cent, but the individual income, the net individual income for men, women and children of all races over those years, at constant prices, making allowance for the increased prices, between 1951 and 1962, only increased from R182 a year to R205 a year. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister in his statement last September referred to the lack of statistics. Here is a case to which I should like to draw his attention as a matter of very great importance, because if you say that the net individual income throughout our country of men, women and children is R205, unless you have a breakdown of that figure showing the income of the Native, the Coloured, the Indian and the White, it really means very little. If the Minister will get his Department to look into it he will find that in other countries they have a complete breakdown as to the classes of people in the country so that you can tell the average income of the different classes. All we can deduce from this is that the great majority of our people at the present time are living almost below the breadline. Bearing in mind the fact that the average individual net income in Britain over the last ten years has increased by 3.4 per cent, in Germany by 6.9 per cent per annum, but that in our country it has only increased by 1.4 per cent—and last year it was less than that—and bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of the people in our country are in the very low income groups, one realizes that you cannot hope fully to exploit our industrial capacity and provide the customers that we should be able to produce on the present basis of distribution of income. The hon. the Minister employs some 43,000 non-Europeans in the Government Departments; his colleague next to him employs something like 100,000 and I would like to know by how much those people’s pay has increased during the last ten years. I wonder whether the increase even kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. In a matter like this, when the Government and the Minister talk about increase in consumption and raising the standard of living, surely this is a case where the Government should be giving the lead, instead of which they are lagging behind most lamentably. Private employers over the last two or three years have to a considerable extent started increasing the wages of the non-European and they find that it pays them; they find that so far from being a burden to the industry it actually pays them because they get better work and more efficiency, and it is high time the Government tried to catch up with the private employers who have taken the lead in this connection and I think that their early attention should be given to the wage-earning potential of the non-European in Government employment, because I am quite certain that if that labour was more usefully employed, the non-European would give greater results and help to build up the economy of this country to a much greater extent.

I should like to refer just briefly to the other legs of the amendment which will be dealt with more fully by other speakers. Let me deal first with number (3), our ever-growing isolation. Sir, despite our favourable balance of trade, despite our growing ability to finance our normal capital requirements to a greater extent from domestic sources, despite the growing, the record holdings of the Reserve Bank, despite the inflow of private capital last year of some R20,000,000, there was a net outflow of private investment capital of some R70,000,000 during last year, and therefore strict currency control remains. That is a clear indication that confidence in our economic future is by no means fully restored yet, and that what confidence there is, is very delicately balanced. Of course, the report to which I referred at the beginning of the afternoon shows how delicately that confidence may be balanced. Then again, speeches such as those made over the week-end by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are not calculated to stabilize that delicately balanced confidence. But politically our isolation seems to grow worse and worse. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is reported to have told a distinguished audience over the week-end that the outlook is in fact a bit darker than people think. The Minister of Foreign Affairs appears to be at loggerheads with everybody. The poor man has to try to plead a policy which nobody in the world will look at. Our position at the United Nations has become practically intolerable. We have apparently abandoned any attempt or any idea of establishing political or economic relations with this vast continent on which we live. The continent of Asia is ranged against us with the possible exception of Japan which needs our pig-iron and our fish and is having to tread very warily to avoid falling foul of her fellow-Asians and is not prepared to go so far as to establish full diplomatic relations with South Africa.

In effect, Sir, politically we are practically international outcasts at the present time. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is reported to have said—

That is an indication of what I mean when I say that to a large extent we are to-day political outcasts. Not only does all this have the effect of retarding our economy, closing potential markets and preventing us from pulling our weight in the councils of the world and scaring off investment capital but it is also the main reason for our having to make this dramatic increase in our defence expenditure. Defence measures are necessary but we cannot hope to provide adequate security alone. Defence expenditure alone, Sir, is not sufficient insurance to cover our security. It seems to me elementary, absolutely vital, that in addition to our defence we should be backed by friends and allies. The question is where are they? As far as we know they are non-existent. As the hon. the Minister has said, for the most part we are not getting any assistance at all. We shall develop that argument further in the course of this debate. I want to refer to the second point, the question of defence. During the last 15 years, Sir, we have spent many millions, hundreds of millions, on defence. Because the annual amount was comparatively small not much notice was taken of the fact that Parliament really had little idea of what was going on and how those amounts were spent. I think all of us who have been in Parliament at that time have been negligent in the matter. How little we had to show nobody knows better than the present Minister, because I am quite sure that he was not satisfied with what he found when he took over. I am not noted for patting Nationalist Ministers on the back but I think it is the general impression that the present Minister is a considerable improvement on his predecessor. The Defence Department is now under new management and under new circumstances. The position has changed. Defence has become a major item in our Budget. Last year we spent R 120,000,000; this year it is R155,000,000. Nobody knows what it will be next year. It may be R200,000,000. This is another instance of our lack of economic budgeting. We have no idea from year to year what kind of an amount we are likely to be able to find. The hon. the Minister of Finance did say that “we shall be called upon to pay this premium on our policy of national security on a considerable scale for some years to come”. I wish he would elaborate on that, Sir. But it is quite clear that we are dealing with large sums of money, money which in the next few years may well amount to R1,000,000,000. We feel that it is not sufficient for us to say “hear, hear” every year and to think that we have done our duty by just cheerfully voting for the money which the hon. the Minister asks. This House—not only the Opposition because this is not a political question—owes a responsibility to the country and to the Minister himself, I think, to keep a watch on where the money goes and to make sure as far as it is possible to do so that there is no waste and that the money is wisely spent.

The Auditor-General’s report, which is a report on all Government Departments, is not sufficient for the purpose as any member of the Public Accounts Committee will agree. But the Auditor-General’s report, in its limited scope, has undoubtedly made it clear that there have been considerable shortcomings in what one might call the housekeeping of the Department of Defence. The housekeeping of the Department of Defence is going to become more and more important, because if we understand the position correctly, the Minister is acquiring very large quantities of reserves, spares, equipment and stock. This will all have to be looked after and kept. So the housekeeping department is becoming much more important than it ever was before. I am not going to elaborate on this point, Sir. That will be done by my colleagues on this side of the House when they get their opportunity to speak. I only want to say that we have positive suggestions to make and that I do hope the hon. the Minister will accept them in the spirit in which they are offered. We wish Parliament to have an opportunity of playing its part in helping to maintain a high degree of efficiency in all branches of defence.

The last leg of the amendment deals with agriculture, the continuing crises in agriculture. When I talk about continuing crises in agriculture I am not referring to the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). To say that all is not well in agriculture is putting it mildly. The fact that we are voting R2,400,000 for rehabilitation this year is a small indication of this fact. We pointed out to the hon. the Minister last year that he had failed to report on the state of the agricultural industry. This year, Sir, he had even less to say. Perhaps he thinks the less he says about the agricultural industry the better at the present time. We cannot agree with that and we shall deal with that question in the course of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, if you remember last year’s debate you will have noticed that in this year’s proposals in almost every instance the hon. the Minister has to some degree followed our advice. I will not go so far as to say that he has proved a very bright pupil but I think it is quite clear that he has made some attempt to learn the lessons which we have tried to teach him. It has become quite usual for us to give the hon. the Minister some homework either for preparing his reply to the Budget or for preparing his next year’s Budget in the event of his and his Government still being there to present one to the House which, of course, we hope will not be the case.

Some of the things which we believe he should do, things which we certainly shall do as soon as we get the opportunity, are these: Number one: Overall, the Minister should never cease to make his Government amend their racial policies which plague him and us in the attempt to get round the corner to the prosperity about which he has been talking for so long. Let him remember, I am repeating it again, that Government policies should be framed with an eye on their effect on the country’s economy. The Minister, when we put that up before, repudiated it with almost Biblical fervour but I am going to repeat it to him, Sir, because I am sure that sooner or later he will learn that lesson and he will realize that we were right in reminding him of that basic fact.

I would suggest to the Minister that he gets busy cleaning his garden of some of the racial weeds which are threatening to choke it at the present time. Secondly, the Minister thinks that the best way to provide, as he says, a sound stimulant for consumer spending is to reduce income-tax. We agree with him. But his present proposal of 5 per cent discount or R5,000,000 which represents .046 per cent of his total Budget, seems to us to be hopelessly inadequate. Mr. Speaker, a temporary discount does not make for competence; it is a timid tentative sort of thing to do. I have no doubt at all that the right thing for the Minister to do is a substantial cut, not in discount, but in the rate of personal and companies’ tax. I believe that the Minister could and should make a bold reduction of anything up to R30,000,000 in company and income-tax at the present time. The Minister can easily do so quite safely. He has a surplus this year of R75,000,000 in his total budget which is two and a half times as much as the figure I suggest. It is quite clear that he is budgeting for another large surplus in the coming year.

I say let him show some of his faith and let him anticipate that. He can easily cover it, if he wants to, by placing more of the expenditure to Loan Account or by issuing more Treasury bills later on, which he will have to do in any case, or even if necessary by raising a short ten-year loan on the domestic market, a loan which he can raise overnight, if he feels inclined to do so. But now is the time to show the Government’s faith in economic revival. If the Minister has faith in the economic revival of the country now is the time for him to make a substantial cut to show exactly how strong his belief is in the future.

Thirdly, Sir, the Minister should initiate an independent inquiry into gold-mining taxation. He told us that he had had strong representations by the gold-mining industry. He did not say that he was unsympathetic towards it; I am sure he is sympathetic in principle. I think he should institute an independent inquiry into the incidence of gold-mining taxation and particularly the necessity of maintaining the present discriminatory taxation on the gold mines as compared with all other mines. After all, Sir, the country depends on its gold mines. I think with one exception they are all in production and I think now is the time for the Government to examine the whole position. It will go far to satisfy the mines if we show them that we appreciate how important they are and that we are doing all we can to promote their growth and to prolong their life and to save them as a valuable asset to the country for as long as it is possible to do so. I hope the Minister will be prepared to give consideration to that suggestion.

There is another inquiry which I think he should undertake and that is in regard to old-age pensions. I think he should have an inquiry into this question of the means test. We know that you cannot abolish the means test. One of his predecessors, Mr. Havenga, did start relaxing it and he did indicate that he hoped his successor would carry on in that direction. There are a number of very sore points in regard to the means test, points such as house-ownership for instance. I think if the hon. the Minister were to have an inquiry as to how he could relax the means test and remove some of these anomalies and hardships without abolishing it, he would be doing a great service to a great number of people.

Lastly, Sir, I think the Minister should institute a thorough overhaul of the Public Service which is growing out of all proportion to the needs of the country. If you look at the Estimates this year, Sir, you will find that something like over 6,000 new public servants appeared on the scene last year. The Public Service has grown from 99,000 in 1952 to 156,000 in 1962. There has been an enormous increase. Where is this going to end? You have been conducting the affairs of this House with very nearly the same staff with which your predecessors have done so for years and the work of this House has increased enormously. I do not see why it should be necessary to have this continual steady increase in the growth of the Public Service. Of course, we know that new departments spring up like mushrooms. We know that whenever the Prime Minister has a problem he creates a new department and, of course, a new department means a new Minister, a new head of department, a new secretary, a new accounting branch …

And a series of disasters.

… and a new job for the Auditor-General. The Prime Minister recently announced that he had appointed a Minister for Tourism and within 24 hours the Minister for Tourism, who already has a department under his control which is growing rapidly, announced that he was off to Pretoria to get staff. I do not know what staff he has got, but I have no doubt he is making a promising beginning. It is quite clear that Parkinson’s law is in full swing in the Public Service.

Are you opposed to this new department?

Personally I do not think there is any justification for it but I shall be glad to discuss it with the hon. the Prime Minister. Mr. Havenga did respond in a halfhearted sort of way when we put it up to him years ago that there should be a reduction in manpower, but the results were not satisfactory. I have no time to explain why but if this Minister were wise he would take that suggestion seriously. If the hon. the Minister would undertake these things—they all affect his budget—if he would tackle them vigorously and with enthusiasm, the country might believe that he really meant business; that he really wanted to revitalize the economy and to put new life into his fiscal policy. I want to suggest to the Minister that he should emerge as a crusader determined by his courage, his confidence and his faith in the future, to inspire the country to redouble its efforts to make our economy the pulsating, healthy, lush economy which we all wish to make it. If the hon. the Minister would steel himself up to that over the next 12 months he will be really doing a great service to the country.

I second the amendment. I do not propose to traverse the ground which has been covered so well by my hon. friend the member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), I wish to deal with another matter. It is a matter of very great importance.

Poqo.

The hon. member says Poqo; I certainly intend to deal with that matter. I would say to that hon. member that this Government has been somewhat tardy in doing so. The report from which I wish to make some quotations makes it perfectly clear that what is said in this report was known before it became known to the hon. Commissioner, Mr. Justice Snyman. He makes it perfectly clear that the evidence has been laid before him; we know that that evidence was led by the Attorney-General of the Cape Province and it is obvious therefore that the information which he makes known in this report is information which was in the hands of the Attorney-General’s department and consequently in the hands of the Minister’s Department and must have been perfectly well known to the hon. the Prime Minister and other members of this Cabinet. This report shows a very serious state of affairs. Paragraph 2 of this report refers to the fact that it was very clear that the kernel of the problem which was being investigated by the hon. Judge really rose from the organization known as Poqo. Paragraph 3 of the report says this—

Paragraph 7 of the report refers to the attitude of this organization. There is a very serious charge in paragraph 8 which reads—

The hon. Justice Snyman finds as a fact that this organization had gone ahead openly in the Cape Province under the name of Poqo. It proceeds to say—

Sir, these are very serious charges indeed and they throw a very heavy onus on the Prime Minister and on the hon. the Minister of Justice to show why, as these facts were known to the Department of Justice and had been for some time, action had not been taken in regard to this matter. I wish to read further from this report. This is a serious matter affecting the future of this country and I hope hon. members opposite will give me an opportunity of putting my case calmly. They will get the same opportunity later on. Paragraph 10 reads—

This is a very serious statement on the part of the hon. Judge; a statement which he makes on the strength of the evidence which has been placed before him. There are further statements in this report relating to serious crime. The very next paragraph says the following—

Seeking to cause persons through threats of murder and “verminking” for example, to become members, is a very serious matter indeed and I cannot understand why action has not been taken at an earlier stage. I should be very interested to know why.

What exactly do you mean by that?

As I have told the hon. the Minister these are very serious findings by the Commissioner. Those findings are to the effect that that information was known. This evidence was laid before him by the Attorney-General who is a senior official in the Minister’s Department. I am quite sure that the Minister was acquainted with all these facts. If that was so and further legislation was necessary it was the duty of the Minister to have come to this House and to have asked for whatever further power he required.

The very next paragraph contains the same sort of statement. It says—

In other words, persons in this country have been caused through threats of “gewelddadigde moord en verminking” to do illegal acts. This is a very serious charge. [Interjections.] I have an important and a lengthy case to put and I shall be very glad to answer questions put by the hon. Minister. This report says—

It would appear that there has been no adequate protection. May I say at once that this report discloses a serious state of affairs. We on this side of the House would deal with matters of this sort with the utmost firmness. We believe that is necessary. You cannot tolerate this sort of thing in a country such as South Africa. Terrorism is a very serious matter indeed. An organization such as this cannot but be condemned in the strongest possible terms and we on this side of the House do so. We know Mr. Justice Snyman. He is a distinguished member of the Bench. We have no hesitation in accepting that he would not have issued this report unless clear and adequate evidence of these matters had been laid before him, and we obviously presume that that will be completely common cause in this debate that this report is a correct finding on the facts of the matter, and we are dealing with this matter having every confidence that it is so, and I know it to be so.

Let me say at once that we abhor terrorism. I have said before that no Government should tolerate it, and certainly we will not, and all of us, I believe, have been impressed by the urgency of this matter. It appears in every line of the report of the hon. Mr. Justice Snyman. Sir, this report deals with an organization which is secret and subversive, and the very clear onus rests on this Government to deal with that organization. We have been told that there will be legislation, and let me say at once that I do most sincerely hope that that legislation when it comes before this House will be in such a form that it will merit the support of every single member of this House. Let us in this matter bring adequate legislation which will have the support of us all, and thereby show that in a matter of this sort all of us in this House stand against the use of the methods which are set out in this report. As I say, we hope that the measure will be such as will merit support, and I believe that such measures can be designed. I am sure it will be the intention of the hon. the Minister to try and achieve that most desirable object.

Sir, this report, as I have said, disclosed a serious state of affairs which had quite obviously been known to the hon. the Minister, although not known in the detail we now know also in respect of the rest of the country. Because of the fact that this was known, the report in itself is an indictment of the Government. But notwithstanding that, the Government in dealing with the circumstances set out in this report will have our full support in all measures which are necessary in order to deal with this menace.

And you will not call it a banging Bill?

I do not propose to deal with this debate in the lighthearted manner adopted by certain hon. members opposite. I regard this matter as far too serious for making cheap jokes across the floor of the House. The hon. member should be ashamed of himself!

You are somersaulting again.

There is another matter which is very serious indeed. This report shows clearly that the Government has not succeeded in discharging adequately the very first responsibility which rests upon the Government and that is to protect the law-abiding citizens of this country. It is clear from the report that the law-abiding Natives have been terrorized, they have suffered from fear, in certain circumstances they have apparently through these measures been pulled into an organization which we all know is a subversive organization. Apparently there has been a failure to report meetings. It is said that some of this information had been kept from the Government. They have feared to give evidence. There are allegations that witnesses had been tampered with. All these things are very serious, Sir. And of course there is the charge I have already mentioned that persons have been frightened into joining this organization. It is clear, Sir, that intimidation has progressed into terrorization of a section of the people of this country. As late as the beginning of this Session—you will find it in the Opening Address—there is a clear statement (it is true not specifically in regard to terrorist activities), but there is also a clear statement that there is peace and order, and when conditions of this sort are progressing in a country, it is not fair to describe that country as one in which order is being adequately maintained.

Sir, in relation to this matter there is one branch of our service in this country to which one cannot but pay the highest tribute, and I refer to our police. It is quite clear that in relation to this matter they have unquestionably done a magnificent job in getting the evidence which was laid before the hon. Commissioner. We can be proud of our Police Force. They have had a tremendously difficult task these last years, but as in earlier years, they have discharged their duty with great distinction, and we can be proud of the way that they have done it, and on behalf of this side of the House I would like to pay a particular tribute to our Police Force for the work which they have done in regard to this matter.

I think it is important that there should be no misunderstanding on one point, and that is that while there are fundamental differences between the two major political parties in this country, yet there is no difference whatsoever between us in our absolute determination that there will not be a second Algeria or a second Kenya in South Africa.

I see the hon. the Prime Minister is here. I hope that he and other members will accept that statement when I make it, because I believe that all of us here believe that we have great difficulties, that we have a tremendous task to fulfil, but we have every determination that law and order and peace shall be preserved in South Africa, and that goes for this Opposition, as well as for members on the Government side of this House.

I repeat for the sake of emphasis that what we have got in this report is something which was known to the Government before the hon. Commissioner heard this evidence, and framed this report. These circumstances are of such a serious nature that it would have been my hope that this Opposition would have been kept informed of how serious the situation is, and I submit that in that respect too, the hon. Minister has not been as open with this side of the House as he might have been. The circumstances which are disclosed are very serious. As I said just now, the hon. the Prime Minister has been telling us all that all is peace and calm, while the hon. Minister of Justice has revealed considerable misgivings. One wonders in view of the differences there are obviously between them, as to whether the hon. the Prime Minister has been fully informed when he made some of his statements as to what the situation was.

Can you mention one case where there was a difference between us?

The hon. the Prime Minister again and again made the statement that all was calm and peaceful.

I have said so myself.

Yes, but the hon. Minister has also indicated—in fairness to him I want to say this—that there were serious subversive organizations, and in my view he had been very much more deeply concerned about this matter, judging by his public utterances, than was the hon. the Prime Minister. This is further strengthened by the remarks made by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, who only on Saturday is reported to have said that things would appear to be very much worse in this country than many of us would believe. If that is so, I hope the hon. Minister of Justice in this debate and the hon. the Prime Minister will be quite frank and open with this House, and let us into the secrets. I believe that we are entitled to know exactly what is the situation with which we are all faced in this fair country of ours.

I wish again to refer to the question of the law-abiding Native, and I wish to say that I believe that if there is one overshadowing duty which rests on White South Africa at the present time it is to see that the law-abiding Native in South Africa is protected. I would like to pay tribute to the really remarkable law-abiding record of our Native people, and I express the hope, and I am sure that it will be maintained in the years which lie ahead.

I wish to deal with another matter which· I believe is also very relevant to the points I have laid before this House, and to draw the attention of this House to the fact that this Government has now been in power for a period of 15 years.

Good old Government!

I hope that the hon. member will listen to the remarks that I am about to make, and then perhaps he might change his mind. It must be remembered, Sir, that this Government came into power in South Africa because of its claim that it would be able to deal more adequately than the Government of that day, led by that great South African, General Smuts, non-European affairs in this country. I think that it is common cause that that is the issue on which this Government came into power, and it is relevant that we shoult take stock of the position after this period of 15 years and see what has happened and see how the Government has discharged the onus which rested upon it. We know that this Government has found it necessary to pass a series of legislation, beginning with the Suppression of Communism Act, the Prohibition of Interdicts Act, the Public Safety Act, and a host of other pieces of legislation, ending with the Sabotage Act last year, and we are told that there is other legislation to come, and, Sir, I wonder if this Government has not sometimes paused to consider why it has been necessary in this fair country of ours for this Government to put one after another those pieces of legislation on the Statute Book.

Because there were “Sappe”.

The hon. member gives a fatuous reason, and he knows quite well that that is not the reason.

Order! The hon. member for Cradock will have an opportunity of making his own speech.

Mr. Speaker, each of these pieces of legislation in turn, we were led to believe, would enable the Government to deal adequately with the situation which has come into existence in this country. If one thing has become clear it is that legislation alone cannot deal with the situation we are faced with in this country. It must be remembered that during the period there have been difficulties, not that things were always peaceful before. An appeal was made in the Press this morning, in the Afrikaans paper the Burger. It makes an appeal and expresses the hope that there will be common cause in regard to the question of division of our country into various states. Sir, one of the difficulties in regard to this matter is that we on this side of the House believe that many of the difficulties which exist in this country arises from the administrative acts and in some cases from legislation which has been passed by this Government and is to-day on the Statute Book.

Such as?

I can mention a host of pieces of legislation. Can the hon. Minister not remember the warnings which were given to the Government when these pieces of legislation were passed in this House?

Which pieces of legislation are you referring to?

The legislation I am referring to I think started with the removal of the Coloured voters in the Cape from the common roll; another mistake was the removal of the Native Representatives from this House; we believe that the Senate Bill which was passed did as much to shake confidence in the Government of this country as any Bill which has ever been placed on the Statute Book of this country; there is moreover the legislation for separate universities, especially the tardiness in creating institutions which could adequately train the various Coloured people will be required in South Africa to help their own people to help us to build up a great South Africa. Sir, it is not difficult to quote all the pieces of legislation. It is our submission that they have in part been the cause of our present problems.

And the Suppression of Communism Act?

The hon. member refers to Communism. Sir, it has been one of the things to which this side has objected again and again that very often access to the courts in certain matters has not been possible. Power has been vested, generally in the hon. Minister of Justice, and we do not believe that that is the right way to govern a country. We believe that these matters should be left to the courts to deal with, and we believe that taking some of these matters out of the hands of the courts has unquestionably had a profound impact on public opinion, and we believe the sooner we can get back to the position that these arbitrary powers can be done away with, the better it will be for South Africa.

I come back to the matter with which I opened my address, this question of terrorism. I beg of the Government to remember that in regard to that matter there can be no difference between us, and I again say to the hon. the Minister that I very much hope that the measures with which he will come before this House will be such as will enjoy the support of us all. But whatever may be the case there, certainly so far as terrorism is concerned, and the state of affairs which is the subject of this report, we unanimously condemn it, and we can only hope that adequate steps can be taken to bring about a happier state of affairs. Nothing can be worse for this country than that a state of terrorism such as that disclosed in this report should continue.

Sir, we in this country have perhaps one of the most difficult tasks of any country, and I believe that a very special and heavy resposibility rests upon all of us. It rests obviously, in the circumstances of a democratic state, in a large measure on the Government, but clearly a very great responsibility rests upon the Opposition too. One of our problems in this matter is that we cannot find common ground with the Government in regard to the basis because we do not believe that the measures which the Government is taking in reference to the Native peoples of this country can bring peace to this country. I know that the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development believes that measures such as the other Bill presently before this House, are going to bring peace. We do not believe that they provide a basis for lasting peace in South Africa, nor do we believe that these policies secure the future. We believe that those measures, if carried through, will result in a host of independent states within what is now South Africa, without really solving anything, because the real problems and the greatest of the problems of this country are not at this moment in the reserves—the great problems are in the European areas. It is the problem of a people advancing from backwardness; they have been advancing rapidly, and there I would say that all of us are glad that further progress is being made in regard to the education of the Native peoples. But does this Government not realize that as it proceeds with its educational programme, there is less and less chance, and I submit there is no chance, of providing a happy base for the future of South Africa on the basis that two-thirds of the Native peoples will be, as we know they will be, in the European areas, and that those persons will have no rights whatsoever; one-third of them, at the most, will be in these various Bantustans as they are established, but the remainder will not be there—they will be permanently in the European areas. Our problem is further bedevilled by the fact—I do not use that in any nasty sense, but it is made more difficult—by the fact that apart from the Natives in the reserves and in the European areas, which are really two separate problems; we have the problem of the Coloureds and the Indians within the European areas. I believe that a great deal of the trouble in regard to this matter arises from the fact that although the Coloureds are represented in this House. I do not think they have forgotten the rights which were taken away from them, and the Indians have no representation. For myself I would say that I can see no happy future for this country, unless we can find a sound basis for preserving South Africa as one state, which I regard as absolutely essential to the future of South Africa. Secondly, we can set an example to the rest of Africa in the rate of advancement of these people whose guardians we are. In that regard I would like to say, because we must give credit where credit is due, that in one field a great job of work has been done by this Government and that is in the field of housing, although much remains to be done; we can be proud of the progress that has been made there. But in other fields the progress which has been made is not comparable with that. These are the problems which this country faces. They are problems of tremendous magnitude, perhaps the most difficult problems faced by any people. Sir, there can be no common cause with the Government because we believe that the courses this Government is taking in the matters I have referred to are fatal to the future interests of all South Africans. We believe that that is not the base on which we can work. However, that is something which can be fought out between us in the years that lie ahead. But certain things are necessary. We must maintain our system of justice. Here again I refer to something of which we are all tremendously proud. The system of justice in this country is among the best in the world. We look forward to the day when those measures in which there are arbitrary powers will be made subject either to parliamentary or to judicial control. But a great task awaits White South Africa in raising the standard of living and the standard of education of all the peoples in South Africa. I believe that the final solution of these problems depends on how fast we can do that job. I do not believe that there is much time to be lost.

To summarize: We accept the report of the hon. Mr. Justice Snyman. We are absolutely opposed to terrorism. We stand for respect for law and order in South Africa. We hope that the legislation which will come will be legislation acceptable in all respects, and there is no reason why it should not be.

Sir, in respect to these positive measures which I have mentioned, we hope that we will be able to gain the support of the Government for the point of view of this side of the House. In respect of these matters on which there are differences, for my part I hope that the day will come when we will be able to deal with the true problems of South Africa on a basis which can lead to lasting peace. But that is not the policy followed by this Government; it is the policy for which this Opposition stands.

I have learned in recent years that when the Opposition find themselves in difficulties they call upon the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) to come and help them. The mere fact that the hon. member for Germiston (District) seconded the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) shows, I think, that the Opposition are really in difficulties. The biggest problem that faces the Opposition is that its past has caught up with it, and nothing illustrated that better than the reaction of the hon. member for Germiston (District) when the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) asked him an innocent little question.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) levelled two reproaches against me and, through me, against the Government. The first reproach is that I did not come to the House soon enough to ask for certain powers to take steps against these subversive elements. That strikes me as very strange coming from the hon. member, because I still recall the fight that the Opposition put up last year when I asked for certain powers, and while I am on this subject, let me say to the hon. member in all seriousness that if the Government had not asked Parliament for those powers last year and if the Government had not taken the steps which it did take during the recess, South Africa’s position would have been different to-day; we would have had ten times as many problems and troubles as we have at the present time. The fact that South Africa is as peaceful as she is to-day, is most certainly not due to hon. members on the other side, but to the steps taken by the Government. In the second place the hon. member accuses me of not having acted timeously; in other words, his accusation is that I did not come to Parliament soon enough to ask for powers, and, secondly, that in any event I did not take steps during the recess to obviate these things.

In the first instance.

The hon. member who now makes that accusation against me is the member who went from platform to platform accusing me of not having acted.

Of having acted against the wrong people.

Let us view this matter from a definite angle. Hon. members opposite are shocked, and correctly shocked, at the findings of the Snyman Commission. But this is nothing new to me and it is nothing new to the Government. Last year during the debate that we had here I told hon. members precisely what the position was. I prophesied precisely what was going to happen. I specifically told hon. members that 1963 was the year on which these people were going to concentrate to achieve their objects. Can the hon. member remember that? Moreover, we not only told hon. members that these things were going to happen; the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development told hon. members that there were Whites behind these troubles in the Transkei, and you will remember, Sir, how that statement was ridiculed. Hon. members opposite will recall how they attacked him. They will recall how they attacked the Government and me because we said that there were Whites behind this agitation. Now suddenly it comes as a shock to them!

Who are “they”?

We are dealing with the Snyman Report now.

On whose evidence is it based?

It is not stated in the report on whose evidence it is based. How am I to understand the Leader of the Opposition? The hon. member for Germiston (District) has told us that they accept the report of the Snyman Commission in its entirety, but now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along and rejects one of the findings of the Snyman Commission. I shall tell you why, Sir.

Did you submit affidavits to the commission?

We are dealing with the findings of the Snyman Commission now. The hon. member for Germiston (District) has told us that the Opposition accepts the report, but apparently the Leader of the Opposition wants to reject it. That is the situation in which we now find ourselves. Far be it for me to assume the role of arbiter with regard to this division in the ranks of the Opposition. That would be a full-time post and I am not available for it.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Germiston (District). He has alleged that we are dealing here with a dangerous organization in Poqo and that because Poqo is the same as the P.A.C. we are also dealing with a dangerous organization in the shape of the P.A.C. That is what the hon. member says now. and I heartily agree with him. As a matter of fact, the Government is not saying that for the first time to-day; it has always said so. It was the Government which came to this House in 1960 with a Bill to declare the P.A.C. an unlawful organization.

And did it help?

No, that is not the point. The hon. member for Germiston (District) accuses me of not having taken sufficiently drastic action. But what did hon. members opposite do when my predecessor came to Parliament in order to have the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. declared unlawful? They even refused the first reading of that Bill. That is what the United Party did. On that occasion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, even before they had seen the Bill and before they had given the Minister an opportunity to discuss the matter, moved an amendment. To-day the hon. member for Germiston (District) very piously comes along and tries to tell us how dangerous these organizations are! But when we asked hon. members opposite to pass that measure, they would not even allow us to introduce the Bill to outlaw those organizations. Sir, that is the position, but I repeat that the hon. member for Germiston (District) accuses me of not having come to Parliament timeously. Well, let me give the hon. member the assurance that I am going to come to Parliament, as I have already said in statements to the Press, to give effect to the recommendations of the Snyman Commission. I also propose to deal with other matters in that Bill and I trust that I shall then be able to rely on the Opposition’s support. But I want to test the hon. member’s bona fides for a moment by putting this question to him. Paragraph 26 of the Snyman Report says—

I put this question to the hon. member because my legislation is already in the process of being drafted. Are the hon. member and his party going to support a section such as that recommended here?

We must first see, of course, what the provisions of the Bill are.

My question is a very simple one. We are dealing here with a specific problem and a specific recommendation from the Snyman Report. The hon. member has told us that they unequivocally accept this report. I have put a simple question to him, but the hon. member is not in a position to say on behalf of his party what they are going to do. Just to show you, Mr. Speaker, how well I know the Opposition and how well I know the hon. member for Germiston (District) I want to tell you that while he was speaking I made a note, and that note reads: “Already leaving a loophole for themselves.” What has happened now? The Snyman Commission has confirmed what we have been telling hon. members opposite over the years; they refused to believe it; they ridiculed it and fought us in every possible way, and now suddenly hon. members opposite represent themselves as the champions in the fight against sabotage and revolt and violence, and the Government and I in particular are accused of not having done our duty. But when it comes to the positive recommendations contained in the Snyman Report, the hon. member is not in a position to tell me whether or not they are going to accept those recommendations.

Has the hon. the Minister ever said before that he is going to support legislation which he has not even seen yet?

A very clear principle is laid down here by Mr. Justice Snyman. He bases certain recommendations on that principle; moreover, he seeks his analogy in the Sabotage Act of last year, and he says that what is provided for in the Sabotage Act should also be incorporated in this measure. It is not necessary for the hon. member therefore to ask what the provisions of the Bill are going to be. He knows precisely what the Bill will provide because its provisions will be precisely the same as those of Section 21 (4) of the Sabotage Act. The hon. member reproaches me for not having asked Parliament for these powers before. Mr. Justice Snyman now asks me to insert an additional section in the Act, a section with exactly the same wording as that of Section 21 (4) of the General Law Amendment Act, and I am replying now to the hon. member’s question. It is no longer necessary for him to guess what the provisions of the measure will be; I am telling him now what the Bill will provide for. We debated this matter ad nauseam last year. My question to the hon. member is whether or not he and his party will support it if the new section contains precisely the same wording as Section 21 (4) of the General Law Amendment Act.

Introduce it to-morrow. [Laughter.]

I ask this question because the hon. member accused me of neglect of duty. He knows the provisions of Section 21 (4), and my question to him is whether he is prepared to support Section 21 (4) in this connection.

I have already replied.

No, the hon. member has not replied. I am doing my best but there is no answer forthcoming. The hon. member says that he has already replied. With all the interjections, I may not have heard the hon. member’s reply. Will he be good enough to repeat his reply so that I can hear it?

My reply is perfectly clear; we shall decide when we see the Bill whether it is a desirable measure to place on the Statute Book.

Well, I think we are making headway. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) has now handed over to the hon. member the section as it will appear in the Bill. I also have the section before me; the hon. member has now looked at it and I am also looking at it. I say that that is how the new section will read, and it is not necessary for the hon. member to guess what it will provide for. Will he and his party support it?

Introduce the Bill.

Here we had an excellent opportunity to co-operate. I have the relevant Statutes before me and so has the hon. member. The book before him, at page 1391, says precisely what mine says. That is the crux of the recommendation of the Snyman Commission. The Commissioner says that the Attorneys-General are up against the problem which is set out here and he then makes this recommendation, which is practically the only recommendation that he makes.

And he said that he accepted the recommendations of the Snyman Commission.

Yes, but what the hon. member for Germiston (District) is trying to do is simply to bluff us.

Ask Graaff that question.

Let me now deal with the accusations which the hon. member made against me. Apart from the accusation that I have not yet come to Parliament to ask for the necessary powers, the hon. member accused me of not having acted in this matter. Where does he get hold of that? No, he cannot produce a single reference in the Report of the Snyman Commission to support the allegation that I failed to take steps. The Report simply says that certain stumbling-blocks in the way of more expeditious and more effective action should be removed. And let me say to the hon. member that with or without his co-operation and that of his party I propose to remove those stumbling-blocks. Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that literally hundreds of arrests have been made since last year and that dozens of prosecutions have been instituted in the courts against these very organizations? Is he not aware of the fact that hundreds of members of these organizations are already in gaol serving very heavy sentences? How can the hon. member accuse me of having done nothing? [Interjection.] Now the accusation is being watered down; the accusation is no longer that I did nothing but that I did not do enough. Let me ask the hon. member this: What should I have done that I did not do? I could do two things; I could instruct the police to arrest as many people as possible if they contravene the law. That is what the police did and they did it very effectively. I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to the police. But I could also take administrative steps against those who were behind this agitation, and that is what I did. But in that respect I did not get the co-operation of a single hon. member on that side. On the contrary, I had nothing but reproaches from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Why not bring them before the courts?

I am coming to that. You will recall, Sir, that last year during the debate here I was seriously reproached for having taken steps against Patrick Duncan who was allegedly such an ardent anti-communist.

I did not say that. [Laughter.]

The hon. member need not become afraid. But I do know that the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) said—

But listen to what the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) said in the same debate—

I restricted him under the Suppression of Communism Act, and we know that Mr. Duncan immediately fled to Basutoland, and a fortnight ago we saw that the Liberal Party repudiated him and pushed him out. Why? Because ever since he got to Basutoland he revealed himself in his true colours as a man of violence and as a communist. But when I took administrative action against him, hon. members opposite attacked me from all sides. Now I ask those hon. members: Who was right, they or I? And as for the hon. member accusing me of not having taken action, I repeat that I did take action through the police, who did more than their duty in this regard, so much so that this hell—and I cannot but call it that—which was planned by these subversive organizations for South Africa in 1963 (and that can also be found in the Snyman Report) not only failed to take place, but cannot take place. [Hear, hear!] That is what the Government did, and it was able to do so because it could rely on the loyalty and the initiative of the Police Force, and because there was a Government in power which did not hesitate to take action against people like Duncan and others, in spite of the enmity which that evoked from the Opposition, and in spite of the reproaches they hurled at us.

What is the present position? The position is no more or less than is stated in paragraph 13 of the Snyman Report—

Thousands, where we are dealing with a population of millions. Those hon. members— and the hon. member for Germiston (District) also tried to do so to-day—attempted to create the impression that this was a revolt by the whole of the Bantu population of South Africa with which we were faced. [Interjections.] I say that is the impression I gained, because the hon. member did not stop there. He said that these things were happening as the result of the policy of this Government against which the whole of the Bantu population is in revolt. In other words, if the hon. member now denies that then he is just agreeing precisely with what I said, namely that the majority of the Bantu support the Government’s policy in this regard. Therefore the hon. member can now choose what he wants. The Snyman Report continues to say—

But in the next paragraph he comes to what is most important—

And that is not in line with the accusation which those hon. members made. But he goes further and says—

The question is: Why are they sent there? They are sent there because the leftist elements in South Africa are convinced—and that appears from the documents submitted to me every day—that if this Transkei Bill is passed, and if what they describe in those documents as this experiment in the Transkei is a success, then the leftist elements no longer have any chance at all in South Africa, because they have been forced to the conclusion that if the Transkei policy is a success then this Government will be in power for ever and no Opposition will be able to oust it. In other words, there is no dissatisfaction in the Transkei, but these people are sent there from outside the Transkei, and who sends them? Certain Whites, as is stated in this report. And if action is taken against those Whites, and it suits the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to do so, he issues pious statements to the Press, and then the Leader of the Opposition says he must resort to making statements because the parliamentary procedure does not afford him an opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I have with me the questions which have been put to me during this Session. Not a single member of the Opposition, including the Leader and his Whips, has ever put a single question to me about these matters. They did not try to obtain any information. Do you know, Sir, that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) put three times as many questions to me as the whole of the Opposition put together?

What does that prove?

It just shows how little hon. members were interested in these matters. But what the hon. member for Germiston (District) has now suddenly and very unsuccessfully tried to do is to try to coast on the wave of the Snyman Report. But I am afraid he did not get very far, because when I tested his bona fides he fell off his surf-board before he had really mounted it. I say there is nothing in the Snyman Report which I and other members of the Government are not prepared to discuss at any time at all.

Now hon. members may ask me what the present position is. I replied fully to that question in my Press statement the other day, but for purposes of record I shall just repeat it here. We are all aware that the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. had certain objects which constituted not only a threat to the continued existence of the White man, but were aimed at depriving the White man of his heritage and at the taking over of the country. When this became clear to it, the Government took the necessary steps to ban those two organizations, in spite of resistance from the Opposition ever since that measure was announced. But we carried on, and if the Government had not acted in that way South Africa would today have been in a very different position from that at present. Some of the members of those organizations carried on. Some lay low; some realized that they had simply been made use of and had been exploited, and consequently played no further role in those organizations. But those who continued to play a role were mercilessly sought by the police from January to December, and with great success. It is obvious that we did not find all of them, and that it is not so easy to find them, but I can frankly tell hon. members and the country outside that although we will still be faced with serious problems, although we might still have further incidents of violence, and that violence will come from two directions, firstly from the A.N.C., namely the carefully planned sabotage—that is not the work of the P.A.C. but of the A.N.C.—and although it will come by way of pure and simple violence from the side of the P.A.C., because the P.A.C. sets out from the standpoint that the numbers supporting it will eventually be strong enough to enable it to take over through the use of brute force, and it need not take all kinds of other steps as the A.N.C. does—I therefore say that we will still have violence from those two directions, and it will come because it must at all times be seen against the background of two things, viz. that for years already it has been said by those people that 1963 would be the decisive year, the year in which they would drive the White man out of South Africa, that is why these things are happening. It is not only because 1963 is to them the decisive year, but because their standpoint is that if they commit these acts and behave in this way they will perhaps succeed in causing panic, and then they may perhaps force the: Government to make certain concessions· And what are the concessions they want the Government to make? It is nothing more or less than that this Government, or any other Government, should set its foot on the road leading to one man, one vote, for the whole of the Republic of South Africa. In other words, it is quite clear from the documents of the P.A.C.—and now hon. members can draw the parallel for themselves—that the standpoint of the P.A.C. is that the whole of the Republic of South Africa, including the Bantu areas, constitutes one whole, and not only one geographical whole but also one political whole. Their standpoint is that there should be one Central Parliament in control of that one political whole, irrespective of the particular interests of the various groups, and that they should be represented in that Central Parliament. The only difference between their political standpoint and that of the Opposition is that the Opposition says that the Whites should have a majority in that single Parliament, whereas they say that the Bantu should be in the majority. That is the only difference between the political aims of these people and those of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, if you ask me further if they are going to succeed in their object, and whether in this regard they have the support of the majority of the Bantu, then I repeat what I have so often said before. And the hon. member has now been repeating what his Leader said on one occasion, namely that the Prime Minister and I are supposed to have adopted different standpoints in regard to this matter. But I have never said anything different from what the hon. the Prime Minister has said, namely this, that South Africa is calm and peaceful, and in fact it is one of the most peaceful countries in the world to-day, thanks not only to the preventive measures adopted by this Government, but also the positive measures taken by this Government in regard to all the population groups falling under its jurisdiction. Because that is so, we will have these incidents; I have no illusions about that. That is a problem with which I have to cope every day and almost every night. But let me give hon. members two very clear assurances, firstly that these incidents will under no circumstances extort from the Government any deviation from its policy. This Government will not for a single moment allow its hand to be forced in that way. And let me give hon. members this second assurance: In spite of these incidents which occurred and which we deplore, and which one would have liked to prevent if it had been possible for one to have been everywhere at the same time, and in spite of the incidents which may perhaps still take place, there is absolutely nothing in this position which need cause anyone to panic or which need lead to panic. The police—and in fact the whole of the Department—hold the initiative in regard to this matter. At the moment we are experiencing very good co-operation not only by the Whites but also by the non-Whites, and in the atmosphere which prevails to-day, in the atmosphere which has been created, we believe that we will be able to eradicate this canker from our national life; and that we will be better able to eradicate it if and when I have introduced certain measures in this House which are not relevant now. I believe that we will eradicate it if we continue to take administrative action against certain persons. Let me put this very clearly to the hon. member for Germiston (District): If he puts it to me as a condition for co-operation that under no circumstances will administrative action be taken against persons who promote the objects of Communism, then I can tell him now already that as far as I am concerned there will be no co-operation between us at all, because I see no chance·—and I have now had 18 months, experience in this regard—of keeping South Africa as peaceful as it is through the Department of Justice if I am to be forced to surrender the measures adopted in the past. As far as I am concerned, I have no intention of abandoning those measures. On the contrary, I have come to the conclusion, and I have all the proof to justify that conviction, that the steps I have taken against certain communists and against others who promote the objects of Communism, have had the desired effect in South Africa, and because that is so I intend continuing along that road, in spite of the reproaches and in spite of the challenges which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has issued to me. The Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that in regard to taking action in connection with this matter, our legal system and our courts are just not designed to cope with that sort of thing. If that were so, why did the party of the Leader of the Opposition not take such action in the past?

Back to the war days!

No, the courts were not at war; the judge still sat on the bench. The police were not at war. But people were arrested here, and why were they not brought before the courts? For the simple reason that the courts were not designed for that sort of thing. And it is not only I who hold that view. I have discussed this matter with many legal men and they all agree that if one tries to combat the sort of subversion which the hon. member and I both have in mind by the methods which the hon. member wants me to adopt, one will not be able to put a single communist in his place in a whole year’s time.

How did they arrest the communists in America?

The court case there has been in progress for 11 years already. Does the hon. member not know that? For 11 years that case has been going on and no further progress has been made. But the hon. member prefers me to adopt that course, because hon. members opposite do not want us to take action against those people.

That is not true.

Yes, it is true. That is the tragedy of the matter. It is not because they are so unwilling, but because the newspapers supporting them do not allow them to take such action. [Time limit.]

The Minister of Justice in reply to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has made a few debating points but has given us no further information with regard to this serious position. The Minister has tried to assure the country that all is well and that there is no need to be alarmed, and yet on the other hand he gives us warning of what is going to happen. The Minister cannot have it both ways; he cannot say that all is well and then give warning of what is going to happen and expect to get away with it. We expected, when we asked the hon. member for Germiston (District) to raise this matter this afternoon, that we were going to get a responsible statement from the Minister of Justice, instead of it we got a few debating points and a justification of his policies. The Minister of Justice must do better than that. He tried to assure us that all was well, yet he gave us warning of things to come, of further serious difficulties that we will have to face in the future. Sir, this Government is responsible for maintaining good order in this country, and surely if the Minister knew that 1963 was the eventful year in which these lawless elements were going to cause disturbances he should have been better prepared.

What should we have done that we have not done?

He should have avoided it.

The Minister is trying to suggest that they could not have avoided the situation. Sir, far worse things have been threatened in the past by the lawless elements. Must we expect their warnings to be fulfilled? The Minister himself has given us further warning. Must we expect those warnings to be fulfilled or is the Government powerless? Sir, that forms the background to this financial debate. Here we have the Minister of Finance introducing a Budget which he asks us to approve. He has suggested that certain concessions will help the economy. This year the Minister introduced his Budget in the role of a gardener but as the Minister is no doubt aware, there are some gardeners who get down and dig and turn over the soil and produce worthwhile crops, but there are others who just potter around in the garden. He has suggested to us that we might face stormy weather, but some of this stormy weather is of his own creation. He is a member of the Cabinet, and he is in a position to influence the climate, and the Minister of Justice must also accept full responsibility. He is respon sible for some of the economic climate with which we are faced at the present time. How can you get development and prosperity when at the back of the minds of many people throughout the country there is fear? The Minister suggests that there is no need to panic. One foolish member on the Government benches asked, “who is running now?” Sir, there is a great difference between running and panic and concern. Surely the Minister is aware of the fact that right throughout the country people are concerned. You cannot have the state of affairs which exists in the Transkei to-day. The Minister unfortunately raised the question of the Transkei Bill; I do not think he should have done so because it is not under discussion at the moment. But surely the forces that the Minister needs to maintain law and order do not encourage people to believe that all is well, even in that part of the country. In our biggest municipalities there was an improvement until we had this outbreak at Paarl. Does the Minister suggest that all is peaceful even in the urban location in Cape Town, particularly in the bachelor quarters? Sir, recently as a result of Government encouragement, the large township of Kwa Mashu was build outside Durban. The Minister knows that the Durban Municipality is trying to offload Kwa Mashu onto the Government. Is the Minister going to suggest that all is quiet and peaceful every night in Kwa Mashu? The Minister knows as well as we do that the streets at night in most of our towns are not for the White man and in many cases not for the Black man. The law-abiding non-European is losing faith in the forces of the State. They do not give him the protection that he needs. The report of the Snyman Commission indicates that there are many witnesses who were frightened to come forward because they felt that they did not have the protection of the State. Surely that is the beginning of anarchy when the ordinary law-abiding citizen feels that he cannot get protection from the State. Can we expect an improvement in the economic climate under conditions such as those? When will the Minister of Finance realize that no matter what financial inducements may be offered, no substantial financial crop can be garnered unless the climate is fair. Nothing that the Minister of Justice has said this afternoon has ensured that the climate is set fair.

The Minister of Finance showed that the gross national product in 1962 amounted to R5,973,000,000 and that represented an increase of 7 per cent over the 1962 figure. He seemed to be satisfied with this position, overlooking the fact that he had made no allowance for a rise in the price index which would deflate the 7 per cent to about 5 per cent. The geographical national income showed an increase in 1960-1 and 1961-2 of 5.7 per cent according to the Budget White Paper which, after making an adjustment for the rise in prices, works out at less than 4 per cent. The national income will not rise so long as there is uncertainty; it will certainly not rise as much as it should do. But in order to get the growth in its true perspective it is necessary to examine the national income per capita and this shows, after making an adjustment for a rise in prices, an increase of no more than 1 per cent and in fact the average rate of increase in this index after making an adjustment for the rise in prices is less than 1 per cent per annum since 1950-1 and, as the Minister well knows, or should know, the significance of the national income per capita is the best single indicator of average living standards. Sir, that goes to the root of the problem. It is essential that we raise the living standards of the lowest income groups as well as the living standards of all our people. As the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said earlier on we are short of statistics, particularly financial statistics, which would show the breakdown of the income of the various groups. When we think of the average income per capita and we bear in mind what some of the incomes are at the top level, we shudder to think what the incomes are at the lower levels.

The Minister has little or nothing to say about employment and in Government circles it is obvious that because there has been a small decrease in the number of registered unemployed, they seem to be satisfied that there is an improvement. The Minister should know that the population has increased over the past ten years by about 2 per cent per annum, according to Table A1 of the monthly Bulletin of Statistics. But if he refers to Table B2, which shows the index of employment, he will see that on the basis of an index of 100 for 1953-4, the index of employment is: For 1957-8 112.3; for 1958-9 112.9; for 1959-60 113.5; for 1960-1 114.5. In October 1962, the last available figure, it had risen to 115.9, so that while the population is increasing at something more than 2 per cent per annum, it will be seen from these figures that the index of employment has been rising by an average of less than 1 per cent per annum. Surely we are entitled to regard with suspicion the figures of unemployment because as the Minister well knows there are many people unemployed who are not registered as unemployed and no accurate statistics are kept of the number of Bantu unemployed.

Do you mean that the increase in population must be reflected in an equal increase in employment?

That should more or less be the general trend. Surely the Minister must agree with that. If that is the general population trend over the years, it means that every year approximately that number of people are coming onto the labour market, unless of course there are far more people dying at birth, not growing up to manhood, in which case it is a further indictment against the Government. But if there is normal development in the country one can expect the increase in the number of people employed to keep pace more or less with the increase in the population. I think that is a fair assumption to make. However, if the Minister has another figure, I wish he would let us have it in the course of his reply. No wonder the per capita income of the population is not rising at the same rate as the increase in population; no wonder there are more people unemployed; no wonder there are more people who are frustrated and desperate; no wonder there is more crime; and, finally, no wonder the economic climate is not as favourable as the Minister would have us believe. Even the Minister himself has this to say—

That to my mind is a mild understatement—

The Minister admits that the revenue has not advanced fast enough, and more than one financial columnist has described this year 1963 as “the year of the reluctant boom”. I am not surprised that the boom promised at the beginning of the year, with all the good wishes of the hon. the Prime Minister, is somewhat reluctant after what we have heard this afternoon and since the beginning of the year. The Minister says that the cure for this is that some financial fertilizer may have to be supplied if it can be afforded, but when we examine the tax proposals later we find that such financial fertilizer as is offered only provides a very meagre top dressing which will not go down to the roots. It is certain that until such time as the rate of increase in income per capita is at least equal to or greater than the average rate of increase of the population, the longer term outlook for employment will continue to be unsatisfactory. In aggregate terms, the aggregate or national income is determined by the aggregate of consumption and the aggregate of investment, and it is a fact that both consumption and investment are seriously lagging. On page 2 of the White Paper it would be seen that whereas personal consumption and expenditure comprised 67 per cent of the gross national product in 1960, the ratio fell to 65 per cent in 1961 and still further to 63 per cent in 1962.

When we look at investments, the Minister drew attention to the fact that gross private investment in 1962 was “only 1.6 per cent higher than in 1961 He explained that the position was apparently not quite as bad as it seemed because the “noticeable improvement” in fixed capital investment of private manufacturing was concealed in this figure. But what are the facts? On page 4 of his White Paper it is shown quite clearly that in private manufacturing gross investment remained static for the three years 1960, 1961 and 1962 at 176. When allowance is made for the rise in prices the average investment in private manufacturing has scarcely progressed at all since 1950. The failure of aggregate investment to increase in recent years despite the incentive given in the form of investment allowances and accelerated depreciation allowances remains one of the most serious retarding factors in the economy. If the Minister will examine the Reserve Bank Quarterly Bulletins for December 1960 and 1962 he will see that in 1951 the gross capital formation represented as much as 30 per cent of the gross national expenditure. In 1960 this had fallen to 21 per cent; in 1961 to 20 per cent and in 1962 to 19 per cent. What is more, the important ratio of net national investment to net national product has fallen progressively and stood in 1961 at a mere 12 per cent.

I think I have shown that there is still much to be done in the garden of South Africa before we can say that the economic climate is ideal and that good crops are assured.

With regard to the balance of payments the Minister indicated that he does not expect any difficulties in the coming year. He took steps last year to ensure that the balance of payment situation would improve. But I hope that the Minister is going to tell us in the course of his reply at what figure he expects the balance of payment to be maintained, in view of the increase in the reserves. We should like to hear from the Minister what he regards as a safe figure or how long he proposes to hold it at the present figure. When he comes to the monetary and financial position he admits that the excess liquidity in the economy creates special problems for the money market. I suggest that one of the principal reasons for the liquidity is the hesitancy on the part of the private sector to invest because of the uncertainty of the storms on the horizon. The hon. the Minister knows—and he emphasized it in his Budget speech—that the excess liquidity was causing some concern. From what we have heard this afternoon I feel quite sure that there are further storms on the horizon and that the liquidity problem will remain a problem for the Minister.

What climate are you trying to create?

We want the Government to create the right climate and we want the Minister to use his influence with the Government if he has any influence …

You are only trying to take over the role of the hon. member for Constantia.

A very good role too, I would say.

If the Minister would observe the very excellent advice given to him in the past by the hon. member for Constantia he would be able to produce a Budget which is a good deal better than the Budgets he has been producing.

He always takes the advice five years too late.

Are you entering the financial field now?

At least, if the hon. member for Yeoville entered the financial field he would make a better job of it than the Minister of Finance. Sir, only this last week-end three Ministers including the Minister himself, referred to the dark days ahead. The Minister himself in talking about the increased defence expenditure a day or two ago, warned the people that the arms being accumulated might have to be used. The Minister of External Affairs referred to the dark days ahead, but the Minister of Finance in referring to the defence programme went so far as to suggest that there might be real fighting, that the arms which were being purchased might have to be used. Was the Minister serious or was it just political talk in the neighbourhood of his constituency?

The Minister assumed the role of gardener, and here he is in the privileged position of being able to create the climate. Does the Minister really believe that a shooting war is going to break out? Why did he use those words, because he is the Minister of Finance. The Minister will not deny that he suggested over the week-end that his arms would be needed and that we might have to fight. Does the Minister really believe that? Sir, you can be quite sure of this that the minute the people of the country really believe that a war is imminent, there will be consternation and panic in the home of every South African.

I said that arms were necessary to maintain peace, not to fight.

The Minister is reported as having said that the arms being purchased might have to be used. He said that we might have to fight.

Has he forgotten that he said it?

I would like to get this quite clearly from the Minister because it is important. Did the Minister refer to arms being used not just as a deterrent? According to the newspaper report the Minister said on the 21st—

If we are not sufficiently prepared we may have to fight.

I want to get a clear statement from the hon. the Minister: Does he expect these arms to be used or are they being accumulated just as a deterrent? Because if he is expecting the arms to be used, then perhaps that is part of the more serious matter to which the Minister of External Affairs was referring, because I can assure the Minister that if he really means that there is going to be a fight, then he creates consternation in the hearts of every mother in South Africa, irrespective of her colour and irrespective of her creed.

They are just Broederbond stories.

The Minister must realize that he occupies a responsible position, and if there are dark clouds on the horizon, if a storm is imminent, as was suggested by more than one Cabinet Minister, then that is part of the climate which affects the financial future of this country, and it is against this background that we have to examine this Budget. Sir, this is a serious matter, or perhaps the Minister regards a political speech in the countryside as an afternoon occasion not to be taken seriously. I hope he will tell us in the course of his reply.

The Minister’s appeal to the private sector to take risks should also be followed by the demand of the private sector to the Minister to create a climate to ensure that the risks required to be taken are not unreasonable. The hon. member for Constantia has indicated that the private sector, the manufacturing sector, has a manufacturing potential of approximately 20 to 25 per cent in excess of requirements, and he has indicated that if shifts are instituted we can probably achieve far more with the existing machinery; and yet the Minister is calling upon South Africans to invest at a time when the future is uncertain. You see, Sir, since the Minister made his Budget speech we have had speeches from more than one Cabinet Minister suggesting that storm clouds are gathering. As everybody knows where investment is concerned, the investor is most hesitant to invest where he is likely to lose his capital. The Minister has indicated that he wants further development in this country. One of our main difficulties is that of manpower. Had the Government followed the advice of this side of the House years ago and embarked upon a vigorous immigration policy we would have had that manpower to-day. One of our biggest problems in this country to-day is the imbalance between skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labour. There are too few skilled workers and too many semi-skilled and unskilled workers. There is insufficient training of unskilled workers to make them skilled and there is insufficient training of semi-skilled workers to make them skilled. There is nothing in this Budget to suggest that further training will be encouraged. When we examine the accounts for the year, the Minister tells us that the Estimate of Expenditure on Revenue Account promises to be something less than originally estimated. Sir, what kind of discipline is there in Government Departments? I can well (understand the difficulties of the Ministers in estimating revenue but I fail to understand how they can overestimate expenditure. We have an overestimate of expenditure and underspending of that expenditure and there is underestimating of revenue. Do these Government Departments try to put their figure as high as they think they can get Treasury to agree to and then try to spend it during the course of the year? Might I suggest, Sir, that there is room for inquiry into all spending Departments of the Government. There is the question of possible waste and better efficiency that should be inquired into. We will have an opportunity during the Committee Stage to examine the various items. I fail to see how a Department can ask for a certain amount of expenditure on Revenue Account and then fail to spend all that money. We understand that it is sometimes difficult on Loan Account to plan works so that they can be fitted into that year, that fiscal year. But when it comes to expenditure on Revenue Account I think the Minister should give us some explanation during the course of his reply. Surely we are entitled to ask for some explanation, as to why some of these Departments overestimate their expenditure. I think the Minister’s figure for this year in that respect is R19,000,000. I think the attitude of the Departments is to play safe; they hope that they will be able to keep their expenditure as high as possible. Do they expect to get the applause of the country if they spend less than their budgeted figure or do they think it is better to provide Estimates which are on a more business-like basis? Surely we can ask the Government’s spending Departments to estimate on a more business-like basis?

Of course we have the creation of new Departments. As the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said it was like Parkinson’s disease. If you have a new department, you must have a new head of department; a new Minister, new houses, new motor cars, new secretaries, new offices, new carpets, and all that goes with it and new jobs for the faithful; that is what it means. The emphasis when it comes to new jobs, is to give them to faithfuls. We have had the evidence of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. He made it quite clear to us that when it came to appointing people to Government positions, it was his policy, and we must assume that that is the policy of the Cabinet, to see that all jobs go to members of the Nationalist Party. [Interjection.] No, no, you cannot get away from that one. I have enunciated the policy of the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and as far as I know he has not repudiated it. We have had a great increase in the number of civil servants.

Which new Department are you objecting to?

We will deal with the Departments in Committee of Supply and criticize each Department. I suggest that it was not necessary some time ago to divide the Department of Bantu Administration into two Departments. There was no need to create a Department of Tourism. Surely the Tourist Corporation could have been transferred to that Minister to look after if he were capable of looking after it.

And when Departments are merged?

I think the time has arrived for the Prime Minister to do some rationalizing and streamlining his requirements instead of creating new jobs.

When you examine the Minister’s Revenue Account I think it is well that the country should be reminded of the Minister’s and his predecessors lapse in financial estimating. Last year the Minister estimated that he would balance his Budget. This year he showed how far out he has been in his estimate, as he expects to close with a surplus of R28,000,000. This is the position we have had from this Minister and his predecessors. From 1948 to the end of the present financial year, the estimated surpluses total R13,900,000, but the actual surpluses for those years total R367,600,000. If the Minister wants detailed figures he can have them.

I have read the Argus.

Has the Minister totalled the figures? He will find the figures in the White Paper which is the source from which the Argus got its figures. So there has been overtaxation over a period of 15 years to the tune of R367,600,000. Last year the Minister said that he was going to balance his Budget and this year he has a surplus of R28,000,000.

The position is no better on Loan Account. The Minister provides amongst other things for an expenditure on Loan Account this year of some R16,000,000 for a synthetic rubber project and R5,000,000 for the development of border industries. I hope the Minister of Economic Affairs is going to take part in this debate and tell us a little bit more about the Industrial Development Corporation. Why is the Industrial Development Corporation going into the synthetic rubber business? You see, Mr. Speaker, when the Industrial Development Corporation was originally started by the United Party it was intended to be virtually an industrial bank to encourage industries to get on their feet. In recent years one gets the impression that the Industrial Development Corporation is becoming an instrument of the Government. I am not criticizing the administration of the Industrial Development Corporation as such. Many of their projects have been successful and they have done good work, one gets the impression in many circles that representatives of organized industry are disturbed at times in thinking that there is the possible risk that the Industrial Development Corporation, with its octupus growth, is going to encourage other industries which will be in competition with existing industries. When you see what they are doing in the border areas you would like to have further information, because by voting R16,000,000 for a synthetic rubber project and another R5,000,000 for border development, you are putting money into the hands of this organization in a way in which it can avoid parliamentary control. Parliamentary control can be avoided because we do not have the opportunity of criticizing those accounts in this House. No wonder that industry is disturbed. We found a year or two ago that the Industrial Development Corporation was interested in a take-over bid. One large shoe company in this country found that when negotiations were afoot, one financial house was trying to bid for the control of this organization and that the other side was being backed by the Industrial Development Corporation, not to develop ordinary industry, not to create new markets, but in order to obtain a certain measure of control in existing industry, I suggest, Sir, that that was never intended to be the role of the Industrial Development Corporation.

I now come to the taxation proposals themselves. I find it difficult to believe that the Minister is giving concessions to stimulate the economy. He says this is an advantage to the private sector and he expects an amount of approximately 3 per cent from increased taxation. If the Minister studies the White Paper he will see that he estimated his revenue last year at R809,294,000. This year he estimates his revenue at R835,231,000. So he expects additional revenue of approximately R25,947,000. I put it to the Minister that as he only expects a 3 per cent increase in revenue, is he only expecting a moderate growth in the national income of this year. The Minister was proud of the fact that according to his own showing the growth between last year and this year was 7 per cent, according to hisBudget speech. It is obvious, if he is only providing for a 3 per cent increase in taxation, he is expecting a slower growth this year. Alternatively, if he is expecting the same growth then he is deliberately underestimating his income. How can he expect the private sector to have any confidence when on his own showing he is hesitant? The Minister has left much undone in his so-called attempt to encourage the investor in South Africa to stimulate economy. The Minister’s concessions are inadequate. The biggest difficulty with which this country is faced is the economic climate in which the country can go forward. This Minister and his colleagues have not yet created the right climate. The Minister of Justice referred earlier on to the position as he saw it. He will be replied to by other members when they have studied his statement fully. In view of the importance of that statement and the effect it can have on the country as a whole, it is only right that it should be carefully examined and analysed because against the financial position of the country, as we see it to-day, it is essential that the climate of the country is right. It is only when the climate of the country is set fair that we will see any material improvement in the economic advance of the country. The concessions which the Minister has offered are puny and inadequate. The concessions which he has offered which incidentally amount to only half of his surplus, even if they were four times that figure, will be of little avail until such time as the right economic climate has been provided, and the right economic climate is not being provided by this Government. The week-end speeches of the various Ministers show that there are stormy days ahead. Until such time as the storm clouds are cleared, we cannot expect any material economic advance in the country.

We have a criminal in society, Sir, known as the “hit and run” criminal. That is the person who fights and then runs away. I do not know whether he is much more abhorrent than Poqo. Personally I think he is more abhorrent than Poqo. We are, however, not dealing here with a criminal but with an Opposition which “hits and runs”. They made an attack this afternoon as far as Poqo was concerned. And now the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) comes along and tries to talk calmly about cabbages and kings. We shall not allow them to get away with it as lightly as that. They have made a serious attack on the Government and I think the Opposition should be called to account as far as the attack made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) is concerned. He said, inter alia, that the Opposition would not allow a second Algeria or a second Kenya to develop in South Africa. He said that the Opposition would see to it that law and order were maintained thereby insinuating that the Government was not maintaining law and order at the moment. The hon. member for Pinetown said amongst other things that if the hon. the Minister already knew that 1963 was the date fixed for those acts of violence and sabotage, the Government should have taken steps. That date of 1963 has long since been known to the Opposition nct only to the Government. Last year during the discussion of the Sabotage Act the Minister. when introducing the Bill, referred specifically to what Oliver Tambo had said and he also referred to Algeria. Oliver Tambo said the following to which the Minister drew attention last year—

The Minister went on and quoted from “The Voice of Africa” what Oliver Tambo had written there—

That was what the hon. the Minister quoted to the Opposition last year already. He said that we were living in serious times and that that was the reason why he had come forward with that legislation. The hon. member for Germiston (District) says a serious duty rests on the Government; as he put “there was a heavy onus on the Government”. I say that a “heavy onus” also rests upon the Opposition. The onus lies in this that when dangers are pointed out the Opposition should adapt itself accordingly. In spite of the fact that the Minister of Justice pointed out the seriousness of the situation to the Opposition last year, what amendment did the Opposition move to that legislation? I want to read the amendment to the hon. Leader of the Opposition—

The hon. member again referred this afternoon to the role which the courts played and I shall also say a few words about that. The second reason was—

You must remember, Sir, that that crime was the crime of sabotage—

This new crime of sabotage was created by that very Section 21 to which Judge Snyman refers in his report. That was the section to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition took exception. He said that for that reason they would not pass the Bill. Had we not had that section what would the position have been to-day? The Minister drew attention to all the dangers and said that there might well be a second Algeria in South Africa, an Algeria which would be “child’s play” in the words of Oliver Tambo, and which the hon. member for Germiston (District) does not want.

The third reason advanced by the Leader of the Opposition was that the Government was granting futher extensive powers and that it ignored the fact that laws already existed which were adequate to deal with any crisis which might arise in the country. To-day they are advocating legislation. To-day they want us to act. But they were not even prepared to pass the second reading of that legislation. The fourth reason advanced by the Leader of the Opposition was that it would damage the Republic by creating the false impression that a permanent state of emergency existed in our country. The hon. member for Germiston (District) now says, with much waving of the arms, that the Opposition stood for law and order. A year ago, however, before these things had happened and in spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister had said that it would happen to-day, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that it would damage the Republic by creating the false impression that a permanent state of emergency existed in the country.

I want to go further than that. I lay Poqo at the door of the Opposition as their responsibility. Poqo is the child of the Opposition. [Interjections.] I shall prove that Poqo is the child of the Opposition and that the Opposition which sits in this House is responsible for Poqo. The Snyman commission report says that Poqo is a continuation of the P.A.C. What did they do in 1960 when Minister Erasmus introduced the Unlawful Organizations Bill? The object of that legislation was to ban the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. They put a price on their co-operation in 1960. The price they asked for their co-operation was that those organizations should not be banned permanently; they asked that the ban should be renewed annually. In other words, it was notice to the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. that they could keep their organizations alive because within a year their organizations might again be declared legal; that if they behaved themselves quietly for a period of a year they would perhaps again be declared legal because the Opposition had asked for it. Let me read what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at the time—

That is the Minister of course—

They would decide every year whether the Government had acted correctly or incorrectly! That was in 1960 and in 1961 the Minister of Justice came to this House and asked for that period to be extended for another year. Not one of the members of the Opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition, objected to the period being extended. Nor did they ask a single question about the A.N.C. or the P.A.C. during that Session. They did not ask whether they were still dangerous organizations. Last year it was again renewed for a further year. In spite of the fact that the Sabotage Act was already on the Order Paper this Opposition once again refrained from asking that this ban should be lifted. In other words, they were satisfied that they were still dangerous organizations.

Against what are you objecting?

I am objecting to this that you tried to create the impression this afternoon that the Government did not do its duty. Poqo is a continuation of the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. which were banned by the Government and the Opposition said that they should not be banned permanently. My submission is this, Sir, that had we made the law the way we wanted to make it in 1960, namely, that they should be banned permanently, we would not have had the position which we do have to-day as far as Poqo was concerned. But because the Opposition asked that the P.A.C. and the A.N.C. should only be banned annually, he served a notice on the members of those organizations that they would perhaps again become legal organizations at a later stage; that they could go underground and keep their organizations alive. The Opposition is responsible for that state of affairs. No matter how they try to wriggle out of it, they will not get away from that responsibility. They are the fathers of Poqo in South Africa.

A Government cannot go much further than the people will allow it to go and if you have a responsible Opposition it too cannot go much further than the people will allow it to go. If the Opposition want to tell us to-day that they are no longer a responsible Opposition we shall know what to do; in that case we shall take all the power we want and which we ought to have. Since 1950 when the Suppression of Communism Act was introduced, the Opposition has been opposing and fighting the Government, step by step. Every law which we have passed in this House we had to pass in the face of strenuous opposition. We could not pass the measures which we wanted to pass because we knew what power the Opposition and their Press had. We know what an outcry the Opposition and their Press can start against South Africa. We have to go step by step as far as we are really allowed to go.

Are you afraid of us?

We are afraid of the unnecessary criticism against South Africa. Had we had a responsible Opposition it would not have been necessary for us to be afraid. It would not have been necessary for us to be afraid had the Opposition been as jealous of our good name as we were. If the Opposition no longer wants us to take any notice of them, well and good, but we have always adopted the attitude in the past that they represented a section of the people in South Africa, that they were a responsible Opposition and that we should not take all the power, but that we should go step by step and take the people of South Africa with us, also that section which supports the Opposition.

I now wish to return to the 1960 legislation of Minister Erasmus. Minister Erasmus also mentioned that date of 1963 to the Opposition in 1960. He read the following to them—

The then Minister of Justice already said that in 1960 in this House to the Leader of the Opposition. This afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, by way of mouth of the hon. member for Pinetown and by way of mouth of the hon. member for Germiston (District), takes great exception and asks why, if the Minister knew that these things would happen in 1963, he did not take the necessary step.

Hypocrisy!

Yes, it is nothing else than hypocrisy. There are certain members in this House who already have the reputation of being hypocrites, members who always get up with pious expressions on their faces and pretend to be very indignant about what has happened. But the members of the Opposition are responsible for this state of affairs because the Poqo in this country also know to-day that the Opposition will fight their cause to the last ditch, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was one of those who fought against it that that person Vigne, the secretary or organizer of the Liberal Party, should be limited in his movements. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition objected to it that a limitation should be placed on him and on Peter Hjul by the Minister of Justice. Who are those people? Do you know, Sir, that the Snyman report points to those people on whom a limitation has been placed, as possibly being connected with the undermining activities of Poqo. The report says that strangely enough if those people move about in a certain area in the Transkei a murder is committed there the next day. That is what the commission says. Those are the people whom the Leader of the Opposition wants to protect. You will remember, Sir, that he also issued a statement in that connection, not in this House, but outside, a statement in which he expressed his indignation that the Minister of Justice should limit the movements of members of the Liberal Party under the Suppression of Communism Act. He was very indignant about that because, he said: Action is. now being taken not against Communism but against the liberals. I want to say something else about that matter.

I want to put it this way that the liberals and the Poqo have the same objective to-day. Let me mention the three things which the P.A.C. and Poqo have in common to-day: “Africa for the Africans”, they say. I am not saying that the liberals also say that, but Poqo say “Africa for the Africans” and they want to achieve that end by “one man one vote and that is what the liberals also say. The method which the liberals want to employ in South Africa—I do not know for what purpose—is one man one vote and that is the same method which Poqo and the P.A.C. want to use to obtain Africa for the Africans. That is the first method they have in common. The second aim of the liberals, an aim which flows from the principle of one man one vote, is that they want to do away with all tribes and tribal chiefs. When you look at paragraph seven of the report of Judge Snyman, Sir, you will see that he refers to this very question of the abolition of the tribes and tribal chiefs. He says in paragraph seven—

A little further down he says—

A little further on in the report he mentions the fact that they too advocate the abolition of the tribes and tribal chiefs. We are dealing with the Transkeian legislation at the moment. It will place the tribes and the tribal chiefs in an unassailable position and the Liberal Party who are opposing that are nothing else than the allies (if they are not one and the same) of the P.A.C. and of Poqo who are also against that. Poqo realize that if the tribes and the tribal chiefs are firmly established by this legislation their chances of ever again appealing to the Native in South Africa are very flimsy; in that event Poqo will no longer hold any attraction for them. The Liberal Party realizes that as well, namely, that if the tribal system and the system of tribal chiefs is further extended in the Transkei and if it is a success, the Liberal Party will never again be able to make any impression on the Transkei or anywhere else. Consequently the liberalists, the P.A.C. and Poqo have the same objective in that regard as well. My submission is, therefore, that as far as this objective and method of action are concerned, the liberals and Poqo are nearly synonymous. They are all in favour of the abolition of the tribal system and the tribal chiefs. Both stand for “one man one vote”. The Liberal Party is supposed to be opposed to force but when you read the report, Sir—and there are sworn affidavits in support—you find the following in paragraph 18—

Then you have this remarkable sentence—

That is a condemnatory finding as far as the Liberal Party is concerned. That is a condemnatory finding as far as the Liberals are concerned. I want to say one thing namely that the Minister of Justice has never yet spoken about the Liberal Party but about the liberals and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has stepped into the breach not for the Liberal Party but for the liberals in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was quick to step into the breach for the liberals in the statement he issued some time ago. I want to know from him whether he will again do so in view of this finding as set out in paragraph 18 of the report?

About whom is the report talking, the Whites or the Liberal Party?

The report talks about communistic agitators who were mentioned in this connection and then it says “also White people who, according to the evidence, pretend to be liberals and even members of the Liberal Party”.

“ Pretend”.

My learned friend who is an advocate interjects. I agree with him that you can accept that if a person calls himself a liberal, he is also a liberal. Those are the persons whom the Opposition protect. I want to emphasize this that in all the cases like that of Helen Joseph and in all the cases where house arrest has been imposed, the Opposition has always accused the Government and said that those were people who were not communists, that they were liberal people, liberal-minded people. That is the real danger. Those are the people who are hand in glove with Poqo in our country. It is of no avail manifesting holy indignation, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) did, and to get up in this House and say that they do not want a second Algeria in this country and walk out of this Chamber and campaign vigorously against what the Government does when it takes action against a Helen Joseph and that type of person who is a liberal. That is of no avail. The simple question which the hon. member for Germiston (District) could not reply to to-day is proof positive of the hypocrisy of the United Party.

I now want to deal with the “heavy onus” which rests on the Opposition. You will notice, Sir, that the speech of the hon. member for Germiston (District) consisted of two parts. He said in the one part that the Government should act. He manifested holy indignation in that part because such things as sabotage could happen in South Africa. He then demanded that law and order should be maintained. In the second part of his speech he condemned the legislation of the Government. He pretends to offer assistance with the one hand but he breaks it down with the other. On the one hand he says we must act and on the other hand he says: “No, you are wrong; you should not do that.” Those are the two faces which always confront us. The entire United Party is nothing but a turncoat (tweegatjakkals). They are always trying to enter one burrow and to make their exit through another one. You simply cannot get them to adhere to one course. However, I come to the “onus” which rests on the Opposition. The onus which rests on the Opposition is that they should act in a responsible manner. They represent nearly half the White electorate of South Africa. We do not say that is an insignificant representation. We recognize the fact that the Opposition represents a great number of people and the Opposition is entitled to speak on behalf of those people. But if they talk on behalf of those people they must act in a responsible manner. They must not act in a childish manner. They should not come here and lay a false charge and think they can get away with it by calmly talking about cabbages and kings as the hon. member for Pinetown did. They should show that they have a sense of responsibility. I challenge them to continue to talk about this Poqo movement. Let us analyse the matter in detail. Let us get to the root of the matter. If the Opposition does not accept the challenge and do so, I call the United Party “a hit and run criminal”.

Order! What expression is the hon. member using now? He must withdraw the word “criminal”.

On a point of order …

No, the hon. member must withdraw that expression.

Mr. Speaker, is the word “criminal” unparliamentary?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I shall withdraw the word …

On a point of order, the hon. member did not accuse any member of being a criminal. He spoke about the United Party as such.

On a point of order, during your absence the hon. member referred to somebody who was called “a hit and run criminal” in legal phraseology; somebody who attacked and then ran away. It is in that sense that he is using it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “criminal”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) raised a very grave matter based on a special report by a judicial commission. He raised it early in this debate because it is a grave matter and it afforded an early opportunity for a public reassurance to be given about the matter. Unfortunately the hon. Minister of Justice did not do so. He made use of the occasion to raise various political debating points. The hon. member who has just sat down, has taken the matter no further, except possibly to increase public concern by some of the very irresponsible statements that he has made. I do not propose following upon that aspect of the debate, but I can assure the hon. Minister and members on the Government benches that the serious aspects of this report and the inadequacy of assurances from the hon. the Minister of Justice will be dealt with by speakers on this side of the House.

Traditionally, Sir, the first day of the Budget debate is used to discuss the financial aspects and to address the hon. Minister of Finance …

Why then did you raise this issue?

I have indicated that the first opportunity was taken to raise a grave matter, a matter of grave public concern. That is why the opportunity was taken when it was, but I have also indicated that use is being taken of this occasion not to deal with the matter as one of public concern, but to raise purely political debating points. Therefore I come back to the financial aspects of the Budget, and accordingly will address my remarks primarily to the hon. the Minister of Finance. Sir, I believe it was Shakespeare who told us “All the world’s a stage and one man in his time plays many parts The hon. Minister of Finance quite evidently sees himself as just such a man. Last week, when he gave the House his fifth budgetary performance—a sort of a balancing act—he chose to appear in the costume of a gardener. Now, admittedly, it was a more colourful suit of clothes than the drab outfit of the tailor in which he made his first appearance. I am sure he felt delight in being garbed to better taste on this occasion, but I am equally sure that he will forgive me when I say that his performance was much the same as the House has witnessed before; no better but much the same.

Sir, he used the same stage gimmick of getting one account to balance the other account. The only difference on this occasion being that the gimmick works in the reverse direction this year. This time he boosts the Revenue Account from the Loan Account. In doing so the hon. the Minister takes credit that thereby he is able not to increase taxes, which he says would otherwise have happened. Sir, later on, in my speech I will indicate what I believe is the real reason for this reversal of the gimmick, namely that without doing that, the hon. the Minister would have been embarrassed by the very large credit balance which is to be carried forward in the Loan Account. I will come back to that later on.

Once again, as I shall also show, the hon. Minister ignores a golden rule of fiscal principle. Instead of leaving the largest possible proportion of the national income in private hands for the development and expansion of private enterprise and for the creation of more national wealth, this honourable gentleman applies the unsound tactics of taking in taxes and by way of loans from private hands more than the fiscus can put to use in a properly planned appropriation. The House therefore and the country should take heed when I say “beware of the Budget when it comes in new clothes”. For, Sir, it is quite evident today that what the country needs most on Budget day is not a change in budgetary clothing but a change in budgetary habits. Before I enlarge on the need of changes in that direction let me also deal with another unsatisfactory feature of the present Budget. Last year in the preamble to his Budget, the hon. Minister spoke of South Africa being “under fire on various fronts; more, it is under cross-fire”. Now it seems to me that the hon. gentleman then, as he again does to-day, either says too much or too little. For you see, this year again the hon. Minister makes the declaration that South Africa is “in a period of cold war”.

He then goes on to justify on that gound the outlay of large sums of money on what he calls “expensive defence equipment of a capital nature But as hon. gentlemen who spoke before me have made quite clear, surely the hon. Minister should realize that vague statements of that kind, which might scare somebody but which reassure nobody, can only serve to accentuate the uncertainties which are presently dulling the enthusiasm of industry to invest in South Africa. In that regard, let me remind this Government once again that it is not uncertainty as to military strength, but uncertainty as to political and economic stability under the present regime that is causing the economy to operate at what is virtually a state of high-level stagnation. That is the uncertainty which is, as I say, dulling the enthusiasm of industry to invest in South Africa. Therefore I repeat, that either the hon. the Minister says too much, or he says too little, and in that way he adds to the political and economic doubts and uncertainties. When I say that, I would remind the hon. House that this is the fifth year in which this Minister has tried to produce a Budget designed, as he says, to stimulate the economy. And for four years in succession he has failed to do so. I think his Budget address of last week is by implication an admission by himself that he has failed. Moreover, last year, the hon. Minister said he aimed to stimulate the economy by increasing the rate of spending by the State and by certain State-controlled enterprises. This year he admits failure by saying this—

Sir, nobody wants to prejudge the results of the coming year, but it is fair to say that the meagre tax relief the Minister has proposed in the present Budget is not likely to set off any startling economic growth rate in the field of industry, or mining or agriculture. Nor for that matter will the expenditure on “expensive defence equipment of a capital nature” bring any lasting upturn in commerce and industry since the Minister himself realizes that the large sums involved will be expended, as he says, “over a relatively short period”. Moreover as the hon. member for Constantia has indicated, presumably a large proportion will also be spent outside South Africa. I come therefore to the most obvious weakness in the Budget as a cure for a rather limp economy. Whilst the hon. Minister may speak of encouraging what he calls “current economic revival” and of raising the level of consumer demands (“ personal consumption” as he prefers calling it), it is quite evident that he himself actively negatives any such thing from happening because he cannot get rid of certain bad fiscal habits. It seems obvious in the first place that he cannot get rid of the bad habit of taking away with the one hand more in taxation than he gives with the other hand in the form of tax relief or tax concessions. This has happened repeatedly, and it is a regular feature of the hon. Minister’s budgeting. I will indicate how it has happened again last week.

Secondly, the hon. Minister cannot get rid of the fiscal habit of siphoning off in the form of budgetary surpluses more money from the taxpaying public than is needed during the year for defraying properly planned public expenditure. In fact this has become much more than just a habit; it is almost an affliction, a catching sort of fiscal disorder that reappears in this House year by year. Last year, for example, the hon. Minister gave a summing-up of his Budget proposals for 1962-3 on Revenue Account and on that occasion with his hand on his heart said—

But habit was too strong; so last week, this time with his hand in the pocket of the taxpayer, the hon. the Minister said—

I think when he quoted that figure, the hon. Minister was displaying his modesty as a gardener, because I believe I am perfectly safe in predicting that the surplus will exceed R300,000,000 before the end of the month. I am sorry I mean R30,000,000, but my misquotation is perhaps not as bad as it sounds, because if you were to calculate the surpluses over five years you would probably reach R300,000,000. Sir, in fact, I think the hon. the Minister makes himself perhaps rather notorious in the widening of the margin of error in his Estimates year by year.

It is against the siphoning off of this extra R30,000,000 or so for the current year 1962-3, that we must see the meagre tax concessions for 1963-4. Moreover, the income tax part of that concession, the 5 per cent discount on personal income tax which the Minister says will amount to R5,000,000, represents no more than, half the extra overall sum which the Minister took out of the taxpayers’ pockets last year when he abolished the 10 per cent discount. Here we have a very glaring instance of where the Minister took more away with the one hand last year than he professes to give back with the other hand this year. Significantly, too, he gives no relief in regard to company income tax, and by plain arithmetic you arrive at this result. It means that the hon. the Minister over-taxed the taxpaying community by some R15,000,000 last year and he is now content to over-tax that community in the coming year as well, the only difference being that this year he poses as a public benefactor and says he will not over-tax by more than R 10,000,000.

That brings me to this reduction of 1 cent a gallon of petrol. That is also an easing of over-taxation rather than a tax concession. Last year the Minister dearly over-taxed the public to the extent of more than R5,000,000 by adding 1 cent a gallon to the duty on petrol. When he eases that high rate of overtaxation, he now claims that he is putting a generous amount into the hands of the consumer. The only way I can liken that operation is to the action of a robber who steals your purse, then returns it half-empty and claims to be your benefactor because he did not take more. This sort of manipulation in revenue is on a par, as the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) pointed out, with the position that firstly by withholding spending power, and then by making a readjustment, the Minister claims that he is expanding purchasing power. Of course one only has to state this proposition to see how illogical it is. It applies particularly to this year’s repayment of the loan levy. That of course was withholding purchasing power, and it is now being readjusted. Much the same applies to the increase in the salaries of public servants. Those increases were overdue a long time ago. It is merely withholding what was long due and then by some adjustment— a fair adjustment, admittedly—putting matters right. But to claim that you are thereby enlarging the purchasing power is taking matters too far.

What I have indicated in regard to the Revenue Account is surely evidence of inefficient budgetary practice and wasteful financial administration. But that is not the end of the story. There is evidence of yet another fiscal habit which is growing up into bad budgetary practice and which is weakening financial control by the Treasury. The hon. member for Constantia told us what he thought might happen in regard to the change of clothing of the Minister next year, but I have a feeling that next year he may well appear in the garb of a window-dresser. I say that because a great deal of window-dressing is taking place in the Loan Account. All this window-dressing seems to be based on some sort of false assumption that big business must be good business.

During the recent Railway debate I gave figures to show how this false façade of inflating capital estimates was being exploited in the Railway Budget. The figures I quoted then are germane to this debate, because the capital funds of the Railways are appropriated from the Loan Account. I gave figures for three years and I will briefly repeat the salient features.

Although the Railways insisted on a loan appropriation of R 132,000,000 for 1960-1, the Administration was only able to put to use during that year slightly more than half of that amount, and so there was bad budgeting to the extent of 45 per cent. The next year there was some improvement, but there was still bad budgeting to the extent of 30 per cent. For the current year there is again a slight improvement, but the over-budgeting is likely to be 20 per cent. The proposals on Capital Account of the Railways which are so badly in excess of the actual cost of capital works carried out and of capital equipment acquired each year are surely evidence of two things, firstly of poor financial administration on the part of the Railway Administration and, secondly, of equally poor financial control on the part of the Treasury. One is left, therefore, with the impression that Parliament itself is being fobbed off with what someone called “guesstimates” instead of estimates. Unfortunately this Minister’s performance over those same three years is not any better. We remember that when the Minister became the new Minister of Finance he started off with what he called “a sort of financial confession of faith” and he gave the House the assurance that there would be careful scrutiny of Departmental estimated expenditure. That first year he also went to some pains to describe how, by careful scrutiny, he had managed to reduce the total sum requested by the Departments from £301,000,000 to £296,750,000. Admittedly the Minister came back to that in last year’s Budget when he also claimed to have the wholehearted co-operation of his colleagues in bringing about a small reduction in the Estimates for that year. But apart from that, it seems that budgetary scrutiny, even of that slight merit, is becoming a thing of the past. One certainly has the feeling that it is becoming a thing of the past if one has regard to the loan figures for those three years. In 1960-1 the Estimates of expenditure on Loan Account amounted to R263,000,000, but in actual fact less than R195,000,000 was needed. This involved two things. It involved, firstly, the carrying forward of R38,000,000 unused interest-bearing loan funds, and secondly, it involved bad budgeting to the extent of 26 per cent. The next year, 1961-2, the position was admittedly somewhat better and the overestimating was only 17 per cent, but the amount of unused loan funds carried forward rose to R46,000,000. For the current year, 1962-3, the Estimates provide for a capital outlay of R231,000,000 but according to the Minister’s own confession “expenditure on Loan Account will probably fall considerably short of the amount provided in the Estimates”. I consider that the final results in regard to the expenditure for 1962-3 are likely to be of the order of R140,000,000. This will reflect bad budgeting to the extent of 40 per cent, and it will leave a still bigger carry-over of unused loan funds.

I said I would come back to the Minister’s claim that by this gimmick of boosting the Revenue Account from the Loan Account he was saving the country from further taxation. I think we have now reached the point where we find the true explanation for it, because here the Minister has a very big credit balance in the Loan Account, which would have been very embarrassing, and so he eases his conscience by charging Loan Account in the coming year with certain expenditure, instead of the Revenue Account. I see the hon. the Minister is puzzled, but surely he has a very big credit balance in the Loan Account, and he now very piously comes to the House and says that for the next year he will take some R26,000,000 out of that account to bolster the Revenue Account.

I say that a lot of that represents window-dressing. It was window-dressing of that kind which obviated the Treasury drawing on the loan of R28,000,000 which had been negotiated with certain American banks. Events have shown that the loan was negotiated quite unnecessarily, and in spite of the superfluity of investment funds which have been and still are accumulating in South Africa consequent upon the still rigid application by this Government of exchange control. That is really the reason why there was no need to draw upon the loan, and I say that the negotiation was really unnecessary. Presumably the Government will remain liable for raising charges on the loan itself.

I give these detailed facts and figures to indicate in what an unbusiness-like way this Minister’s money empire is being conducted and also to demonstrate how necessary it is that he should get rid of some of his bad fiscal habits and bad budgetary practices. The Minister’s obsession to have to his credit a big revenue surplus at the end of each financial year now extends also to the Loan Account. As I have shown, he now insists on having a big credit balance on the Loan Account as well. The figures, it is true, may seem impressive, but it is in fact wasteful extravagance for which the taxpayer must pay. Although, therefore, the Minister may see himself as a zealous gardener, I am afraid he fails to see the wider economic landscape in which his garden should play a co-ordinated part. But I think no one will be deceived. The business world knows very well that the Minister’s thinly-spread tax relief cannot do much to increase consumer demand in the coming year. In addition, the technocrats have had their way and from now on the taxpayers as a body will be feeling the chilly embrace of P.A.Y.E. continuously week by week and month by month. As the hon. member for Constantia very rightly pointed out, that chilly embrace is likely also to have a retarding effect on consumer buying in the coming year. I believe that P.A.Y.E. is at best the latest instalment of a tidy-minded tax reform by officials. One accepts that, but business men know perfectly well that the reform which is most needed at present, if there is to be a general business revival and a substantial stimulus to economic growth, is a tax reform of a different kind, namely a worthwhile all-round tax reduction, but especially an easing of the gold-mining taxation. The hon. member for Constantia has dealt with that aspect of the matter and I will take it no further, except to say that the time has certainly come when the Minister should have regard to that form of tax reform which is so seriously needed; and if he does that he will then be able to think big, as the hon. member for Constantia has suggested he should. You see, the mood of the country and the state of the economy both demand a reform of that kind. But there are two barriers at present standing in its way. I have referred to them, but I will just deal with them again. Firstly, the impetus for such a reform cannot come from below, it must come from the top. We know however why that impetus is lacking. The Minister, on his own admission, is set upon allowing political considerations to outweigh economic considerations. The second barrier which stands in the way at present is that a business-like reform of that kind will need a more business-like approach to fiscal principles than this Minister has revealed thus far. Here again, I am afraid the business world must despair of a remedy as long as politics is to predominate over economics. Moreover, as I have already indicated, under this Minister’s régime Treasury control is being forced to grow weaker, and in consequence efficiency in the preparation of estimates in the administration of appropriated funds also suffers. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) made that perfectly clear and I do not want to expound on it. But I think it is quite clear that the amendment which the hon. member moved from this side of the House is fully justified by the events of the past year, and having regard to what the Minister said in his Budget speech it will also probably be substantiated in the outcome of the results of the coming year.

There is one further matter I want to deal with. I feel that something must be said about the appropriation of R21,000,000 to the Industrial Development Corporation. As everyone in this House knows, the Industrial Development Corporation has certain normal statutory functions to perform as a finance corporation, but when this Budget is passed the Industrial Development Corporation will also be assuming certain functions of government. The current appropriation to which I have referred includes R5,000,000 for the development of border industries. The scheme for the development of border industries is entirely a political concept designed to give effect to this Government’s Bantustan policies. Therefore, whatever influence on the normal development of the economy of the country the Industrial Development Corporation will have by carrying out its normal statutory functions, in addition it will now also affect the country in a different way because this corporate body, which is wholly owned by the Government, will now embrace activities which are designed to carry out Government policy in regard to border development. In other words, the Industrial Development Corporation now becomes as much a servant as Parliament as an agent of the Executive Government, and if Parliament is to maintain its control over public funds the time has arrived when there must be greater accountability by the Industrial Development Corporation to Parliament. I specifically raise this matter now because the Minister of Finance is in charge of the Treasury, the Department which controls and directs the financial policy of the Government. But it also has another function. The Treasury also has to perform its financial functions in such a way that the constitutional rights of Parliament are always maintained in its scrutiny and control over moneys voted by this House. The matter of a greater measure of accountability to Parliament by a body such as the Industrial Development Corporation has in the past always been an important matter, but in addition it now becomes a serious matter, and I hope that the Minister will deal with this in his reply and will indicate that suitable steps will be taken by which greater accountability by the Industrial Development Corporation to Parliament can be achieved.

Since Friday we have been reading in the Press and hearing on the radio about the Snyman Report, and again this afternoon the second speaker on the Opposition side, the seconder of a motion the introducer of which devoted his time to a discussion of finance, he switched immediately over to the Snyman Report. There was only that one speech, to which the hon. the Minister replied, and since then we have not heard another word about it. Now I take it that the Opposition are quite satisfied with the Minister’s reply and will leave the Snyman Report at that. It is clear to me that the Minister acted in such a dignified manner, and instilled so much confidence, that the Opposition now are satisfied, and I am assuming that the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) does not wish to discuss the Snyman Report again.

That is only your opinion.

Well, if that is so, then it is the greatest political retreat we have yet witnessed in this House. What is its history? Friday morning hon. members opposite wished to adjourn the House on a matter of urgent public importance in order to discuss the Snyman Report. This afternoon one speaker began to discuss it, and they left the matter at that. We are not blaming them, but we are not going to leave them alone, for this matter has a history. The hon. member came along with a very pious story, that they are in favour of chaos and the Poqo movement being combated. But is it not true that we had a similar experience in regard to this matter and related matters during the no-confidence motion? The Minister of Justice was the one person who was in the limelight throughout the recess. Then we came into the no-confidence debate, and what happened? The third speaker, the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) launched the greatest attack on the Minister of Justice on behalf of the Opposition. He spoke for a quarter of an hour and then resumed his seat. But we do not blame them, for the fact of the matter is that hon. members opposite have made it almost impossible for the Government, if we did not have such a big majority, to take any kind of action against any attempt at sabotage. Mr. Speaker, this matter did not begin yesterday; this matter had its beginnings in 1949 and 1950. It has a lengthy history.

Every step the Government wanted to take to combat the undermining of peace and order has been vigorously opposed by the Opposition. The hon. member for Germiston (District) wanted the idea to get abroad that the United Party was a responsible party that would not tolerate these things in South Africa. Here Mr. Justice Snyman comes forward and says that Poqo and the P.A.C. are one and the same thing. But what happened two years ago? We then had to have a night sitting in this House, and without the support of that side we had to ban the P.A.C.

That is not true.

The hon. member says that is not true. Permit me to just ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) this question. If the Minister of Justice had had the characteristic the Opposition are revealing to-day, of running away, and if the Government had done so, where would South Africa have been to-day? But they remain silent, for the power and the strength of this Government and of the Minister of Justice also bring confidence and peace and tranquillity to them. The hon. member has now had time to reflect, and I should like to offer him an apology. I gave him the wrong law this afternoon, but I should like to rectify it now. The hon. member has now had time to reflect. The Minister of Justice asked him the simple question, whether we would have the support of the Opposition if we were to insert the following words in this amending Bill: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law or the common law contained, any person who is charged with having committed the crime of sabotage shall be tried summarily without a preparatory examination being instituted if the Attorney-General so directs. That is all. the hon. member has now had time to think. Is he prepared now to tell us, if we insert only those words, whether we will have the support of the Opposition? [Interjections.] The hon. member says I must bring the Act, but here I am giving it to him. Now I should like to give an undertaking. I really should not do this, but I do so because I have confidence in the hon. the Minister of Justice. If the Minister of Justice comes along with words other than those appearing here, the hon. member is free and he need not vote for it, but if they are the same words, will he vote for it? Sir, South Africa should know that an hon. member comes to this House and pretends that the United Party are desirous of combating sabotage, chaos and subversion of justice, but he is not prepared to give an answer to this question. I say they are not sincere.

Bring the Act.

The Minister has given an undertaking that no other words will be used; and we are not talking about the whole Act. We are merely discussing this single recommendation by Judge Snyman. Mr. Justice Snyman says only this in his report—

Is the hon. member prepared to support the Government when we come along with that amendment?

During the debate this afternoon the hon. member for Germiston (District), who is now sitting there talking so happily since having had the assurance from the Minister of Justice that all will be well with South Africa, blamed the Government and the Minister of Justice for not having taken greater powers in the past, inter alia, to combat a phenomenon such as Poqo. But, Mr. Speaker, Poqo did not originate in Paarl. Poqo did not have its origins there; but it is something that came into being many years ago. And there was only one group of people in South Africa who realized it and who wanted to do something about it, namely the National Party. And that as far back as 1950 already.

Now I should like to ask the hon. member this further question with reference to our little discussion before dinner. The hon. member said this—

That is a summary of what he said. Just to have clarity about the matter, I should like to ask him whether he was also speaking on behalf of the United Party when he said that?

The answer to that is this, Mr. Speaker: I made it very clear that the necessary powers …

Order! The hon. member cannot make a speech now.

Well, then I cannot reply to the question.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the only time the hon. member and the United Party cannot reply.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. member not to say anything of that kind in the light of my obedience to your ruling. If you will permit me, I shall reply to the hon. member.

I shall help the hon. member; we are good friends and he is an honourable man …

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants me to reply …

Order! The hon. member does not have the floor now.

I wish to help the hon. member …

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I shall obey your ruling, but would like to point out that if the hon. member goes on after you would not permit another hon. member to reply to him, he must not criticize.

Then I shall not ask the hon. member a question, but lay a charge against him. I should like to tell the hon. member this, that he said things here this afternoon in respect of which he did not have the support of the United Party. He said here this afternoon—

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is easy to reply in this House without words. The hon. member need only shake his head. Do they accept the report of Mr. Justice Snyman unconditionally?

I have already. [Interjections.]

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, why we are having so much trouble in getting a reply? We are not the only ones who have noticed it; people overseas also notice it. Sir Henry Price has said this—and I think he must have had in mind a situation such as that we have here to-night—

Now I should like to ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) who is the “someone else”? It is very clear to me that there was a little ray of hope here this afternoon that after 12-14 years, in respect of matters such as Poqo and the subversion of authority in South Africa and of your and my continued existence, we were going to have the support of the United Party. But now we are having a struggle in getting a simple reply in regard to the steps that will have to be taken. I shall tell you why that is so. There is a history connected with the matter. When the National Party took action and said that steps should be taken against the P.A.C. and the A.N.C against Communism and other things that were undermining the order of South Africa, and when we envisaged these things and took the steps which the hon. member now avers were inadequate, we had opposition. What is our problem now? It is this, that on every occasion when this Government has taken a step to safeguard South Africa, the cry has gone up that South Africa is a police state.

Let us briefly examine the history of this matter. I have here the Cape Argus of 20 June 1950. The following appears in it—

That was the point of view of the Argus and of the United Party in 1950. But permit me to quote something from the East London Daily Despatch in regard to the anti-communistic legislation—

That is the history of the United Party and of its adherents. In 1950 the Star also said this—

The Cape Times then came along with this—

That was 12-13 years ago when the National Party saw in advance that Poqo was going to develop, that P.A.C. would come into existence, and that this hon. member would rise this afternoon and say that the Government had not taken adequate powers. But let us come a little closer to the front door. Not only did the United Party newspapers say these things; members in this House also said them. The calm hon. member for Peninsula said this, namely—

Mr. Strauss said—

And do you know what amendment they proposed at the time? The following appeared in the amendment—

Then came 1960 and thereafter 1962, that is to say, last year. The Minister of Justice then took powers which he has used during the past six to nine months in doing the things the hon. member for Germiston (District) suggests he has not done adequately. And what happened in this House of Assembly then? We did not have the support of the United Party. On the contrary. We had the very opposite. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say at the time? This—

That was the nature of the opposition we experienced last year. The hon. member for Durban Point on 14 June last year said this in this House—

But I should like to come closer to the door of the United Party. I am saying these things so that the people of South Africa may know that this request this afternoon, that the United Party wishes to help the National Party to maintain law and order in South Africa, is a hollow cry.

Do you reject it?

No, I do not reject it. Let me say in this connection—and I think that in this regard I am talking on behalf of every person on this side of the House—that there will never be a more joyful moment in South Africa than the moment when we achieve agreement on one thing, namely when in regard to sabotage and Poqo and its concomitants we can have unity between the United Party and the National Party. In order to achieve that unity, I should like once again to put my question to the hon. member for Germiston (District), namely whether he unconditionally accepts the report of Mr. Justice Snyman on behalf of the United Party. We cannot get away from the fact that in that report there is a recommendation that in order to maintain law and order there will have to be, inter alia, a small clause in the Statute Book—say 24 (2) (iv). All I wish to ask the hon. member now is whether he is prepared to say, on behalf of the United Party, that they will support it?

In view of the ruling from the Chair I cannot give a full reply.

We now have the United Party in the position of assuming the precise attitude they have adopted ever since 1950, namely, that when discussions take place, they have a lot to say, but when something has to be done no assistance from their side is forthcoming.

Will you and your Government accept the final report and recommendations of Mr. Justice Snyman?

The hon. member is now asking a question concerning something that is not in existence as yet. I am asking hon. members opposite a question in regard to something that is before them. And I am not even asking of them everything that Mr. Justice Snyman recommends. Mr. Justice Snyman refers to a specific clause of a specific Act contained in the Statute Book of South Africa. But apart from his recommending this new statutory provision, he also recommended that it should be made retrospective. Now I should like to ask the hon. member for Germiston (District) whether he is prepared to support that also in the interests of South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, will you permit me to explain the position?

The National Party has progressed so far already that we say: “We are not explaining anything; we say ‘yes ’ immediately.” We agree with anything that will help to maintain peace and order in South Africa. But the hon. member says they must first explain. Let me ask him again: Is he in favour of the existence in South Africa of an organization that undermines law and order? Of course the hon. member is not in favour of that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I ask you to request this hon. member to obey your ruling. You have said I may not answer these questions and that is why … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am so thankful that you are not as nervous as the hon. member. Let us talk to each other here in all serenity—as on Saturday at Robertson, although here on a far more serious matter— and let us resolve to give the hon. the Minister of Justice, who has handled the laws under his administration during the past 18 months with so much confidence and dignity, the additional powers a Julge says he ought to have. But what do we get now? We do not get “Yes” or “No”, but nervousness.

That is untrue, and you know it.

On a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to accuse the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark of saying: something he knows to be untrue?

Order! Did the hon. member for Germiston (District) use those words?

Yes, Sir.

Then the hon. member must withdraw them.

I do so, Mr. Speaker, in deference to your ruling.

The hon. member is nervous and annoyed because he has to say what his. caucus has told him to say, and not what is in his heart. Now there is something else I wish to ask the hon. member. All of us have read about the scandalous television film that is to be shown in Britain. Among others, there is a picture of four men that have been hanged In connection with them it is said—

I do not think that is a question about which one should become nervous. Does the hon. member approve of that?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member persists in asking me questions, whereas you have ruled that I may not reply to them …

It is within the hon. member’s discretion to ignore the questions.

The fact of the matter is that in this film they will not look like dummies to people overseas, but like actual persons who have been hanged. On Wednesday you will have the privilege of going with me to see this film. For me it will be a privilege, otherwise than in the case of the hon. member for Turffontein in relation to the hon. the Minister of Justice, to sit next to you at that show. Do you mind us discussing this little matter when it is projected on the screen? But the hon. member is not prepared to tell me that he disapproves of it and say it is scandalous. But do you know why he is not willing to do so? Because there are a few Black Sash ladies who may still vote for him.

One thing has emerged very clearly from this debate so far, namely, that hon. members opposite wish to create the illusion that they want to help South Africa and the Government to combat disturbances, and more particularly the Poqo movement. However, when it comes to practical steps, we do not get that assistance. But whatever the United Party does or does not do, South Africa cannot co-exist with Poqo. It is already difficult enough, even for a man and a woman, to live with a boarder; it is still more difficult for South Africa to live with a murderer in its midst. And even though we may have opposition from the United Party, I believe that we shall have the support of their supporters when the Minister asks for the necessary powers. Only one more point before I resumed my seat. South Africa has been a Republic for two years already; it is two years since we left the Commonwealth of Nations, and yet we experienced the great moment last Wednesday of this Government being able to come along with its Estimates and do what? The defence forces are being tremendously extended, and the Police Force is being strengthened. Under ten different heads something is given to everybody. Just have a chat with the lift attendant and ask him his opinion on the Budget. But do you know what another important feature of this Budget is? It is that after being in power for 14 years, the Government still has contact with the ordinary man to such an extent that it knows where relief should be given. So it was indeed a wonderful occasion to listen to the Budget speech last Wednesday! A mere two years ago it was said that South Africa was on the edge of a precipice and that we had no future. And yet our defence forces are being extended, the Police Force is being strengthened, and in addition the people are being generously looked after.

One last thought directed at the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Government. Do not let us concentrate all our attention on Poqo and these reprehensible occurrences, but let us pay more attention to, and show more gratitude for, those unseen things that have failed to take place thanks to the firm action of the Government.

I have no intention of discussing the interim report of the learned Judge, Justice Snyman. I should like to register my protest, however, against the manner in which it has been presented to this House, namely, in one language only. I know that recently the custom has been growing up of presenting reports in one language only, and of explaining the omission by the excuse about translation. But there can be no excuse about translation this time because this is a short report of nine pages with double spaced typing. This any member who lays claim to bilingualism can translate in an hour. I do not want to give the impression that I am raising this matter because the report is in Afrikaans. On the contrary. Let me give another example and a much worse one of a report which was presented in English.

Last year the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education appointed a commission to report upon the medium of education for Bantu pupils. The report of the commission was published in English only. Then in November last, the Minister made a speech on the contents of the report. But not only that. The Minister of Information in December last year, published a report in his Digest of South African Affairs on the Minister of Bantu Education’s speech and went on to give a fulsome report on “this finding”. When I placed a Question on the Order Paper asking whenwe would receive the report and when it would be published, the Minister replied as follows—

That was five weeks ago! Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is ignoring Parliament. I think that no report should be published until it has been laid upon the Table of this House. I remember the howl which used to go up from hon. members opposite when they were still in the Opposition and the Government side did not pay due attention to the observance of bilingualism.

I should now like to discuss a certain aspect of the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance. It is not so much what he did say in that speech, as what he omitted to say. That omission was this. Although he had a great deal to say to us about investment and about the necessity of obtaining funds for investment, he did not pay any serious attention to the large investments in what is euphemistically called the “public sector”, i.e. in State industrial and public utility corporations. There are, for instance, Iscor, Escom, and more particularly, the Industrial Development Corporation. I should like to say something this evening about control of the Industrial Development Corporation, and should like, first of all, to express my pleasure at the presence of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. In these Budget estimates, there is a provision for a contribution of R21,000,000 to the funds of the Industrial Development Corporation.

Now, Sir, when the Industrial Development Corporation was established the then Minister of Economic Affairs who is now Minister of Foreign Affairs, told us that they would establish a subsidiary of the Industrial Development Corporation, namely Sasol. We were told that Sasol would be established with a capital expenditure of R26,000,000; then later R36,000,000; but to-day it is about R96,000,000. The Minister of Economic Affairs told us then that the production of petrol at Sasol would amount to one-third of this country’s supply. At the same time he told us that the reduction in the price of petrol produced by Sasol would be 6d. That was in 1950. The following year, however, the Minister said that it would not be one-third, but one-fifth.

Now, in establishing Sasol public money was used which was chanelled through the Industrial Development Corporation. To-day we find that we have invested heavily in this company and several other subsidiary companies of the Industrial Development Corporation. And yet we in this House have no control over the expenditure of the money! Now, what have we done for Sasol, for instance, over the years? I do not say that we should not have established Sasol. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming argument in favour of its establishment was its strategic value. I never believed that we were going to produce cheap petrol by that means because research companies throughout the world have said that we cannot produce petrol from coal, even in this country with the cheapest coal in the world, and compete with those companies which take petrol out of the ground. That we knew. But what have we done for Sasol over the years? First of all, we gave it certain subsidies. Sasol would pay in excise duty 8½c—I am speaking of last year—whereas the customs duty on petrol was 13c. Here you immediately have a subsidy of 4½c per gallon. If that is taken at 5 per cent, we find that it is a subsidy of R2,250,000, i.e. the difference between excise and import duties.

Then three or four years ago, the Government decided that the loan which had been made to Sasol of R24,000,000 would be converted into shares. And what did that mean? It meant that the Government was prepared to forfeit the interest and the repayment of the loan and to leave the money invested in Sasol. Well, the Government took up those shares at par while hon. members opposite will agree that they could not be valued at par at that stage. Now, that was R 1,200,000 in interest so that together we subsidize Sasol almost to the extent of R3,500,000 per annum. Well, I think that ought to have been a fair start for Sasol.

In addition, the Minister of Transport the other day said it was the policy of the Government to protect Sasol. And it is protected by excessive railway rates. I should like to come to another point and in this connection I am glad that the Minister of Bantu Administration is here. When we asked, as the gold mines had asked, that a certain number of Bantu families should be allowed to live on the mines, our request was always turned down, because, it was said, it is against the laws of the country. But that is not the way in which we treat the married Bantu at Sasol! Let me, in this connection, read again from this fount of undefiled information, namely the Digest of South African Affairs. Here is an extract which was written by a newspapers correspondent who was writing up Sasol—

Recently, there were reports in the Press about a visit to Sasol with special reference to this Native village. It was said—

So of the Africans working on the gold mines in the Free State, only 3 per cent may live in at the mine. Coming to Sasol, on the contrary, as many can live there as may wish to do so. And they receive rations for their families! There is, in addition, special Bantu schools for their children! I should like to ask the Minister of Bantu Administration, when these Bantu are going to go back to the never-never land, their Bantustan? When is that going to happen? Are they going to go back in fact or are they going to be kept for Sasol? They are there permanently; they have their families there and their children have been born there. This is a contradiction of the whole policy which the Minister has enunciated in this House.

I should now like to say a word about the Industrial Development Corporation itself. This is a subject which we have discussed here over many years. According to the estimates this year, R21,000,000 will be paid into the Industrial Development Corporation in shares for a new project. This is the position of the Industrial Development Corporation. It was established by law in 1940. The hon. members opposite were then in opposition and within three years they criticized the management of this company. I read two speeches at length last year on this point. There were speeches by a former Minister, Mr. Erasmus, who was then in opposition and by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was then in opposition and who was the shadow Minister of Economic Affairs. A very fine speech he made. I can quote that speech; I have it here. It was an excellent speech on this subject. He said when they established the company that he would be prepared to accept the establishment of key industries, which I think was sound. Then in 1944 he said that the important thing was that there should be parliamentary control of these companies. He used the arguments we have used and they have never been used more eloquently than they were used by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he was in opposition in 1944. He said it was essential that there should be this control as there was in the case of any limited liability company.

I want to discuss, Sir, some of the activities of the Industrial Development Corporation today. It is a big holding company and it has several subsidiaries. I want to give hon. members an idea of how the Industrial Development Corporation has grown. The Industrial Development Corporation was a small company with R 10,000,000 capital at the beginning. I want to read from its latest report to give some idea as to the staff. The staff gives us an indication of how the company has grown: Directors, seven; general manager, one; deputy general manager, one; four managers; two assistant managers; three secretaries and so on. It is a large undertaking. I do not want to criticize the management of the Industrial Development Corporation. It is not the fault of those people; it is the system under which they are working and I am criticizing the system from the point of view of parliamentary control. They have gone so far that they are now financing companies in association with other great financial houses. I was not shocked, but I was very much surprised some years ago to receive a notice of an offer of shares in a flotation. These were the companies concerned: Anglo American Corporation, the Central Mining and Investment Corporation, Rand Mines, Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Corporation and the Industrial Development Corporation. Mr. Speaker, the Industrial Development Corporation was never established to assist in work of that kind. It was originally established to finance Government industries and secondly to assist struggling industries until they were on their feet. That was the purpose for which it was established.

I want to show what they have done recently. They have come into the market as an issuing house, with Industrial Selections Ltd. They have established a holding company as the big mining and financial houses do. This is what they say about the company in the prospectus. It is a very good and well-produced prospectus. They say this—

It is a holding company established by the Industrial Development Corporation.

The next point I want to come to is this: We are living in the financial era of the takeover bid. The take-over bid as we have seen it operate overseas has meant that the big financial groups take over smaller ones. We have seen its operation in real estate companies; we have seen it in industrial companies; we have seen it in the Press. South Africa has seen it. We have had some remarkable takeover bids. It was reported in the Burger this week-end that the South African Bank, Volkskas, had made a take-over bid for the Stellenbosch District Bank shares and a very good bid it is. Here is a big bank trying to take over a rich small one; it has made an offer for its shares. But typical of the take-over bid, the directors of the Stellenbosch District Bank issued a counter-statement to their shareholders: Hold on to your shares; you will get more. This is the technique of the take-over bid. We had a very good example in Johannesburg where we had the Dagbreek Trust taking over the Afrikaanse Pers. They called it an amalgamation. To call a take-over bid an amalgamation tastes just as sweet as Natal sugar …

Is that relevant?

Very relevant, Sir. I am coming to a take-over bid by the Industrial Development Corporation.

Why don’t you come to the Poqo?

The gentleman seems to have Poqo on the brain. He should have his head examined. I come to the take-over bid of the Industrial Development Corporation. I want to quote what was said by the Industrial Development Corporation itself. The take-over bid was an attempt to take over Cuthberts, the biggest shoe-selling organization in South Africa. There were two rival groups bidding for Cuthberts. This was a statement by the Industrial Development Corporation—

They made an offer, but there was a better offer. They did not win; they lost. I want to ask this question: Is it the intention of the Government that the Industrial Development Corporation should be involved in take-over bids to take over a big group of chain stores in this country? Is that their policy? Does the Government intend that that should be done? Here we have this creation, I will not say Frankenstein, because I do not know who the Frankenstein is. I think we are all the Frankenstein; we are all guilty. I am not blaming anyone, Sir. I am trying to find a solution. It is difficult, but I want to make a proposal for its solution. I will give another example. We have also, as a subsidiary to the Industrial Development Corporation, the Fine Wool Products, which is a very good and sound company. This is an extract from the annual report of the Fine Wool Products for 1960—

In other words, the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa was considering establishing a company in Rhodesia in order to avoid paying the 20 per cent new Customs rate in Rhodesia, and they would be apparently competing with South African exporters to Rhodesia; a company financed by our money competing with our own people! I followed this up. The financial Press criticized the proposal, and eventually I saw in the profit and loss account for the following year that provision had been made for Rhodesian income-tax.

How is it that the Industrial Development Corporation and Fine Wool Products have to make provision for Rhodesian income-tax? I think we are entitled to an explanation; I do not know what the explanation is.

Now we come to the vital question: What is to be done? Should there be accountability to Parliament or not? I say there should be. The Minister of Foreign Affairs agreed; he said there should be. Mr. Erasmus said there should be. I say that we should have some form of accountability to this honourable House. It is money voted by this House; there are no shareholders to speak to the directors. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the menace in the world of finance to-day is not the great capitalists that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs talks about; the modern menace is the influential executive who has control of the shares and the money—not in this country, but in other countries.

I want to say that this matter was raised in this House in 1951. Here is what Mr. Havenga, as Minister of Finance, said at that time when the same subject was debated—

And you have to find the money.

… I know that, as a result of greater burdens which the State has to bear in regard to the financing of these corporations, it is reasonable that Parliament should demand the right to have some control, but that control, I submit, should be over broad questions of policy. I know my hon. friend was worried by certain developments, and he has promised the House that he is going to take a greater interest in the running of these undertakings.

What are we to suggest? I can quote, but I do not wish to do so at length, from the solution put to the British House of Commons in 1955 by a Select Committee in dealing with the same problem in Britain in regard to the nationalized industries: How could they make the nationalized industries responsible to Parliament? I want to say that the chairman of the Transport Commission said in his evidence that he would welcome having representatives of Parliament to whom he could explain his problems. It was not a question of trying to condemn what was being done. I do not think so. What can I propose this evening; what can I put forward? Before I give my solution I want to say that a solution has been offered by leading businessmen in South Africa, especially in secondary industries. They say—

A most distinguished South African has expressed that view in a speech. There are others, men whom I have met. Well, Sir, I am not prepared to go as far as that yet. What I wish to propose is this, Sir: I would propose that a Select Committee of this House should investigate the whole question of the accountability to Parliament of these utility corporations, and when they have gone into the subject they could make a recommendation to this House. The Minister of Finance is asked year after year whether he is going to give more money to the Industrial Development Corporation; can we channel money through the Industrial Development Corporation into another Government-owned industry? In other countries they call that Socialism and nationalization. I do not know what we call it here. There must be a name for it. It is getting very near to Socialism. It may not be national Socialism but it is nationalist Socialism. My suggestion is then that we should have this Select Committee appointed. The hon. the Minister of Finance is called upon to provide the money for these companies. He makes no reference to them in his Budget speech and they form an important part of our finance. It is not the function of the Minister of Economic Affairs. He is merely the administrator. He has no control over these companies. They report to him; he appoints the directors. When one looks through the list of directors one sees old familiar names over and over again as directors of these utility companies and their subsidiaries. (There are no Members of Parliament.) I think the time has arrived for something to be done. I am putting forward that proposal this evening. I hope to get the support of the Minister of Economic Affairs and. in his reply, the support of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

A report was Tabled here on Wednesday. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition regarded it in such a serious light that he actually wanted a special sitting on that report. If the Rules of this House had permitted him to do so, a special debate would have been held here at his request as a result of that report. But to-day he managed to find an hon. member to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for him, the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). We then had this strange phenomenon that after certain questions had been put to the hon. member for Germiston (District), in the first instance questions by the hon. the Minister himself and later by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. De Wet), the hon. member for Germiston (District) disappeared, notwithstanding the fact that I asked him to stay in the Chamber. He disappeared with his leader because they first wanted to discuss a difference of opinion which they had in their caucus regarding this Poqo question before they replied to us. All the front-benchers of the United Party disappeared in order to resolve that difference. While they do not know how to answer those questions and while they are holding a caucus meeting to resolve that difference of opinion, they try to bring speakers into this debate and they try to avoid the debate which they themselves started. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) spoke about a Frankenstein but the United Party created a Frankenstein for itself with this debate which it started itself. It is such a Frankenstein that all the front-benchers of the United Party have fled. [Interjections.] There is not one United Party whip here. They have fled in order to try to decide in their caucus what their reply should be. Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen such a thing? Have you ever seen a party run away like this …

On a point of order, is that hon. member allowed to say “That is a lie”?

I did not say it; if I did say it. I withdraw it.

That is the party which has been running away for the past 14 years. It runs away from its own actions; it runs away from its own conscience. They have Tun away again this evening. It is a tragedy that we have to be saddled with such an Opposition here in South Africa, an Opposition which cannot even carry on a debate. They start a debate and then they first hold a caucus meeting to decide what they should say during that debate!

I want to say this evening that since the hon. member for Germiston (District) has refused to reply to the question as to whether the United Party will be prepared to give the hon. the Minister the same powers as those already contained in an existing Act in order to deal with this problem forcefully, I maintain that he is afraid to reply because he knows that it is the White man in South Africa who is guilty of putting those ideas of murder and intimidation into the mind of the Black man. Mr. Speaker, when people in South Africa make speeches in which they say—

—then I want to know what is meant by it. It simply means that those who do not want this Transkei legislation instruct Poqo to murder Kaiser Matanzima so that they will not be saddled with this legislation. That is what that speech means. Those people who ask for “one man. one vote”, those people who ask for equality in South Africa, know that there are also certain people in the Transkei who ask for “one man, one vote”, and who ask for complete equality in South Africa. They know that Kaiser Matanzima is opposed to that; that he has the power to prevent it because he wants to urge his own people to accept parallel development in this country. Those people tell the members of Poqo: “If you want to achieve your ideal, you have to murder Kaizer Matanzima; if you do not want the Transkei plan to succeed, if you want ‘ one man, one vote if you want equality, then you must murder this spokesman of the Government who wants to accept parallel development for the Bantu areas.” Is it not Whites who plant those ideas in the minds of the members of the Poqo movement? Are they not the people who give the members of Poqo the idea of continuing with their methods of intimidation?

Who said so?

This was said in a speech which was made here in the House of Assembly by the leader of the United Party in Natal.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) has deprecated the fact that there is intimidation. He has asked the hon. the Minister what he has done in connection with that intimidation. Has the time not come for him to turn round and look at his own front-benchers, at his own members, to put his hand into his own bosom and to say to them: “What words do you use in opposing this Government? What example do you set the Bantu and Poqo?” I can mention more examples. I want to say frankly this evening that if we investigate and analyse the various political murders, disturbances and acts of sabotage, we will find that we can ascribe 80 per cent of them to the actions of the White man. One section of the Whites is to blame for these things, because perhaps of the injudicious actions or things that they have done unwittingly. Another section of the Whites is to blame for these things because willingly or unwillingly, they are instruments of Communism, instruments of the saboteurs who want to paralize South Africa. And I include the members of the United Party in the last section, those members who sit in this House and make this kind of speech; members who set this sort of example and say these things to the non-Whites and to the world. We have here one front-bencher of the United Party who was formerly a member of the Cabinet (Major Van der By1). I want to ask him to answer two questions this evening because the Leader of the United Party and the hon. member for Germiston (District) have both fled: Is his party prepared to agree to the report of Mr. Justice Snyman and the recommendation that the hon. the Minister should be given those powers! Will the hon. member tell us whether his party is prepared to do so? Mr. Speaker, he does not want to reply. Why does he refuse to reply? Because the United Party has created its own Frankenstein and is now trying to unravel this problem in the caucus room and because they do not know how to answer us. We ask him very nicely—after all, he does have a responsibility towards South Africa; he also has a responsibility towards this House and towards the electorate—whether his party is prepared to support us in placing legislation on the Statute Book in terms of the Snyman report, legislation in terms of which the hon. the Minister will receive that power which is already provided for in another Act? He refuses to answer. I will ask the other two front-benchers who are present here. Will the hon. member for Albany, (Mr. Bowker) tell us whether his party is prepared to give the hon. the Minister that power? We know the hon. member for Albany; he is very honest and sincere. He loves South Africa very much. Mr. Justice Snyman says that this is necessary for the sake of the maintenance of law and order in the country. Is the hon. member for Albany and his party prepared to do this? He does not want to answer. The frontbenchers refuse to answer. No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) will not answer either. Let me put the question to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross), because it seems to me that the United Party is controlled these days from the back-benches. Will the hon. member for Benoni tell us whether his party is prepared to give that power to the hon. the Minister which he already has in terms of another Act? We cannot get an answer.

Is the hon. member entitled to go from the front-benches to the third row of benches and to ignore the second row of benches?

If that hon. member is so anxious to reply, let him reply. We have a small ray of light here. A Whip has just said that it is very unfair for me to put this question to the front-benchers. He says that it is very unfair for me to put this question to the back-benchers; I must put it to him. Will the hon. Whip please stand up and tell South Africa and this House whether the United Party is prepared to give the hon. the Minister the power recommended in the Snyman report?

That is tedious repetition.

You see, that party is silent. What do they do? They ask the Minister: “What have you done?” They say that the Government has done nothing to combat this position in South Africa. I want to make it clear that this Poqo development is not something which has developed to-day. This Poqo movement is merely another name for the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. which existed in this country. It is an old communist organization which has been in operation in South Africa for a long while.

When I look back, I find that on 27 May 1952, Dr. Malan Tabled a report here in this House. It was a police report. It was a report which was in the hands of the old United Party Cabinet. The hon. members for Green Point and Constantia were at that time both in the Cabinet. It was stated very emphatically in that report that the aim of the communists was to bring about a revolution in South Africa. This was a report which was submitted to the United Party Cabinet by the police. They cannot plead ignorance in this regard. What did they do in connection with that report? They simply filed it away, filed it away so well that when we introduced a law to suppress Communism, when we wanted to expel Sam Kahn and Bunting from this House, they said: “No, there is no Communism in South Africa.” Then they knew nothing about Communism. And they said that even though their Cabinet had had that report before them! Now that we have had these tragic occurrences at Paarl and elsewhere, they seek to blame the National Party. They say that it is our policy that has led to these things. But they will not get away with that; they will get away with it just as little as they will get away from this debate by trying to avoid the issue. I want to state clearly that this is a development which is taking place in South Africa just as it is happening in the rest of Africa, it is financed by communists from abroad.

The hon. member asks what this Government has done. The hon. Minister has already told us what has been done. When we introduced the Sabotage Bill, the United Party opposed that measure and forced a night sitting. Not only did they oppose it in a night sitting but they said that there was no possibility of anything of that nature arising in South Africa; they went further and said that this Minister wanted to assume dictatorial powers, dictatorial powers to smother any opposition. I want to state most emphatically that the United Party knew what the position was. I want to give a few examples. According to the Rhodesian Herald of 31 August 1961, there were “Chinese training Africans as sabotage experts”. The report continued—

The United Party paid no attention to that. On the 13 August 1961, Dagbreek published the following report—

It is these Natives to which the Rhodesian Herald refers. Without passports these Natives went over to Russia to learn how to commit sabotage, how to make bombs, how to paralyse South Africa, and the United Party was aware of it because their own newspapers published these facts. When the hon. the Minister and the Government came forward with legislation to combat sabotage so that the hon. the Minister would have the necessary power to fight it, the United Party strongly opposed that legislation and there was a night sitting. It would suit them if South Africa was paralysed. That will be the only way in which they will be able to come into power again. Their only hope of coming into power again is if chaos is created in the country, and the means used to that end are not important. That is why they are not prepared to give the hon. the Minister these powers. On the 7 August a report appeared in regard to all the pamphlets which are distributed throughout South Africa from Rhodesia. The United Party was aware of this fact because on the 12 November 1961 the Sunday Express published this report—

Hon members were aware of this and when we introduced legislation to combat these things, the United Party opposed it. Because they have always done so, the United Party moved an amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply, and they sought to make the Snyman report the important issue. The seconder of the amendment raised this point but when the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) was asked a few questions by the hon. the Minister, he could not reply. When the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. De Wet) put certain questions to him, he tried to get the Speaker’s protection on a point of order which was not valid. The hon. member was very nervous because he knew that he would be brought up before his caucus this evening to explain his actions. I asked the hon. member to stay here but he conveniently refused to do so and deemed it more advisable to flee, or rather, not to flee but to go to a caucus meeting. I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to be here to answer the questions but he was not able to be present; he also had to ask his caucus first what answers to give in this House. I asked the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. Van der By1) to reply to me, but he sat here like a sphynx, as silent as the grave, because he was not allowed to answer. Now the General at the back has gone to the caucus meeting to decide how they should answer. I want to put this most emphatically: The United Party has created its own Frankenstein and that Frankenstein is its own past. It has always refused to consider legislation in South Africa on its merits, with affection and loyalty and in the light of circumstances, and it has always refused to see a doctrine like Communism, which is forced upon us, in its correct perspective. The only idea that the United Party has ever had has been to remove this Government from office, even though it means invoking the type of assistance invited by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) when he invited Poqo to murder Kaiser Matanzima. I want to put this very clearly because I want this to be placed on record. They want to create chaos and they make this kind of irresponsible speech in which the White man tells the Black man: “If you do not want this sort of legislation, continue with your sabotage. If you do not want this sort legislation, murder those Bantu who support the Government and who want this legislation”. It is their conscience which has caught up with the United Party this evening and because their conscience has caught up with the United Party, all their front-benchers have now disappeared and the Leader of the Opposition and the seconder of the amendment are not allowed to reply to our questions. They have all fled. I want to repeat that the United Party is aware of the fact that this sabotage, this agitation amongst the Bantu, does not reflect the views of the mass of the Bantu but that it springs from propaganda from outside and from outside organizations. One of the United Party’s own newspapers, the Friend had this to say on the 8 November, 1962—

And do you know what this money is being used for in South Africa? The newspaper tells us that it is “Africa for the Black man”, and “one man, one vote”, and then hon. members try to hide these facts. Why do hon. members not look across our borders? On 18 July 1961 Sir Roy Welensky said—

He was dealing with sabotage in the Rhodesias and he said that this was the easiest way. But the United Party is asleep.

I want to conclude with this question: When this Government did take action—although it is accused to-day of not having taken action— what did the United Party do? And now I want to deal once more with the hon. member for Germiston (District) because he made a personal statement. When we introduced legislation to combat sabotage, the Cape Times, their important spokesman, had this to say on 14 May 1962—

And what did the members of the United Party have to say then? According to the Cape Times Senator Fagan, an ex-Chief Justice, said: “He was shocked by the Bill, the consequences of which were far-reaching.” He was shocked by the Bill, and what did the hon, member for Germiston (District) himself say? He said—

This hon. member has the effrontery to-day to ask this Government: “What have you done?” The hon. the Minister introduced that sabotage legislation and he stated very clearly that it was not possible to combat Communism, which was divided up into cells and was guilty of sabotage, in the usual democratic manner; that one needed wider powers, powers to stop these activities for once and for all. When he did so, the hon. member opposed him and made Press statements. And now he comes along to-day and accuses the Government again.

My time is short, but I want to make this point: The masses of Black people in South Africa are peace-loving. The masses of Black people in South Africa accept this fair division of the Bantu into ethnic groups; the masses of Black people also accept the bona fides and the honesty of the Government with its plan of parallel separate development. All these acts of sabotage, all these murders in South Africa are planned by White people, White people who are trained by the communists who knowingly and deliberately are responsible for the propaganda in this regard—like other White people who unfortunately sometimes mean well but lose their perspective and act injudiciously, who incite those people injudiciously, or even exploit them economically, as certain examples have indicated. Those people are the villains in South Africa and they disturb our national relationships in South Afrrica. But there are other White people too who are guilty of this sort of thing because of their efforts to come into power and because of their absolutely negative outlook on life; who make the sort of speech made by the hon. member for South Coast, a speech that has the blessing of the whole of the United Party. The United Party should put its hand into its own bosom. Its members should ask themselves the following question in connection with these murders which have been committed: “How much blame is attached to me as a White man? How much blame is attached to us as a party for these murders which have been committed because of what we have said?” That is why the time has come for the United Party to act with the necessary sense of responsibility. When a person like Helen Josephs is placed under house arrest, the United Party should not proclaim under banner headlines: “Right to live as dignified human beings stopped by the Minister.” The United Party must not act as spokesman for Luthuli; it must not act as spokesman for Duncan; it must not act as spokesman for every communist and every saboteur and every liberal in South Africa. It must join us in saying: “These Liberals and saboteurs and these communists must be eliminated in South Africa.” If the United Party does that, it will be showing its love for South Africa. But its actions are false and treacherous towards South Africa. That is why I want to ask the United Party to come to its senses. At the moment, except for the hon. member for Constantia, all the front-benches of the United Party are empty because their members are holding a caucus meeting. They have become enmeshed in their own Poqo movement because they do not want to get rid of it.

I hope the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) will be a little patient. He will get all the answers he wants in due course. My business to-night is with the hon. Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the consideration of a national budget, one reacts initially to the surpluses or deficiencies, and to the increases, or decreases in taxation. But this is only at first blush, because a national budget is much more than a question of profit and loss, it is much more than a question of “I will have to pay a little more, or I will pay a little less”. A national budget is the mirror of a country, of its progress or its retrogression, of its stability or its instability, and particularly of the measure of contentment of its peoples, and it is in this context that the Budget should be reviewed. Mr. Speaker, I have used the phrase “the contentment of its peoples”, and this presupposes a number of factors: Is the Fiscus using its vast powers in the direction that all resources of the country, both material and human, are being developed and utilized to the fullest extent for the ultimate benefit of all the people in the country? Is there full employment in the country? Is the standard of living of the people progressing and improving? Is the economy functioning to its full potentials? These are the questions that a budget should answer, for a budget is the accounting by the Government to the people.

Now on the financial side the Budget is perfectly clear. We have an estimated surplus of R28,000,000 for 1963 and a small surplus of R 100,000 for 1964. Of course we know, and the Minister knows, that time will prove that both these figures are incorrect. But that is something that we have learned to accept.

How do you know?

I will tell you in a moment. Last year, when the Budget was presented, the revenue surplus for 1961-2 was estimated at R5,900,000; in fact it proved to be over R 10,000,000 more than the estimate. That is one of the reasons. So we can therefore confidently expect a surplus for 1963 of not R28,000,000 but something considerably higher. And another reason, because similarly, instead of the predicted draw for 1962-3—that is no profit and no loss—we have a surplus of R28,000,000, so that we can expect a substantial surplus for 1964. I think the hon. the Minister of Finance would be the last person to disagree that he anticipates a very healthy surplus for 1964.

We all know that producing large surpluses has become a pattern of our budgeting. It has been referred to year after year in this House.I know the hon. Minister will tell us that the same pattern existed in the days of the United Party. I can’t cross swords with him there unfortunately. But is it not time that some hon. Minister of Finance had the courage to carry out the crusade, mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia this afternoon, and to once and for all put an end to this pattern of budgeting in our fiscal life? Apart from the fact that this type of budgeting is harming the economy year after year by unnecessarily taking out of the private sector funds that could well be spent there it is creating year after year increasing extravagances in our Government Departments. And how can you expect it to be otherwise? If you know that you are going to spend R200 and you have got R600 to spend, the natural consequence is extravagance. In 1962, practically every Department had a large proportion of its Votes which it had to surrender and the percentage varied from naught to 54 per cent of the Vote. For Customs and Excise the Vote was R6,680,000, but R6,096,000 was used and a surplus of 9 per cent was surrendered; on Lands, the Vote was R1,590,000 and R1,465,000 was spent, and the remainder was surrendered, a surplus of 8 per cent; on the Immigration Vote, the Vote was R2,125,000 and R 972,000 was spent and a surplus of 54 per cent was surrendered. Right away through you get the same pattern. In Agricultural Technical Services the surplus was 9 per cent, Water Affairs 15 per cent. All these amounts were voted and then surrendered to the Treasury. If we do not tighten up this budgeting, we cannot expect to have efficiency and control, or as a member on this side called it “discipline” in our Government Departments. And it is no use the hon. the Minister of Finance coming to us, as he did last year and saying (Hansard, Col. 2944, Vol. 3)—

Really, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister should set an example for efficiency and not come to the House with statements of this kind. The only remarkable thing is that the Minister could cut down the Estimates by R9,600,000, and that thereafter we should still have the surplus we had. And the position is worse, because exactly the same thing applies in the case of the Loan Account. In his Budget speech last year, the hon. the Minister estimated his balance as at 31 March, at R18,000,000; according to the White Paper that was laid on the Table, the balance was R38,000,000, an increase of R20,000,000. Here again I want to refer the hon. the Minister to what he said last year. It was referred to very briefly by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). The Minister said (Col. 2939)—

I am glad of the co-operation the hon. the Minister gets, but if I were the hon. the Minister I would issue a directive to the Departments informing them that he would like a lot more co-operation so that there can be some semblance of balance between his Estimates and what he finally expends, because, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, this year we ended up with a surplus on Loan Account of R47,000,000, or 13 per cent of the expenditure. You know, Mr. Speaker, one almost reaches the stage when one wonders why we vote these funds in this House. There is so little relationship between the amounts we vote and the amounts that are spent, that it almost seems as if we might as well do away with it and let the hon. the Minister get on with his business without any interference from us.

This year we have had tax reductions amounting to R 13,600,000. As the hon. member for Constantia said, we are grateful for these concessions, because we are grateful for small mercies. But the total of the concessions given to us this year is exactly half of what was taken from us last year. Now the picture begins to look to us somewhat like Margery Daw and her see-saw: Last year we were up 10 per cent, on income tax, this year we are down 5 per cent; last year we were up 1c on petrol, this year we are down 1c on petrol. I really wish the hon. the Minister would make up his mind.

That is flexibility for you!

Yes, flexibility, but these ups and downs and ups and downs don’t help the economy of the country, don’t help people to appreciate the position, don’t help them to forecast—and we don’t want forecasting from year to year, we want long-term forecasting, and we want to have some sort of stability in our taxation and not this Margery Daw business. The hon. the Minister told us in his speech this year that by “imparting the necessary strictly controlled degree of flexibility to the budgetary mechanism, it has been found possible to avoid further taxation Does the hon. Minister really believe that unless he had provided for R26,000,000 for Defence by way of Loan Account and for the R 10,000,000 for Bantu Administration and Development by way of Loan Account, he would have ended up with a deficit for 1964? I don’t think he would have. Because what is the position? Defence requires R26,000,000, the Native Trust requires R 10,000,000, a total of R36,000,000. He had a surplus of R13,600,000. So he was required to find R22,500,000. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that I personally, and I am sure we on this side of the House, have sufficient confidence in him to know that when he budgets for a surplus of R 100,000, he won’t have the slightest difficulty in eventually turning it into a surplus of R22,000,000. Therefore I don’t think his statement that he would have had to increase taxation really would bear investigation. We have far too much confidence in the Minister. But having charged R36,000,000 to Loan Account, a step with which we heartily agree, the Minister should then have put his words into deeds, and really implemented the statement that “this Budget puts generous amounts into the hands of the consumers for consumption and investment” and “that the Budget was to give a further incentive to consumption and investment in order to stimulate the general economic revival”. We on this side of the House knows as well as does the Minister of the dangers of inflation. But once one accepts, as the hon. the Minister has obviously accepted, that our economy requires stimulation—and I do not think it is necessary for me to quote figures, because we are all agreed that that is the position—then I would have thought that the doctor of last year (I refer to the word “doctor” in its medical context) would have given a full dose of stimulation, not half a dose or a third of a dose as has been given.

Mr. Speaker, the United States of America is also suffering from slow economic growth, and it is interesting for the House to know, what I am sure the hon. Minister knows, what is being said and what is being thought in the United States. Can I quote first of all from Gilbert Grant in the American News Digest of 18 January to 25 January 1963. This is what he says—

I am well aware that we do not suffer from chronic deficits, we perhaps suffer from chronic surpluses, but I think the same principles apply. I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to Time (one of those for which we did not have to have a permit) of 11 January 1963, where it talks among other things about the liberal economists, and then goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, in America we are dealing with an enormous economy and an old developed country. In the Republic we are dealing with a smaller country and a young economy, but although the rates of taxation may be different, the same principles apply: More money in the private sector and less money in the hands of the Government. The President himself talked about “cut the fetters which hold back private spending”, and “reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative”. I hope the hon. the Minister will perhaps take cognizance of those words. In short, what we need is the green light, not the amber light; we want more stimulus and less surpluses.

I said a litle earlier that the Budget was a mirror of a country, or an exposition of government policies and the programme designed to achieve that. The hon. the Minister said very much the same last year (Hansard Col. 2932)—

The tragedy of this Budget and the failing of this Budget is that it shows so glaringly the socio-political atmosphere in which it operates, and the most important statement in the hon. Minister’s Budget speech this year was when he said that in the private sector it is possible that investments would not increase to a great extent before entrepreneurs are convinced that increased consumption is at hand. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister: Does he really believe that his tax reductions are going to have the effect of convincing the entrepreneurs that a big increase in consumption is at hand? Personal consumption of goods and services dropped from 81.6 per cent of total personal expenditure and savings in 1960 to 76.4 per cent in 1962, while personal savings increased from 6.4 per cent to 12.9 per cent. These figures are complementary, Mr. Speaker. Because there is a fear to spend and an urge to save because of lack of real confidence in the future. In this climate that the Government has created it can never hope to have the optimum development in this country. But it is not only climate that is having its effect, it is also the other consequences of Government policy, and hon. members on the other side know it. Whenever we talk about the effects of Government policies on the economy of this country and the prosperity of this country, what do we get in reply? We get in reply that “we are solely concerned with material things”. We are told that we are not prepared to make sacrifices for this country. That is an open admission by the Government benches that their policies are harming the economy of this country, whatever the reason for the policies may be.

The problem is not only one of investment by the entrepreneur. As we have already been told to-night, it is also the problem of capacity which is not being used, and the only solution to the problem of unused capacity and the problem of new investment is sufficient demand. That in a few simple words is the problem which we have: Insufficient demand. What is the reason for the lack of demand, and that our economy is functioning far under its potential? The reason is that, until there is a steady flow of unskilled labour to skilled labour, with a resultant increase in productivity and higher wages based on productivity and a consequent increase in buying power, we will never have full demand in this country. That is the simple problem. One does not have to be a genius, one can be a simple person like the member for Parktown to understand that, unless you have that upward movement from lack of skill to skill and the buying power that follows it, you can never have full production in this country. But at every turn that policy is frustrated by Government policy. I wonder when the Government will understand that 3,250,000 Whites cannot forever carry the burden of 15,000,000 people? And unless you are prepared to allow the non-European to develop his skill in a single economic entity, the hon. Minister of Finance can take on whatever garb of a Walter Mitty he likes, but he will not increase the essential growth factor of our economy. The hon. Minister of Finance appears to be up against a brick wall built by the policies of his party.

Now hon. members opposite must not accuse us of being concerned only with material gains. In a capitalistic system the good of all is basically dependent on private enterprise and the profit motive, and in this country the non-European has a very big stake in our material success because, as our material success improves, so the status of the non-European improves, and heaven knows it needs improvement. If we succeed, he can earn more, and there is an easier life in store for him. Of course that is unless you cut the tie between White and non-White, in which case we suffer and the non-Whites also suffer.

I said a little earlier that in considering a national Budget, one of the yardsticks was the contentment of the people, and now I want to ask the hon. the Minister one or two questions. I would like him to get up and tell us that, in his opinion, the peoples of this country are contented. I would like him to say that the White man in this country is to-day a happy person, that there is not fear on all sides for our safety and our well-being, and that the roads along which we are travelling are not leading to our ultimate destruction. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to tell us that we have full confidence for the future, and that we are planning and building with a clear perspective, full of hope and courage? Is he prepared to tell the Coloured people that their future is bright and rosy, and that they can reach full development at a reasonable tempo in peaceful and tranquil conditions? Is he prepared to tell the Bantu that the lot which has been cast for them will give them full employment and take poverty away from them and give them a reasonable standard of living and a happy home life, and that they need have no fear of strife and bloodshed? Is he prepared to tell the Indians that their future and that of their children is assured, that we are taking them away from their traditional businesses and their traditional ways of making a living and their traditional residential areas and we are moving them because we believe it is in their interest? If the hon. the Minister could answer all these questions in the affirmative, we would have had a very acceptable Budget, not in its context of rands and cents, but in its context of human beings, human ideals and of real values.

Mr. Speaker, if one were to have believed the newspapers over the week-end, one would have expected the Opposition to stand up in this House today and to have been most deeply shocked at the occurrences and particularly at the report of Mr. Justice Snyman. A friend asked me over the week-end what I thought the Opposition would do in pursuance of the Press reports and the statements which had been made. I said: Well, as I know the Opposition, they will say that they are shocked at what has happened, but they will place the blame for it on the Government. And that is just what has happened. Mr. Speaker, they are not shocked. On the contrary, what has happened is what they have been expecting for a long time and what they have been preparing the ground for over the years. They are the spiritual fathers not only of Nusas, of the Black Sash, of the Liberal Party, the Federal Party and the Progressive Party, but they are also the spiritual fathers of this Poqo movement. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not be so hasty. I will prove it. His ancestors had a great deal of patience. They wandered in the desert for 40 years. I say that they are not shocked. Does the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) look shocked? No, he is amused. They expected these things and they prepared the ground for them over the years. Their actions here reveal a helpless rage. Over the past ten years they have tried to do everything under the sun to win the confidence of the people and to put this Government out of office, but all in vain. They have tried one method after the other for the past ten years to put this Government out of office and they have not hesitated to use any methods at all to achieve that end. After every attempt their numbers have been reduced and their prestige has suffered.

I just want to refer to two attempts that they made to overthrow the Government and to the methods that they used. Just after we came into power the hon. members for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) travelled all over the country doing everything in their power to tell the people that this Government would only be able to govern for six months and the reasons that they gave were that banks and industries would close down. They also said that they had secret information that Minister Havenga would not be able to borrow a single cent abroad. The hon. member shakes his head but I was present at those meetings.

But that is scandalous!

Yes, I agree. That was the climate they were trying to create and now the hon. member for Pine town (Mr. Hopewell) has the effrontery to stand up this evening and accuse the Government of not having created the right climate for economic progress! But that was the climate that the United Party wanted to create; they wanted to ruin South Africa economically to achieve their purpose. I say that I agree that the method that they used was a shameful one.

At the same time, when the disturbances took place in Durban, when they knew what the cause of those disturbances was—that the Zulus had a grievance against the Indians because they said that the Indians exploited them and took their wives—these were the reasons given by the Zulus—what did the United Party do? They went around with their Leader at their head and told the world: Here you have the first fruits of apartheid. And when did they do this? They did it when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was doing everything in his power in Paris to defend South Africa’s cause. But the next morning what General Smuts had said here appeared under banner headlines in the newspapers—that these were the first fruits of apartheid. And Mrs. Nehru threw this up in the face of our Minister there. This was what the United Party did and they now seek to exonerate themselves by saying that it is this Government which has been the cause of the hostility and everything that has happened.

When they could not succeed in breaking South Africa economically, they adopted another method. They swung left and they courted the beautiful daughter of Houghton. What happened then? When they awoke in Bloemfontein from their love-sickness they found that that same Delilah had already cut their locks. That one-time giant had lost his strength! Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast decided that leftism did not pay; that they should swing more to the right and that no more land should be sold to the Native Trust. But they were powerless and the only stray sheep that they could round up were an antiquated and obsolete economic Don Quixote with his attendant, the Sancho Panza of Wynberg. Now they are annoyed. They have a grievance in their hearts and like a helpless Samson they do not hesitate to break down the pillars of South Africa not only over our heads but over their heads as well. That is the method of the United Party and I want to prove it this evening.

Before I come to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and while the hon. member for Green Point (Major Van der Byl) is still here, I want to describe the methods of the United Party. They attacked the hon. the Minister of Justice here to-day for not having done enough, but by way of comparison I want to tell the House what the hon. member for Green Point did when he was Minister of Native Affairs and when similar disturbances took place in the Klipfontein Location where the Bantu stoned three policemen. We expected them to take action but what did the hon. member do? The next day he went to Klipfontein and told the Bantu there: I come not as your enemy but as your friend.

That is the fifth time that you have told the same lie.

Surely the hon. member must withdraw that remark?

I withdraw it, but the hon. member does not want to accept my word. I have told him repeatedly that it is untrue and yet he says the same thing every time and he knows it to be untrue.

It was in all the newspapers and the hon. member never denied it. He only denied it when I raised it here.

On a point of order, if an hon. member says that something is untrue, should another hon. member not accept his word?

I am not interested in anything that happened outside of this House.

It was stated in the Press that on the next day the hon. member went to those rebellious murderers and said that he came to them as a friend and not as an enemy. What did he mean by that? What were those Bantu to understand from those words of a Minister? That the police were their enemies.

The hon. member knows that to be untrue. If the hon. member persists in telling the same untruth over and over again, I am entitled to defend myself. He has no conception of truth or dignity.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Out of respect for you I shall withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, but I will say something stronger if the hon. member repeats that accusation.

I want to say this to the hon. member for Green Point. I am not in the habit of telling lies in this House.

That appeared in the hon. members’ own newspapers.

I come now to the hon. member for Yeoville. On 29 September 1956 he held a meeting in East London and this is what he said—

[Interjections.] But when we wanted to give them decent housing at Meadowlands, what a fuss that party made! The hon. member for South Coast said they would never vote for this measure until we gave the Natives property rights there. They wanted nothing to do with it. They now promise the Bantu better conditions but when we created these conditions for the Bantu, the United Party opposed them. The hon. member for Yeoville went on to say—

In other words, they told the Bantu that the National Party was deceiving them. I want to ask why the hon. member for Yeoville did not say that the largest employers of the Bantu in the country were not the National Party but the people who voted for that party? Why do those hon. members not urge the mines and the industrialists to pay the Bantu better? Why do they place the onus for this on the Government?—

In other words, the Bantu are told that this Government is exploiting their labour. Is that not a shameful thing to say?—

The hon. member for Simonstown is fond of making interjections. I want to ask him what social and political rights he wants to give the Bantu?

You tell me.

No, the hon. member for Yeoville belongs to that party, not to our party. What social and political rights does the hon. member want to give the Bantu? [Interjections.] They are planting certain thoughts in the minds of the Bantu. It is the National Party that witholds social rights from them, exploits them, that does not pay them properly; it is the National Party that withholds political rights from them. That is the idea that a leading member of the United Party, the hon. member for Yeoville, puts into the minds of the Coloured and the Bantu. I will prove this evening that the United Party have been preparing the ground for what is taking place here to-day and they will not get away with it. They are silent now but during the recess, after Parliament has been prorogued— this has already been decided in Johannesburg—they will disseminate a number of untruths throughout the whole of South Africa which they dare not spread here because they know that we will refute them. That is why they are quiet. I have here a pamphlet issued by the United Party. This is how they want to prove that we are a group of Nazis—“The Building of a Nazi”, not of a “nasie” (nation). They say that we have been found guilty on ten counts—and this pamphlet is distributed amongst the Bantu as well. If this is the climate that they want to create in South Africa, then it is the correct climate for those who do not know any better and who want eventually to resort to violence.

I am sorry that the hon. member for South Coast is not here. Before he came to this House, in other words, before his Government fell in 1948, this was his policy, and he put it very frankly. He said—

And what was the trouble? The Indian wanted the franchise. The hon. member for South Coast said that to avoid giving the Bantu the franchise we should never allow him to be domiciled in the White areas; he should be a guest here; he should return to his. own areas. This was the policy of the hon. member for South Coast before his Government fell and before he came to this House. But when his Government fell, he made an about-face, the reason for which I have already given. They regarded it as one of the methods of putting this Government out of office. He then went to Johannesburg and according to the Rand Daily Mail of 3 November 1956, he said there that if we wanted racial peace in this country we would have to give the Bantu a share of the ballot-box. Why did he change his mind so completely? He did so because he wanted to use the Bantu in his effort to put this Government out of office but that party was never able to foresee the bad blood that they would create.

Listen to what the hon. member for Hillbrow told the Indians and remember that the hon. member for South Coast did everything in his power to give the municipal vote to the Indians against the wishes of the Whites in Natal. He did not want to give them White representatives; he said most emphatically that he could not agree to Indians having White people as their representatives. Indians should be represented by Indians in the municipalities.

But that is untrue.

I am repeatedly being called a liar. I just want to say that the hon. member for South Coast also denied having said these things. He has already denied it on three occasions to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

You know that he denied it but you keep repeating it.

I will quote it just now for the hon. member. The hon. member for Hillbrow had the following to say— and I say that the Progressive Party also has its spiritual home in the United Party because Mr. Butcher said exactly the same thing. He said—

Who said that?

This was the hon. member for Hillbrow. He went on to say—

He first says that they are first-class citizens and then he says that as soon as they show that they are true citizens of South Africa, they will get the vote—

[Interjection.] I said that they were also the spiritual fathers of the Liberal Party. I want to quote to you what Gordon Ngubane said at a Liberal Party election meeting at Pietermaritzburg—

and when I read this I am taken back to the debate carried on by members of the Opposition—

I want to ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana: To what party did Mr. Brown belong before he joined the Liberal Party? [Interjections.] Gordon Ngubane went on to say—

One would expect Whites, on reading this report of Ngubane’s speech, to reject it. But here we have the Natal Witness which states—

This newspaper is not taking the part of its fellow Whites and the National Party and putting the matter correctly, but it is taking the part of the Bantu who threaten to use force and to drive the Whites out of the country—not only the Nationalists but all the Whites.

But the Nationalists helped him.

The hon. member called me a liar. Here I have a verbatim report of the meeting which the hon. member for South Coast had with the Natal Municipal Association. Mr. Boyd put this question to him. This was on 12 February 1946—

I say that I am not in the habit of telling lies in this House.

I come now to the person whom the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) defended to such an extent, Mr. Patrick Duncan—

[Interjection.] Do you deny paternity of your own child? You even have liberals within your ranks. There is the hon. member for Constantia. Was he not the leader in Bloemfontein who led out the sheep? And then he changed his mind. You must not force me to say why he changed his mind. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) was also one of those and he also changed his mind. They have Liberals within their own ranks. Alan Paton went on to say—

At the Bloemfontein Congress, one of the most important congresses ever to be held in South Africa, a Native leader stated clearly that they did not turn their backs on co-operation with the Whites The hon. member now asks me why I mention these people. Listen to what Patrick Duncan said, the man whom they so lauded and protected—

Mr. Speaker, is this not what is being discovered on the part of Poqo to-day—that they are trying by means of violence to force the Government to make certain concessions? This is precisely what Patrick Duncan told them to do—