I move—

Mr. Speaker, I intend delivering my Budget speech on 16 March.

As hon. members are aware, it is customary to ask the House for an advance to cover the necessary Government expenditure during the first few months of the new financial year whilst awaiting the passing of the usual Appropriation Bill.

I propose to follow the same procedure as last year and to ask for funds to cover a period of approximately three and a half months in order to avoid embarrassment to the Treasury in the event of there being any delay in the promulgation of the Appropriation Act. To endeavour to assess the duration of the Session at this early stage is a somewhat hazardous enterprise.

Bearing these factors in mind, it is estimated that an amount of R263,000,000 will be required for revenue services, R7,000,000 for Bantu education and R55,000,000 for loan services, making a total of R325,000,000. As hon. members will know, these funds can be used to meet only the cost of existing services already approved by Parliament, and any new services contemplated must wait until the Appropriation Bill is passed.

The total amount requested—R325,000,000—is appreciably higher than last year’s Part Appropriation of R281,000,000. Hon. members should not, however, jump to the conclusion that the Main Estimates of Expenditure for 1964-5 will necessarily be correspondingly higher than those for 1963-4. One important factor which I have had to take into account is that much heavier payments for certain services are expected during the early months of the new financial year than was the case during the current year.

While I do not intend to anticipate my Budget speech by giving the House a general review of the financial situation, there are one or two matters of financial interest which I should like to mention now.

Hon. members will recall that we have for many years had a revolving credit arrangement with a group of American banks. This credit is always arranged for a period of two years, and the most recent period expired on 23 January. The Government has not actually required or made use of the credit for some time, but nevertheless I believe it is important to preserve the continuity of our relationship with the banks and to retain this facility which may one day again be of great value to us. During my visit to the United States of America in September and October last year I accordingly had discussions with the principal banks concerned, as a result of which the credit has been renewed for a further period of two years, and for the same amount—$40,000,000 or about R29,000,000. The rate of interest remains unchanged at 5 per cent, but I am glad to say that I was able to secure a reduction of the commitment fee—which is all that we pay so long as we do not draw upon the credit—from ⅜ per cent to ¼ per cent.

Last December a loan of DM40,000,000—approximately R7,000,000—which we obtained two years ago from a syndicate of German banks under the leadership of the Deutsche Bank—fell due. I took advantage of the visit of Mr. Abs, the President of the Deutsche Bank, to South Africa last year to discuss with him future arrangements with his bank. In view of the present favourable position of the balance of payments and the Exchequer I thought it would be to South Africa’s advantage to convert the expiring loan into a revolving credit on the same lines as the American credit. The Deutsche Bank agreed to this and a revolving credit for the same amount—DM40,000,000—was arranged for a period of two years as from 19 December 1963. Rates of interest in Germany are somewhat higher than those in America and this credit carries an interest rate of 5½ per cent and a commitment fee of ⅜ per cent.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, I explained some of the devices which we had used to mop up excessive liquidity in this country. We have continued these measures, one of which, it will be recalled, was the issue of Treasury bills to a larger total amount than the Treasury actually required to meet its disbursements. The result has been that a substantial balance in the Exchequer account with the Reserve Bank has been built up. In order to reduce this balance to some extent and to earn some interest on these idle funds, I decided to invest a certain amount overseas. About R12,000,000 has so far been invested at short call in London, at rates of interest in the range 3¼ per cent—3 11/16 per cent, and this amount may be further increased. I do not envisage, however, that any very large sums will be so invested. Most of the funds will in any case be required in Britain fairly shortly to meet Government purchases there.

This transaction brought to light an apparent defect in our financial legislation, in that the Government is permitted, under the Exchequer and Audit Act, to invest its funds in only one way, namely, on deposit with any banking institution. I believe it would be desirable to grant the Government a little more latitude in this respect, so as to allow it to invest surplus moneys in, for example, Treasury bills of other countries, where the rate of interest and the security might be superior to that obtainable on bank deposits. I propose to introduce an amendment to this effect in the Finance Bill later this Session.

Mr. Speaker, this is always a difficult debate for the hon. the Minister to initiate. He has told us this afternoon that he intends to introduce his Budget on 16 March. Knowing the philanthropic make-up of the hon. the Minister we are quite sure that it was with great restraint on his part that he withheld the good news which he has for the country when he introduces his Budget. I am sure the hon. the Minister, with his natural kindly instincts, would love to tell the country of his overflowing coffers, of his overflowing exchange reserves, of his buoyant revenue and of his ability to give very substantial relief to the unfortunate taxpayers of this country. To that extent, Sir, the Minister has our sympathies. He has so much good news which I am quite sure he will be ready to give us next month that we sympathize with him in not being able to give it to-day.

The two points to which he has referred in regard to overseas revolving credits bear out what I say in referring to the strong financial position of the country at the present time. Again, the hon. the Minister, in telling us that he had renewed the revolving credit facilities in New York, was careful to point out that he had done so because, in spite of the present position, it might be necessary for him to call upon this revolving credit to assist our finances. I do not know what reason he has for saying that.

What about all the capital projects?

We do not know about these capital projects. It may be that the hon. the Minister may have, mixed up with the good news he is going to give us next month, equally bad news of the burden which is going to be laid upon the shoulders of the taxpayer. But on the evidence before us at the present time we must suspend judgment until we hear his Budget speech. The attitude of the Government towards the handling of surplus funds is one which, I think, we entirely agree with. If the Government has money lying idle, and if they can assist the over-liquid position by wise investment, I am quite sure we shall be willing to assist the hon. the Minister in any legislation which he may bring forward to enable him to do so.

We are dealing to-day with a request for a very large sum of money. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out it is much larger than last year. He is asking for 3½ months’ supply. If I remember rightly the hon. the Minister last year asked for more than 3½ months’ supply; I think he asked for 4½ months’ supply. I am subject to correction, but I think so. If I am right then, of course, the increased amount he is asking for now for 3½ months, in comparison with what he asked for last year for 4½ months, is all the greater. The State President in the speech he made on the occasion of the opening of Parliament made reference to the remarkable growth and prosperity of all sections of the Republic’s economy.

Hear, hear!

One assumes, Sir, that the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has sold his wool at a good price this season. Even allowing for the usual poetic licence to be expected of a Government when it is talking about itself, or of the hon. member for Cradock when he is talking about himself, it is a fact that there has been very substantial progress in almost every sphere of our economic life during the past 12 months, something for which everybody in this House is duly thankful. Some enthusiasts have gone so far as to call it an economic explosion. I hope they are wrong in using that term. I hope they are wrong in their interpretation of what is going on because one of the features of an explosion is that what goes up has to come down, and I do not think it is a very happy phrase to use when you are talking about economic development.

Whilst we all agree that the country’s economy is showing every sign of activity and that most predictions from all quarters are to the effect that that activity is likely to continue for, at any rate, the next 12 months, I think responsible people, including the hon. the Minister, are wondering as to what comes next. Is this to be regarded as a normal expansion—as a rate of growth which can be maintained—or is it a “boom” which may not last? If so, what is going to happen if it does not last? It is common cause, Sir, I think, that our future well-being as a country and as a people depends largely, if not entirely, on a rapid and a solid economic expansion, an expansion that will provide a substantial improvement in the standard of living of all sections of our people. I think, therefore, it is appropriate, on an occasion like this, for us to consider the main factors governing the present position and to try to assess the implications and the problems which are involved. I think there are three questions which immediately arise, questions which jump to the eye, as our French friends say. The first question is: To what do we owe this sudden upsurge in our economy? The second is: Why has it taken 15 years of Nationalist government to produce a reasonable rate of growth? The third question is: Can the rate of progress be maintained?

As to the first question there are a number of reasons, and the fact that they all happen to have occurred more or less simultaneously has undoubtedly, in the terms of the Holistic theory, shown that the whole is greater than the sums of its parts. In the first place, you have the fact that our gold production is still increasing. We are told that in a year or two it may reach its maximum unless new mines are discovered. But nevertheless last year no less than 27,500,000 ounces of gold were produced, valued at a sum of R684,000,000, which was an increase of nearly 8 per cent on the previous year; a phenomenal thing, Sir. I want to emphasize once again the extent to which the sheet anchor of our whole economy for the last 50 years has been the gold mining industry.

The next reason, of course, is the lavish spending of the Government. I think the amount the hon. the Minister is asking for today is an indication of that. He is asking today for some R44,000,000 more than he did last year, and he is asking it, I think, for a shorter period than he did last year. Look at the Loan Votes. There is an amount of R22,000,000 for the Commerce and Industries Loan Vote; R150,000,000 for the Defence and so on. What with one thing and another, during the nine months, up to the end of December, the Exchequer disbursed about R812,000,000 which is nearly R80,000,000 more than it did in the previous year. That is quite a considerable sum, Sir, and takes no account of the money spent by the Railways Administration.

The third reason is the fact that we switched over to the P.A.Y.E. system of income tax last year. All the talk of a tax-free holiday gave people, or some of them, money in their pockets and created a general impression among people, I think, that some of them were much richer than they really were. Then you had, of course, as I have mentioned, the very large expenditure on Defence which put money into circulation, although that expenditure is entirely unproductive from the economic point of view. We had the fact that overseas markets were good, particularly in regard to certain articles, like sugar. I do not know whether the sugar industry is planning to put up a statue to Fidel Castro in Natal. I would not be surprised if they were. There has been a boom in the sugar industry of South Africa. The price of wool has improved; the diamond market is booming. Some R332,000,000 worth of diamonds was sold which was an increase of nearly R14,000,000 on the previous year. All these facts have contributed to buoyancy in the consumers’ market and to the general atmosphere and have put more money into people’s pockets much of which has not remained there. I think, however, the decisive factor in the present position was really the apparent decision by the financial, the industrial and commercial world to go ahead. After years of uncertainty and hesitation they apparently made up their minds to take advantage of the climate which had been created by the conditions to which I have referred and that they would not wait any longer, and that as long as the Government maintained law and order … [Interjections.]

Do not be upset by the unexpected applause; you are sometimes right.

You are very often applauded before you have finished your sentence, Sir. I was going to say that as long as the Government maintained law and order without any consideration of the steps taken to maintain it, and as long as the Government did not interfere too much with their activities they thought they had better make hay while the sun shone.

They were prepared to disbelieve all your prognostications.

No, they are making hay while the sun shines, and I am not blaming them. The net result of all that, Sir, is that things got moving and they are moving. We all hope that they will continue to move.

The second question is why has it taken so long to experience this increase in economic activity? There is no doubt that the speed, one might almost say the violence, of this economic upsurge is largely due to the pent-up urge of finance, industry, commerce to get ahead with the proper exploitation of the country’s natural resources, an urge which has been frustrated for years. If one asks why it has been frustrated the answer is perfectly simple and quite irrefutable. Because the main, if not the only impediment, to steady, progressive, full-scale economic development over the past 15 years has been the policies, or the lack of policy of the Nationalist Government. It all started way back in 1949 when the present Minister of Lands was Minister of Railways and the whole policy of railway and harbour development was held up for some years. He was eventually replaced* by the present Minister who took on the job on the clear understanding that he would be given a free hand and all the money he required to remedy the position. I think everybody in this House will agree that he has done a very remarkable job. So long as the hon. the Minister of Transport sticks to his last we all agree that he has done a good job. But even he, in spite of the work he has done and the money he has had and the ability he has shown in his job, has not succeeded yet in meeting the needs of the country in regard to transport development. Side by side with that, of course, the hon. the Minister who is on the mat this afternoon, in another capacity, in those days, committed possibly the greatest political sin of his political career in killing immigration. That was followed, as we all know, by an unending stream of repressive racial legislation; it was followed by a continuing policy of ignoring world opinion and growing isolation. All that led, as we all know, to a flight of overseas capital and a profound feeling of uncertainty and a lack of confidence both here and abroad. Those, Sir, are facts, facts which nobody in this House can contradict. It is quite clear that the present period of economic well being, so far from being a feather in the cap of the present Government, simply highlights the fact that under a good Government we might have been enjoying the same amount of prosperity at least over the last ten years. It is indeed abundantly clear, it is only too sadly clear, what might have been under a United Party Government.

Perhaps the most important of the three questions is whether the present rate of progress can be maintained. Having regard to its past record is there any reason to suppose that the Government can cope with a new situation and can it maintain conditions which will permit the present rate, the present bright picture, to continue? Can it keep the present rate of economic progress going? One has to bear in mind, in considering this question, that the present upward movement, which everybody is looking at, as far as I can see, in some surprise, should not be regarded as phenomenal. It has been waiting for us; staring us in the face for years. Given favourable circumstances there is no reason at all why the present rate, which is not an excessive rate, should not continue for years to come. We have not had anything from the Government to indicate what they would regard as a proper rate of economic growth to be maintained. As we know our rate of gross national production fell as low as 2 per cent. Over a period of years it was not much more than 2 per cent. We know that other countries have a figure which they regard as the minimum which they should try to maintain. We know the Common Market countries for some years past maintained a rate of about 6 per cent per annum.

That was during the war.

I am talking about the last five or six years. We know that Great Britain has a rate of about 4 per cent. We know that the United States has a rate of about 4 per cent and they do not regard that as high enough. We also know that in a comparatively undeveloped country like ours that rate should be higher than in the older countries where the population is more or less stable, static, and where there are not the necessary opportunities for expansion that there are in a younger country like ours. I think it is highly desirable that the Government—maybe the hon. the Minister could give us some light on this subject—should give a clear indication as to what they regard as a sound and necessary rate of progress to be maintained in this country if the present expansion is to continue and if we are going to absorb and give work to all the potential workers who are waiting in this country to be employed if given the opportunity.

Well, Sir, when we consider the question as to whether this rate can be maintained the three main factors on which that depends are capital, labour and confidence in the future, based on peace at home and understanding and support from the civilized countries of the Western world. As far as capital is concerned, I imagine that that for the moment is the least of the worries of the hon. the Minister. His gold and his foreign exchange reserves rose phenomenally during last year by some R84,000,000. I think, until they finally stood at some R509,500,000, to which one can add the money which, with the permission of the Minister, banks hold overseas on short-term investment. So the hon. Minister has at his disposal some R560,000,000 in gold and foreign exchange at the moment. In spite of this, of course, the hon. Minister has not seen fit, has not felt sufficient confidence, to remove his control over the movement of capital—that is another subject which we shall have an opportunity to discuss at greater length on another occasion, but I think it is a very important question at the present time, and its ramifications go further than just the movement of capital. Of course there is private capital coming into the country in the form of machinery and plant, etc., which is still essential for the expansion which we wish to maintain. But on the whole I think we can say that as far as capital is concerned, to put it at its lowest, the hon. the Minister has the matter well under control.

The second factor of course is the question of manpower, and this question is the main preoccupation both of the Government and of employers all over the country; industry, mining, the Government, the Railways, employers generally are unanimous in saying that the immediate problem is the question of manpower, all grades of scientific, technical, professional skilled workmen, and even more important in the long run, the question of apprentices. It will be very interesting, Mr. Speaker, when we get the Budget figures to see how much of the Government and the Railway Loan Funds have not been spent during the past year. We voted something like R300,000,000 for capital expenditure in the last Budget, and the amount remaining unspent will be an interesting indication to what extent the Government and the Railways have been impeded in carrying out their development schemes by a shortage of labour. We are told that the building industry at the present moment needs 4,000 trained men, and that there are very few apprentices coming forward at this time of the year when you expect to get them; we are told that the steel and engineering industry requires 3,000 trained men at the present moment and that they want 1,000 apprentices; we are told the motor trade is short of 1,000 trained men and they want 1,000 apprentices. So you can go on. It is quite clear that in all the expanding trades and industries this question of manpower is causing concern amongst all of them.

The Government is trying with its belated immigration policy to do what it can to remedy the position. I understand that we are likely to hear in the course of this Session from the thoughtful-looking Minister of Housing that he has some schemes which may help to meet the problem, which will arise if the immigration policy succeeds, of providing housing for those immigrants. But, Sir, there is one aspect of immigration which I think is a matter for concern and that is the size of the “outlander” population which we are building up in our country.

Do you object to that?

Of course I object to it. It was calculated that in 1961 when the new state of affairs arose, there were some 300,000 people living permanently in this country who were not South African citizens and who were showing no inclination to become citizens. Since then, the Government has initiated its immigration scheme which it hopes will develop even further than it has done, and large numbers of foreigners are coming into the country with the idea of making their permanent home here; they are bringing their children, their families, and they are becoming part and parcel of the South African people. It seems to me that it is highly desirable that now that we have accepted the principle of receiving into our country large numbers of new South Africans that we should take steps to make it much easier for them to become South Africans in deed as well as in word, and that we should do all we can to encourage them to play their full part in the life of the country and to regard themselves as part and parcel of the White population of South Africa. I think that the period of five years before a man can become a South African citizen is too long under existing circumstances, and I think it might be reduced to two years.

Do you think they will vote for you?

It might be that if they were permitted to become South African citizens after two years, that a certain number might become naturalized who subsequently prove to be undesirable citizens, but that would not be important; their naturalization can always be revoked, and I think the hon. Minister will agree with me that taking it over a long period of years, the number of people who have come to this country, from various countries, and who have settled in this country and who have turned out to be unsatisfactory citizens of the country, whether they were naturalized or not, has been a minimum. The vast bulk of them and their children have become absorbed in the general community and they have grown up and attached themselves to the country and have played their full part if they were allowed to do so, in the affairs of the country.

They have even become Prime Ministers.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp talks about votes.…

And you think about votes.

I think that is unworthy of the hon. member for Kempton Park. I have always regarded him as one of the serious-minded members on the Government benches. In any case, let me tell the hon. member for Kempton Park that the well-known gentleman Sir Oswald Mosley has announced that his party is very much akin to the Nationalist Party in South Africa and that he fully supports the Nationalist Party and that he is advising all immigrants to join the Nationalist Party as soon as they can. The hon. member for Krugersdorp might try to get into touch with Sir Oswald Mosley and ask what he can do to co-operate with him. But quite seriously, Sir, I think that this question of regarding our immigrants as new South Africans, to be dealt with as new South Africans, be accepted as new South Africans, as quickly as we can, is very important indeed and will give a great fillip to the immigration policy of the Government, and I hope the hon. Minister will give serious consideration to that aspect of the matter. Because whilst the Government is carrying out its immigration policy, we think not nearly as fully as they might, at the same time they are increasing the labour shortage all the time with their policy of job reservation. Every gathering of employers throughout the country, without exception, condemns the Government’s policy of job reservation. In addition to that, over a period of years the Government has increased the manpower problem by its gross neglect of technical and higher education amongst our younger people who have not been catered for. One quite understands the problem of the Government on the question of job reservation. It boils down to this: If you relax job reservation, the more economic expansion you have, the more economic integration you have, and the more this country expands economically and the more prosperity the whole country enjoys, the more impossible it becomes to carry out the Government’s policy of apartheid, on which the Government side survive at the present time.

But, Sir, signs are not wanting that we are very near the ceiling as far as labour is concerned. There are trades where a black market in labour, so we are told, is developing, where people are competing for labour, paying well above standard wages, and so on. That is not a healthy sign and tends to increase the cost of living and tends to cause inflation if it is carried very far.

Whatever his other views may be, I think the hon. the Minister is bound to agree that in regard to the present economic expansion the manpower question is becoming and is liable to become the bottle-neck which may and will impede the development at a rate at which we would like to see it develop. Mr. Speaker, I repeat, it is this Government that over the last years, ever since it came into power in 1948, by its policies has created this shortage of manpower, and it is now up to the Government to see what can be done to relieve the position. So far we have heard very little. For this reason alone one asks whether the rate of progress can be maintained. It is clear that the hon. Minister himself has doubts about it. He made a speech towards the end of last year to a professional gathering where he talked about the necessity that might arise to take his foot off the accelerator and applying the brakes gently—by which clearly from the context he indicated that the Government might have to consider steps to slow down the rate of progress. Sir, that is a very delicate operation to undertake; it is an operation which may very well have an accumulative effect and snowball into something very different than expanding our economy.

I come to the last factor and that is the question of confidence in the future. Confidence in the economic potential of this country is there—here and abroad, everywhere. But the question is can confidence be created and can it be maintained so that the potential can be exploited under peaceful and settled conditions? Events to the north of us, developments in the Transkei, the hon. the Prime Minister’s latest attempt to pacify world opinion in regard to South West Africa, all these are matters which may hold threats for us, and there are others too: Our future membership of the United Nations appears to be highly doubtful. The hon. the Prime Minister has told us that the rest of the world is sick and he proposes to isolate himself and us until it recovers, whatever that may mean. I do not know, and I think nobody does. But in regard to this matter of confidence, we have a new Minister of Foreign Affairs, and we wish him well from this side of the House. We look forward to having an opportunity of discussing the affairs of his Department with him in this House as soon as the voters of Beaufort West have been sufficiently brow-beaten to accept him as their new member. But, Sir, if the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, with the knowledge and the experience which he has gained abroad and in his contacts in various parts of the world, can persuade his Cabinet of the minimum requirements of the Western powers to satisfy them that we are moving in the right direction, I think he may do a very great service to the country. But of course if he simply is going to be a chip of the old granite block, I am afraid we shall not be any better off with the new Minister. I cannot help thinking that if the hon. the Prime Minister would only devote himself for the next 12 months entirely to, say, tunny-fishing and would leave his new Minister a free hand to handle his Department, our foreign policy might well receive a new look which would ameliorate, if it did not solve, many of our problems. Because, Mr. Speaker, and one has argued this so often in this House that one does not want to do it again, it is quite undoubtedly that without modification of the Government’s race policies, we shall remain in a state of dangerous isolation as far as the rest of the world is concerned, and confidence, both here at home and abroad, will be balanced on a knife-edge.

My conclusion therefore is (1) that the present forward movement is justified and long overdue; (2) that it has been far too long delayed by the actions and the attitudes of the present Government; (3) that there is no indication that those policies will not continue to jeopardize the permanent well-being of our country’s economy and to prevent the maintenance of the present rate of progress. I therefore wish to move the following—

The hon. member found it very difficult to put up a case here and one cannot blame him, because there is very little he can criticize in regard to the economic conditions in the country to-day. But if I briefly have to summarize what he said and what is of any importance, I must say that I had difficulty in making a few notes. Practically the only point of interest he mentioned was that there was a desire on the part of commerce and industry over a period of 15 years to go forward and to develop, but that they were frustrated by the present Government to such an extent that they could not do so, and that now they have decided to break out and take the opportunity to go forward. It surprises me that the hon. member used such an argument. What does it amount to? It amounts to this, that whereas the United Party has not granted us any opportunity ever since 1948, as they already said at that time, and although they told the country that the banks would close and that the country would go bankrupt—only two or three years ago they still predicted that we would devaluate and that the price of gold would fall—and although they took every opportunity to tell the world how badly things were going for South Africa, as the result of which they chased money out of the country, this phrase used by the hon. member now means that commerce and industry and other economic interests no longer believe the United Party, and now money is being invested, and now they are assisting in the economic development of the country. That is the crux of the hon. member’s whole speech, and that is also the reply to his speech.

The hon. member for Constantia referred to immigration. It struck me that during this Session already three of the prominent members of the Opposition have spoken about immigration, first during the motion of no-confidence and now to-day again. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), and to-day again the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), sang the same refrain in regard to immigration. For the rest they are completely obsessed with the European Common Market and what has happened in the past 15 years in regard to the E.E.C. It seems to me that somebody works out these matters for them and then they decide just to concentrate on that, whether there are good grounds for saying so or not.

I just want to tell the hon. member something in regard to immigration. If we had continued with the immigration policy we inherited from the United Party, the country would have been filled with unskilled White labour, which would have had to compete with the Bantu. That would have created a very unsound position in South Africa. At that time Europe had no skilled workers whom they could afford to do without. Europe had been razed to the ground and had to be rebuilt. They did not let their skilled workers go. But the United Party wanted us to take everyone who wanted to come, the good and the bad, because at that time their policy was to swamp the Afrikaner vote by means of immigrants. That failed, and thank heaven it did.

Now you are taking their children.

We shall see to it that those children develop into intelligent people, and they will not be United Party supporters. They will have enough intelligence not to belong to the United Party.

I want to come to one of the arguments advanced by the hon. member to-day and which was also referred to by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Jeppes in a previous debate, and I want to develop this point in greater detail, because I feel that the Opposition is busy misleading the public by means of their argument. I am thinking now of their reference to the European Common Market, the E.E.C., and what the position is there as compared with South Africa. I will quote what the hon. member for Jeppes said—

By means of that proposition of theirs, those hon. members are trying to compare the incomparable, and they are creating a totally misleading painting of the real position. I just want to say that the United Party has nothing to boast about. They were in power for ten years before we came into power, and what did we inherit from them when we took over in 1948? We got soya bean bread. They could not even give us decent bread. Half the national debt was unproductive debt. Flight capital came to our country. We inherited a community which had lost all sense of thrift, because the United Party deliberately did not encourage the people to save.

Let us now come to the statements of the hon. members in connection with the Common Market. We also had our troubles over the years. The United Party consistently tried to show the world that a bad Government was in power here and that they should not entrust their money and their investments to this Government. All those things necessarily had an effect on the scope of investment in South Africa, and it must have had an effect on the flow of capital to South Africa, as well as from the country. Now the hon. member says that the E.E.C. developed faster than South Africa did over these 15 years. I just want to say that had the E.E.C. not developed faster than South Africa in these 15 years it would have been a catastrophe for the world. The position surely was that Europe had been devastated in 1945 and that industries had been destroyed. They had to start building anew, and building up to a high percentage, starting from nothing, is very much easier than when one starts from something. And that is what happened. We know the hon. member for Jeppes as someone who tries to juggle the figures. Last year he also did so here and then the Minister of Finance pointed out that if he had shifted his years by just one year either way one would have got a completely different picture. One does not expect that sort of thing from an economist, as he professes himself to be. Let us look at the position in Europe, to show how Europe was destroyed. In 1949 Britain and practically the whole of Western Europe devalued. America did not devalue, because she said she still retained all her markets and that nobody else could supply those markets because the other countries did not have the industries to do so. But if it were to happen to-day that Western Europe devalued, America would also have to do so immediately otherwise she would lose all her markets, because Europe has again been built up economically, as the hon. member surely knows. I know how the factories in Western Europe were rebuilt, and particularly in Western Germany, which had suffered most damage. The hon. member tries to compare the incomparable.

I just want to come to the actual position of some of the European countries, the Common Market countries. Take Belgium. In Belgium there was not a great industrial expansion between 1948 and 1960; it was only 40 per cent as compared with South Africa’s 150 per cent. In Luxemburg the increase was 50 per cent and in Holland 105 per cent, as against South Africa’s 150 per cent. In France, which had also suffered war damage, but not to the same extent as Germany, they started reconstruction immediately after the war, and in 1948 their production was already 5 per cent more than in 1938. Up to 1953 it increased by 30 per cent, or an average of 6 per cent per annum, and in the next seven years until 1960 it increased by 68 per cent, or 9 per cent more than in 1953. The total increase was approximately 110 per cent, which is still less than that of South Africa.

What are you talking about now?

I am referring to the industrial expansion in the various countries. In Italy the increase in 1948 was already 1 per cent more than that in 1938; in other words, the position was very much the same as before the war, and from then onwards it increased by 200 per cent up to 1960.

But in Germany there was the greatest destruction during the war. There they started recovering immediately after the war, and America assisted all these countries on a large scale through Marshall Aid, etc. Thousands of millions of dollars were given to Europe, and Europe still had the skills they had had before the war. They had the resources which they could immediately utilize to rebuild the country on a large scale and to produce. Three years after the war the production in West Germany in 1948 was 55 per cent of what it was in 1938. In the five years thereafter up to 1953 it increased by 150 per cent, or an average of 30 per cent per annum. That is a colossal rate of growth, but they had started from nothing. For the next two years the increase was 14 per cent per annum over that of 1953, and between 1955 and 1960 the expansion was approximately 8 per cent per annum over the 1955 figure. As a whole, German factory production in Western Germany increased by 350 per cent since 1948, and that is only 200 per cent above their pre-war production in 1938, and that is the important point. But the hon. member has used statistics of the years when there was nothing in order to show us how fast they have expanded.

An important characteristic of all this expansion in the Western countries is this. In the initial years of this 15-year period the growth was much faster than in later years, and the reason for it is obvious. To the extent that they had built up the country and had produced, the tempo of growth had to decrease. In South Africa the position is practically the opposite. At the very least we have consistently maintained the tempo of production, and to-day the rate of growth is faster than in any other country of the world. The hon. member for Jeppes and his Leader, and the hon. member for Constantia have missed the point completely. I want to mention the latest issue of Volkshandel of January 1964. It summarizes the present position very well. They admit that hitherto Japan was the country which has shown the greatest growth in the world, during the last few years, but that is also decreasing every year. In 1962 it was still 10 per cent, and for 1964 it is estimated to be 8 per cent, but as far as the other countries are concerned they say this—

Mr. Oppenheimer has already said that the figure for 1963 was not 6½ per cent but 7 per cent, and to-day it is generally accepted that the growth was really 7½ per cent. It is therefore a very conservative estimate made by Volkshandel. We have already received the figures showing the growth in other countries, and estimates have been made for 1964. Their statistics are much more up to date than ours and they analyse those figures much more quickly. The report continues to say—

The hon. member said a moment ago that in the Common Market countries it is about 6 per cent per annum; that is the norm they give. Here are their own figures of what they expect this year and what it was for the last two years: Italy, in 1962, 6 per cent; in 1963, 5.5 per cent, and in 1964, 4.5 per cent; France, in 1962, 5.8 per cent, and then respectively 4.5 per cent and 4 per cent; Germany, 4.4 per cent, 3.2 per cent and 4.5 per cent; U.S.A., 3 per cent, 4 per cent and 3.5 per cent; Britain, 0.3 per cent, 2.8 per cent and 4 per cent, and South Africa, 4 per cent, 6.5 per cent and 8 per cent, which is more than in all the Western countries, but then these hon. members tell us that our rate of growth is less than theirs. I want to ask the hon. member please to be more careful when making such statements. It is no use trying to compare the incomparable. That is futile. One will just be found out, and one cannot bluff anybody in that way. I say the trouble is that those hon. members make this type of statement without mentioning figures, and then they tell us all kinds of wild stories.

I now want to mention a few figures in connection with South Africa’s development over this 15-year period, so that we can see what our own picture is. If we look at it we will see that we have something of which we can be proud and of which the world is envious. Take our national income. The hon. member said the other day that our growth was only an average of 3½ per cent per annum over these 15 years. In 1947-8 our national income was R1,686,000,000, but in 1961-2, before this great expansion took place, it was already R5,004,000,000. Where does he get his figure of 3½ per cent? It is a growth of approximately 300 per cent over these 15 years from 1948. Our national production showed the same percentage. It was R1,654,000,000 in 1948, as against R5,012,000,000 in 1960. The gross national production taken at market prices shows exactly the same percentage. The national income per capita of the population increased from 1948 to 1962 by over 30 per cent. In other words, the standard of living of the people increased by over 30 per cent, but that includes many millions of people who have practically not yet been linked up in our economy. If one takes only the economically active section of the population, our standard of living has increased by more than 60 per cent over these 15 years.

Let us look at capital formation. In 1948 the total capital formation was only R556,000,000, but of this amount we had to get R352,000,000 from abroad, and South Africa itself could only supply 36 per cent of its capital requirements. Our capital formation for 1962 was R1,145,000,000, more than double the figure for 1948, and all that money was saved in the country and we still had some over. In addition, an appreciable sum of money was invested abroad. The hon. the Minister himself has told us to-day how he had to try to limit this liquidity somewhat. We know that during the past year, apart from the money which the banks had the right to send abroad, approximately R100,000,000 of South African effects were purchased abroad by our shareholders. All that is surplus money we have, over and above what we normally save and spend locally. Our accounts reflect such a sound position that one can practically say that South Africa has now become a credit country. Mr. Oppenheimer even says that we must now go further and invest South African capital abroad permanently. He would not suggest such a thing unless he felt that this was a permanent thing which had now come about, and that South Africa could in future fully supply its own capital requirements. That is something the United Party could never manage to achieve.

Let us look at our public debt. In 1948 it was R1,618,000,000, but for that we could show assets to the value of R830,000,000 only, and the rest, viz. R788,000,000, was unproductive debt. That is almost 50 per cent. To-day the total public debt is R2,788,000,000, as at 31 March last year. As against that, we have productive assets of R3,483,000,000, a surplus on the right side of R695,000,000, reflecting a complete change and an improvement in the whole position by R1,483,000,000. There one sees progress. I know those hon. members do not like listening to figures, but they cannot contradict them, and that is fatal for them.

Take our factory production. In 1947-8 it was R922,000,000. In 1960-1, before these great increases in recent years, it was R2,751,000,000, an increase of approximately 300 per cent from 1948. Take industrial development. There are a few products which must be regarded as basic in factory production, and one of them is iron ore. We have heard the United Party telling us that during the war they changed South Africa from a primary producing country to a manufacturing country and that they practically made South Africa an arsenal for war production in the Southern Hemisphere. But take pig iron, which is the whole basis of industrial development. In 1938 the monthly production of iron was 27,000 tons. In 1948 it was only 59,815 tons. During the ten years of the United Party régime there was an increase of only 32,815 tons, or 121 per cent. From 1948 up to now it has increased to 243,500 tons a month, an increase of 407 per cent, or 183,700 tons in 15 years, as against their increase of 121 per cent in ten years, and then they still boast about their ten years.

With regard to cement, we have the same position. In their ten years, from 1938 to 1948, the increase in production was 48.9 per cent. From 1948 to 1963 the increase was 117 per cent. Take electricity. In their ten years the increase was 60.9 per cent, but in our 15 years it was 213 per cent. Then they are the people who want to tell us how fast the country would have developed if they were in power.

Agricultural production shows the same picture. From 1948 it increased by R376,000,000 to R882,000,000 in 1962, an increase of 135 per cent. The volume of agricultural production increased in these 14 years by 72 per cent. In regard to mineral production we have the same position. Gold increased from 11,585,000,000 fine ounces to 27,600,000,000, an increase of 150 per cent. The production of chrome increased by 105 per cent, asbestos by 500 per cent and manganese ore by 450 per cent. I say that if we have regard to these figures we get a picture of South Africa and also of those other countries which hon. members opposite have held up to us, and the overseas countries compare still more favourably in the ten years of United Party régime, because those were the poor years for South Africa.

To sum up, I feel that South Africa has reason to be proud of its economic development. I feel that the whole trend which exists to-day is that the public of South Africa and the financiers and the people who invest their money in business undertakings no longer allow themselves to be led by the nose by the United Party. The country is now progressing fast because the capitalist and the worker no longer believe the United Party, but believe the Nationalist Party. They believe in the future of South Africa, and as time goes on the country will be even more flourishing.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I am not being unkind to the hon. member who has just sat down if I say that he missed the point of amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and also his argument. Much of his time has been devoted to trying to deal with an argument which was never advanced to-day, but an argument which was advanced last year, and which I will leave to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) to deal with. I think he will be able to convince the House that the hon. member who has just sat down is as confused about the situation as he was confused about the name of the organization, to which he was referring namely, the E.E.C. There is further confusion on the part of the hon. member who seems to confuse an excess of liquidity with the creation of capital. I will deal with that later, but let me say at the outset that I am glad to see that the legislative formula in the Bill has been changed and that the appropriation is now being made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and no longer from the Exchequer Account. I am well aware that this change was made last year, but the opportunity to comment on the matter never arose. This is more than just a technicality, because the change removes an anomaly which has existed over the years in the appropriation legislation placed before Parliament. This change now brings Treasury appropriations into line with Railway appropriations, which is always correctly appropriated from the Railways and Harbours Fund and not from the bank account in which the moneys are from time to time accommodated.

Thank the Government.

No, but I do congratulate the draftsman or whoever it was who introduced the change. I feel it is also quite pleasant to find this good mark in the hon. the Minister’s favour in an otherwise severely criticized régime, whilst he has been at the head of the Treasury, and so possibly the Minister will admit that we on this side always give credit where credit is due.

It is not our fault that we cannot do it more.

One does not expect the Minister to anticipate his Budget speech, but this is of course a suitable opportunity for the Minister to answer questions and to face up to criticism in regard to the acts of commission or omission by the Government over the past year.

One of my first questions relates to what is developing into an unsatisfactory feature of financial administration. Quite clearly a new form of State-initiated industrialism is taking shape in the appropriation of loan funds to the Industrial Development Corporation for establishing the so-called border industries. Now everyone knows that the Government’s border development scheme is a political issue and that it is a controversial political experiment. Whether it can or will become economically justifiable is the 64,000-dollar question. Anyway, the I.D.C. is a corporate body with statutory functions and it should be completely divorced from all political controversy. But unfortunately this change now brings it about that the I.D.C. is being dragged into the controversial side of Government activities, because the extraneous responsibilities which have been placed on the I.D.C. make it a part of the machinery of the Government, and as such it becomes responsible for spending public funds and carrying out Government policy, something outside its normal statutory responsibilities. But unlike any other part of the executive machinery which is answerable through a Minister and accountable through the Public Accounts Committee to Parliament, the I.D.C. stands aloof from any parliamentary supervision. How it sets about carrying out Government policy and how it uses funds to implement that policy certainly remain a closed book both to the public and to Parliament. It is true that the I.D.C. provides very neat and tidy accounts at the end of the year, but from the point of view of Parliament they are quite inadequate. Added to this anomaly is the fact that the I.D.C. is now becoming subject to the maximum of ministerial interference, with a minimum of parliamentary accountability. That I feel is an intolerable position and a retrograde step. I accept that whatever the figure is that was appropriated to the I.D.C., it is small in comparison with its approved financial responsibilities. It is not the amount at stake, but the principle which is involved which is important. This possibility of maximum ministerial interference without the safeguard of parliamentary accountability is a danger which I think must be avoided at all costs. This is not simply a debating point I am raising now. In answer to a question put to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs last week, when I asked about the R5,000,000 appropriated in 1963-4 to the I.D.C. for this form of State-initiated enterprise, financed with public money, through the I.D.C. acting not in its statutory capacity but as the agent of the Government, here was this Statement—

And then the details were given by the Minister. But of course where the Minister was entirely wrong was that the R2,000,000 was never appropriated to the I.D.C. for the year 1962-3. Only R1,000,000 was appropriated during that year, and so we are left with the mystery of a R1,000,000, which according to the Minister is accounted for in the books of the I.D.C., but which was not appropriated by Parliament as the Minister has stated. This is an error of quite a substantial order and whatever the explanation may be for it the answer which was given by the Minister to this House on 21 January is incorrect. If ever there was evidence that makes out a case for greater parliamentary supervision—I think this does, because it is an indication that by means of question and answer or in this form of inquiry Parliament is not properly equipped or served to deal with a situation such as this. Here we have the mystery of R1,000,000 and there is no satisfactory method of dealing with it at present, except to say that the information the Minister gave to the House is incorrect.

My next question arises from the current South African paradox of having economic buoyancy in an area of political depression. Whilst everyone welcomes the business upsurge which prevails, the tragedy of the situation is that everyone also knows that it is taking place in a context of cold war. Indeed, the hon. the Prime Minister chose to describe the position in these words to the world at large when he spoke at Smithfield in August 1963, six months ago, when he was reported to have said this—

It is in that context that the hon. member for Constantia has raised this question of how to establish confidence in the future when the Prime Minister chooses to indicate that that is the position in which the economic development is taking place. No wonder that the question which is being asked in many quarters throughout the country is: How much longer are the economic forces of S.A. to be hampered and held in restraint by the forces of this Government? Or, to put it another way: How much longer can the inherently strong economy of S.A. continue to put up with the ruinous forces of a régime which has brought about extreme racial tensions within our borders and gathering storms of international ill-will beyond those borders?

Unfortunately that is the political state in which the country now finds itself. It is a state of affairs which the Economist recently described rather graphically when it spoke of South Africa’s gold-based economy which is now being operated “in a dangerous political minefield”. Sir, I realize that having put the questions to the hon. the Minister which I have it would be too much to expect a reply, because whilst the hon. the Minister at least should know that prosperity and isolation are contradictory terms when it comes to foreign trade, he himself seems to have become rather politically shackled since he ventured to suggest a 5,000,000 alliance in South Africa instead of the rigid policy of discrimination of his party. But be that as it may, having helped to shackle South Africa’s gold-based economy with the tangled network of arbitrary State control, the infra-structure of authoritarian control as I called it two years ago, he himself is now seemingly also tied down, he finds himself too timid apparently to use the present buoyant state of the economy as an opportunity, or as a means, of freeing trade and industry from the arbitrary controls which are helping to hinder the development of free enterprise in South Africa. That is the point that the hon. member for Constantia has made and I need not enlarge upon it. But the warnings from this side of the House, which have been repeatedly made, that this continuous use of exchange control and import control would bring about a constipated money market, have always gone unheeded. But that is precisely what has happened, Sir. There is to-day a constipated money market, and for the past year therefore the Treasury and the Reserve Bank have been trying to devise artificial means to drain off this excess banking liquidity. The hon. the Minister to-day spoke about it as being a mopping-up operation. I would like to give just a few instances of these artificial devices which have been used. The one, of course, is the haphazard allocation of sterling by the Reserve Bank for the purchase of South African shares abroad, particularly in the London market. The hon. the Minister has now virtually admitted that there is a dumping of Treasury bills on the local market and also a casual concession to commercial banks to hold funds abroad on a short-term basis and purely at the whim of the Treasury. Sir, this is all evidence of the financial expediency which is being used, or of the financial juggling which is taking place with other people’s money in order to tide the Government over an embarrassing situation.

You missed the point.

The hon. the Minister has now indicated that the Government itself has made investments abroad, also for the purpose of draining off liquidity—mopping-up, as he calls it. Sir, as the hon. member for Constantia has indicated, to provide additional avenues for investment by the State is perfectly legitimate. My criticism about the matter is the use of this as an artificial means of trying to justify a situation which I think the hon. the Minister should now clearly face and indicate whether it is still tenable. Sir, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) referred to Mr. Oppenheimer’s statement. What Mr. Oppenheimer did recently, of course, was to make a plea to the Treasury and to the Minister for a new approach to the subject of exchange control. He made a plea that the investor should now be allowed a right of investment abroad no longer just as a privilege or as a sort of largesse from the Treasury, but as a right of direct investment of funds outside South Africa. And in making that plea he stressed the fact that this type of investment “can often be of immediate benefit to South African trade as well as strengthening ties with other friendly countries”. Sir, those are two very important and very pertinent reasons for giving the most careful consideration to the question as to whether the economy should still be restrained by a bureaucratic system of exchange control. In the light of those remarks and in the light of the juggling that has been taking place in the past year,. I think the hon. the Minister should clearly indicate to the House why steps should not now be taken to remove these controls on the ground that they are outmoded are possibly more harmful than helpful to the economy and in any event are a patent form of discouragement to any return of investor confidence in South Africa. Now the hon. the Minister himself has indicated an additional artificial device for avoiding the effect of exchange control and I think this is an occasion when the hon. the Minister should be quite clear on this question of prolonging his control. He is well aware that his predecessor was bold enough in 1958 to quote in this House the strictures of both the International Bank and the International Monetary Fund against any prolonged use of these controls, and we also note that GATT keeps on frowning at the way in which these controls are being applied in South Africa. That is the question which I think deserves consideration and deserves a reply, and if there is justification for the retention of these measures the Minister should be quite specific in explaining the reasons why they should be retained.

I think the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) showed great hesitancy. He seemed completely unsure of his ground this afternoon. Sir, I am not surprised. After all, the hon. member has had to swallow every prediction that he has made in this very House. He has had to turn a complete somersault in his attitude towards the Government. Sir, we know the hon. member only too well. He became known on this side of the House as the Jeremiah of South Africa. He prophesied doom for South Africa. He predicted that our economy would collapse. He said that South Africa was slowly moving towards bankruptcy. He said that there was a recession facing us immediately. He made all those predictions in the face of protests from the Government. He said all along that this Government was responsible for this state of affairs which he predicted.

And you supported him.

Never. I remember that on the republican issue he said, “Here this Government wants to offend our best customer by declaring a Republic.” He went into a state of hysteria when he said, “and now we are out of the Commonwealth; what is going to happen to our exports; our fruit is going to rot; we will not be able to find markets.” Sir, all these things were said in this House not many years ago. I remember how he went on and talked about the fatal attitude of this Government; about the way in which it had offended South Africa’s customers. Hon. members representing Natal will remember what he predicted with regard to the sugar industry. He said, “Our sugar industry depends on a Commonwealth agreement; now we are out of the Commonwealth and that agreement is being broken.” He prophesied that the sugar industry would go backward and backward. All those predictions were made in this House, and what do we hear today? To-day you hear a different story. To-day they talk about booming conditions. They no longer talk about a recession. They talk about economic conditions in this country and admit a phenomenal growth. Sir, what can we show? We can now show record exports; we can show record gold reserves. And what is the United Party’s answer to that? Now they say that there is not sufficient growth in our national income. They used to predict that our national income would drop more and more and that we were heading for a recession. To-day they say that there is not sufficient growth. They go on to ask, “How much longer can the development of the economy be held up by this Government?” The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) talks that language even to-day. The hon. member said that he was prepared to give credit where credit was due. If you blamed the Government when you thought there was going to be a recession in this country, then if credit is to be given where credit is due, then surely to-day the Opposition must give credit to the Government for the fact that we have booming conditions to-day. They must not talk about the growth not being sufficient. They should face the fact that they, the people who condemned the economy of the country, have been proved to be completely wrong. [Interjections.] Sir, I know it hurts hon. members opposite. After all, nobody likes people to make fools of themselves but that is precisely what has happened to hon. members opposite. [Laughter.] That laughter is not a sign of courage; it is merely hysteria on their part. It is the hysteria of a foolish man.

How long were you foolish?

The hon. member for Constantia used to talk here about unemployment in South Africa. He predicted that South Africa was going to have serious unemployment problems in all sectors of the economy. Artisans would be unemployed and unskilled labourers would be unemployed. They badgered the Minister of Labour. What does the hon. member say to-day? He talks about a manpower shortage in South Africa. Take immigration. I remember the days when this country was losing people; it was becoming depopulated. What is the position to-day? The hon. member for Constantia now talks about too many “uitlanders” in this country. What sort of attitude is that? Sir, I think the Opposition have a very peculiar approach to South African affairs. They are never prepared to give any credit to South Africa and to the Government of South Africa, even where that credit is due, in spite of the unctuous talk of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). Sir, they have been proved wrong on so many occasions. They have been wrong on the flag issue, they have been wrong on the anthem issue, they have been wrong on the republican issue, they have been wrong on the Commonwealth issue, and they even opposed decimalization.

We had the benefit of your advice in those days.

No, I supported all these. Sir, my reason for saying that they are peculiar is that failure goes to their heads. In the case of other people success may go to their heads, but in their case failure goes to their heads. In every debate they are full of bravado, but they lose every by-election. Every by-election they lose, however, is regarded by them as a moral victory. They are not only losing by-elections, they are losing their own members. Sir, I remember the occasion when the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) in a debate in this House crossed the floor and voted with the Government. What happened? You, Mr. Speaker, had to call an hon. member on that side to order because he shouted “rat”. When the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) crossed the floor their attitude was much the same. Of course, they are a little more polite now, but what they said was, “What sort of cheese do you take?”

Shocking.

Sir, one hears all this nonsense about “resign your seat”.

Does that worry you?

Not in the least. I remember that there was a time when the Conservative members were pushed out of the United Party. The hon. member for Yeoville stood up on that side and said, “You could never get a finer team; we are completely united under our great leader, Strauss,” and it was not many years later that they got rid of their great leader Strauss and eventually the Progressives left them. Now they lose a man like Mr. Odell and a man like Senator Groenewald. I remember who the people were who used to call upon the Conservative members to resign their seats—the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), Mr. Harry Lawrence and Mr. Cope. But as soon as they formed the Progressive Party did they resign their seats? Sir, I would say to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) that he must not resign his seat; he must not embarrass the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), because when the hon. member for Umhlatuzana resigned from the Labour Party and crossed over to the United Party, he was told by them that on no account must he resign his seat. If the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) resigned therefore he would only embarrass the hon. member for Umhlatuzana terribly. Sir, where is this holier-than-thou attitude getting hon. members opposite? They do not even allow a man to state his case.

To whom are you referring?

I refer to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City). Sir, with that attitude they are going to end up as a confined little party.

Tell us about your political past.

I know that these things hurt. Sir, I want to read out an extract, not from the Burger, not from the Transvaler but from the Argus of 18 September last year, four or five months ago. This is not what I say; this is what the Argus says—

What is your policy?

If that hon. member wants to have a row, let him have a row with his Leader because he was the person who said that. But let me go on. I want to show the Opposition that this attitude of theirs is dooming them in South African politics to-day. They will become weaker and weaker as the result of this attitude of theirs.

Why are you worried about it?

Because I hate to see a party trying to damage itself … [Interjections.]

You ought to be glad.

Let me read out another little extract—

I think he is now on his way to becoming a Senator—

all the platteland seats! They have not got one to-day but he says they can win all the platteland seats—

He is getting promotion now; he is going to be given a seat in the Senate. I go further; this is comment which comes from the paper—

And now I quote Mr. Sutton—

Sir, listen to the bravado now—

He suggested a summer school for M.P.C.s. I think those M.P.s should go to a summer school. Obviously he has been to a summer school and he has now received promotion. Sir. let us see what the hon. member for Constantia had to say. He said that the fact that we ignored world opinion was creating a lack of confidence in South Africa. Does he suggest that we in South Africa should have met the demands made upon us by the world; that we should have met the demands made by the United Nations and by the United States of America that we should be a multi-racial state? …

We are one.

… or that we should be a multi-racial Parliament and a politically multi-racial State, if the hon. member likes that term better? The hon. member says that it is because of our policy that there is a lack of confidence in South Africa. Sir, I remember how, when the partnership plan was mooted in the Rhodesias it was claimed to be similar to the ideals of the Opposition party in this country. If there is one country which has tried not to ignore world opinion it is Southern Rhodesia which forms part of the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. And what has happened? Today Southern Rhodesia has 14 Black members of Parliament—not eight. Southern Rhodesia went to the United Nations to argue its case. It was represented there not only by Whites but by Blacks as well. And do you know what happened? Sir Edgar Whitehead said that in a matter of ten or 15 years he could say that Southern Rhodesia would be a country that would be governed by the Black men. He made that statement, that promise, at the United Nations. Can anybody go further than that in an effort to satisfy world opinion? And what was the voting at the United Nations? They turned Sir Edgar Whitehead down flat by 81 votes to two. I think Portugal and South Africa were the only two countries which supported Southern Rhodesia. In spite of all this the hon. member comes here and says that we must bow down to world opinion.

Why do you not get your facts right for a change?

Sir, let me say this about Southern Rhodesia, which is a neighbour of ours and with whom I have no quarrel. I would like to know whether people have more confidence in Southern Rhodesia than in South Africa. Do the industrialists and the commercial people feel that South Africa has a strong and stable Government, or do they feel that these other parts of Africa have strong and stable Governments? My quarrel with hon. members of the Opposition, Sir, is this: If the hon. member for Constantia had said, “in the international field South Africa must stick to her guns; the Opposition and the Government must stand together and in that way we can win the confidence of the world in South Africa,” then I would have had nothing to say about it.

You have not said anything yet.

It is strange though how what little I have said hurts the hon. member. Sir, it is that hon. member who said a few years ago that the only way to defeat the Nationalist Government was through outside intervention.

You are wrong again.

Oh no, I am not wrong. What has happened is that the hon. member has now decided that it was the wrong thing to have said. My facts, however, are not wrong.

You are never right.

Sir, that is the attitude of the other side. They feel that outside interference is what is needed to defeat the Government.

He said that a shock must come from outside.

He invited a shock.

This debate has shown how weak the Opposition is when it comes to criticizing the Government’s economic policy. I say that this Government, as a strong and stable Government, is going to pull more and more members away from the United Party and that it is going to rule the destiny of this country, whether the Opposition likes it or not. But I would like to make one appeal to the Opposition and that is to try to create an atmosphere of true South Africanism even in their ranks.

Sir, the hon. the Minister of Finance is asking for an appropriation of R325,000,000. The seriousness of the position is epitomized by the speech to which we have had to listen in the last 10 minutes. If in these times when we are concerned with the rising cost structure and when we are concerned with inflation and with a manpower shortage we have to listen to an outburst such as we have had here from the hon. the Minister of Information, then I think the sooner we turn to serious financial subjects the better.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has indicated in his opening remarks that the financial position of the country is buoyant, but we are entitled when examining the position to look at the realities of the situation. Let us look at it from the point of view of the external position. As far as the external world is concerned we still have restriction on the movement of capital in this country. The Minister, in his opening remarks, gave no indication as to when those capital restrictions are to be lifted. It is perfectly clear, in spite of what has been said by the hon. the Minister of Information, that there is still an out flow of capital in this country. If the Minister, instead of looking at his Information Department, would look at the Reserve Bank report he will see that they say this in their quarterly bulletin of statistics—

Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to examine the so-called boom in the country and the movement of capital. We should like to know from the Minister of Finance—although he has a favourable balance of payments position of R509,500,000—what he regards as a safe figure? How much longer is he going to continue with exchange control and import control at the present level? We still have a difference between the price of South African shares on the London market and on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. There is a margin. That is an indication, in spite of all the assurances from the Minister of Information, that there is still some doubt in the outside world as far as South Africa is concerned because of the Government. The Minister of Information cannot charge us, as he has done, with being un-South African because we criticize this Government: We are quite entitled to criticize this Government and we are not being un-South African when we do so. From the facts of the situation it is quite clear that there is a difference between the prices of the South African shares on the London market and the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. That is a measure of the outside world’s lack of confidence in investing in South Africa. It is true that there are funds invested in this country; it is true that there are industries coming to South Africa, but I shall deal with that at a later stage.

We talk about this boom but what comfort is the boom to the old-age pensioner, the old-age pensioner who has the additional difficulty of struggling with the authorities to get some reasonable interpretation of the means test? We have a large army of civil servants. That army is growing every year as the Government introduces bureaucratic controls. These civil servants have no share in this boom or is it contemplated that they will have a share in it? We talk about a manpower shortage. The hon. member for Constantia has referred to that. There is a shortage of skilled manpower, but what about the many thousands of unskilled workers surrounding our towns, workers who are unemployed because of the shortage of skilled manpower? Anybody who knows the position in Natal to-day will tell you, Sir, that there are many thousands of Asiatics who are unemployed. I am sorry the Minister of Indian Affairs is not here to-day. While, on the one hand, he had offered them this council, on the other hand, he has offered no solution to the many thousands of unemployed Indians. So long as these people want bread, so long as they want shelter, so long as they cannot find employment, although many of them are educated and qualified, so long can we say that the boom is not as good as it should be.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to what extent he is going to assist with controlling the cost spiral. The Minister of Economic Affairs has to tell the country in the course of this debate what it cost the country to bring the Lord organization here. What did it cost the country to establish that industry apart from the assistance which has been given by the I.D.C.? Here is a border industry established approximately eight miles outside East London. East London is a border town; Durban is not. What did it cost the country? Some say 5s. a shirt; others say 3s. a shirt. What favourable conditions were extended to that factory? What rentals does that factory pay? What financial benefits are given to that organization? What is the South African public paying in increased cost of living in order to establish that industry here? That is masked to-day because we are not given the full information. We are told the I.D.C. is concerned and what assistance it may give to individual firms that come to it is not a matter which concerns this Parliament. Another member on this side has referred to that earlier on in the debate in general terms. We are entitled to ask the Minister of Economic Affairs what responsibility he takes regarding the cost spiral, or how does he expect to contend with it? As long as costs are rising, the period of this boom can be limited, because the principal asset of this country is gold and the price of gold is fixed. The spiral of industrial costs will narrow the margin of profit which the gold-mining industry can expect because the gold mines in South Africa, as the Minister knows, are one of the principal consumers of our industrial products. We find the cost structure rising. The building industry has made it perfectly clear that it is in difficulties; there is competition in that industry for labour. I was in Durban only yesterday where a large chain store had recently obtained a licence to open a shopping centre. It decided to put out the contract to tender. The contract is somewhere in the vicinity of £150,000-£200,000. Shall we say R300,000? When the tenders closed yesterday there was not a single tender; no builder in Durban tendered for the job. When tenders were called for a big housing scheme last week three of the biggest building contractors in the country who regularly tendered for schemes of this kind did not want to have anything to do with it. Builders and quantity surveyors are already adding something like 20 per cent to 25 per cent to their estimates of costs. That means that the cost of housing will be paid for by the ordinary man in the street, some of whom are not feeling this boom. I should like to know from the Minister of Economic Affairs whether he is allied to this and what remedy he proposes. This is his responsibility. He is in a position to tell us because his Industrial Development Corporation is competing with private enterprise indirectly. When an industry is encouraged to come to this country, because it is essential to this country or because no similar industries operate in the country then the I.D.C. will be fulfilling its function. But when the I.D.C., through encouraging industries to come here in competition with existing ones, it contributes to the inflation of costs of this country. There is another section which is contributing to inflation and that is the Defence Department. The Defence Department is placing contracts for Defence equipment. I should like to know from the Minister of Economic Affairs whether his Department has any say in regard to the costs incurred by the Department of Defence. We know the market is limited and we should like to know whether the Minister envisages any control over prices for contracts for Defence works or does Defence enjoy top priority with no restrictions as long as the items concerned are produced as soon as possible? We know what happened in the last war when attempts were made to try to exercise control of the prices of Defence requirements. To-day there is large-scale spending on the part of some Government Departments as well as large-scale spending by private industry. We have this large-scale spending at a time when there is a shortage of manpower and that has all the ingredients for an inflationary cost spiral. I should like to know from the Minister of Economic Affairs whether he has any solution. It is all very well for the Minister of Information to try to make propaganda for his side. It is as easy to slip out of a boom as it is to try to contain it. It is the job of the Government not to slip out of the boom but to contain it. It is their job to ensure that all the factors, material, labour and capital are there so that the requirements of the country can be met within the capacity of the people to pay. We have already got the signs of inflation and we should like to know from the Minister of Economic Affairs whether he has any remedy, whether he admits that the warnings given by organized commerce, by the Master Builders Association, by commerce and industry, by the various workers’ organizations have been justified and whether he is paying any attention to them. Can he tell the country how he proposes to remedy the situation? We cannot afford to have increased productivity at a high cost. If we can have increased productivity and maintain the present cost structure we can all share in the benefits of this boom, if, on the other hand, you have increased productivity and increased costs the inflation that will follow will soon wreck this boom and cause those difficulties which we experienced in the years of the depression. The dangers of inflation are there. The Government knows they are there. I hope that a responsible Minister will indicate, during the course of this debate, that the Government appreciates the threat of this inflation and what steps they propose to combat it. We must be told what constructive measures they are prepared to put before the country so that when we deal with Economic Affairs we can deal with it in a responsible way and not in the irresponsible manner in which this question was dealt with by the Minister of Information.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not deal with his speech immediately. I shall do so during the course of my speech. The United Party have to-day come forward with a new plan. In the first place, we had a lengthy speech by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), a speech which was aimed at doing nothing else, Sir, than to throw suspicion on our flourishing economy. I find it remarkable that it should just be at this critical stage where we have to cope with so much hostility on the international political front that the Opposition should avail themselves of this opportunity to represent to the world outside that the period of prosperity we are experiencing at the moment is something which we shall probably not be able to maintain. You cannot help but get the very strong impression, Sir, that they are only trying to make a little political capital out of it. Instead of painting the correct picture to the world as to the scope and the meaning of this economic upsurge the impression is created, as the hon. member for Constantia has done, that it is just by chance that we are experiencing this revival; that it is due to private initiative; that it is not the Government’s policy which is responsible for it. The hon. member for Constantia came to the conclusion that it was very doubtful whether we would be able to maintain this prosperity. I say it is a great pity Sir. In the past when the hon. Opposition had an opportunity of criticizing us because the tempo of growth was not fast enough, which was due to many factors which I do not want to go into now, they criticized us very strongly. Now that we have the opportunity of enjoying a period of prosperity they cast doubts on our flourishing economy. I say it is a great pity that, at this stage, a stage when we must show a united front to the world, the Opposition should paint a distorted picture to the world outside.

Their second plan is to ignore the fiscal policy of the Government completely and simply to ascribe this prosperity to chance, to private initiative, private effort, but not to the fiscal policy of the Government. I shall return to this point at a later stage. What fits into this plan admirable is the fact that the United Party first of all announces their campaign in the Press. Last Friday the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) had an article in the Argus in which he already prepared the ground for this plan. The heading of this article is—

He concludes with exactly the same idea as that expressed by the hon. member for Constantia—

Do you notice how admirably they fit it in, Sir? Exactly what the hon. member for Yeoville, their main propagandist—as a matter of fact also chief financial adviser to the United Party—says in the Press in preparing the ground, is followed up in this House by this attack. I say it is a pity that we have to witness this painful spectacle. I do not say that there is no ground for criticism; there is room for justifiable criticism, but not to create the impression that this period of prosperity is only of a temporary nature. On the contrary, as far as economical prosperity is possible the Government will, as in the past, stick to its guns and see to it that the tempo of our growth is sufficient to maintain our standard of living.

I think there are a few important aspects of our economy to-day which should be emphasized. The first aspect is that of rising prices. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) in particular emphasized that. I do not say that we do not have problems as far as that is concerned. What I find peculiar, however, is that when we try to apply a certain measure of price control, it is the Opposition who objects to it. We had that a few days ago. We now have a great hullabaloo about it in this debate. Here I have a publication by S.A.F.T.O. (South African Foreign Trade Organization) in which there is a very interesting article to prove that South African prices are still the lowest in the world. They say—

They then give a complete table setting out the various comparable prices in the various cities. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as far as the question of prices is concerned it is naturally a question which gives us cause for concern, but the aspect which I regard as important, an aspect which the Opposition forgets, is that before the present-day price increases came into operation they were proceeded by salary increases. They want to present the position as if we have had those price increases without any salary increases. The attack by the Opposition is characterized by something else. Where we have warned against inflationary tendencies in the past the United Party have always belittled us. In one budget after another it was strongly emphasized that the people should be on their guard against inflation. We also gave the lead in our fiscal policy how to combat inflation. To-day those hon. members are the people who shout the loudest about a possible inflationary tendency. I can assure hon. members that the hon. the Minister of Finance is wide awake to this situation, a situation against which he warned last year. Another characteristic of our economy at this stage is our growing export trade, something which was completely ignored by the Opposition in their attack, except for what the hon. member for Yeoville says in this article of his. He says—

It is no longer only ordinary political isolation, Sir, it is taken further and we are now heading for economic isolation. Mr. Speaker, I can prove to you how generous this Government is by drawing your attention to a simple pencil. Here I have a pencil in my hand which I think is issued to every member of the House. On the one side is printed “R of S.A.” and on the other side “Czechoslovakia”. We are still keeping in touch, even with nations who are on the point of boycotting us, nations who are violently opposed to us, by using pencils from behind the Iron Curtain in the highest Forum in this land.

To be a little more serious, Mr. Speaker. We know it is the privilege of the Opposition to talk nonsense but my problem is how long can the Opposition continue talking nonsense. They are literally accusing us of economic isolation. Let me just for a moment compare our export trade statistics. Let me take the years 1958 and 1962 as example. In 1958 22.6 per cent of our exports went to Africa. In 1962 the figure was 15.3 per cent. It is clear that there was a decline. We know what the reasons were. It is unnecessary for me to give the reasons. The House knows about the various attempts that were made to boycott us. In 1958 59.7 per cent of our exports went to Europe. In 1962 the figure was 58.2 per cent. A small difference; the figure has practically remained the same. In 1958 10.3 per cent of our exports went to America and 11.7 per cent in 1962, which was an increase. But listen to this, Mr. Speaker; whereas our exports to Asia only constituted 5.8 per cent of our export trade in 1958 it had risen to 13.4 per cent in 1962. Therefore, where there has been a decline in our exports to Africa on the one hand, we have effectively made up for that by expanding our export market in Asia. Now the hon. member charges us with economic isolation! This is further proof that it was not by chance that there has been such a change in our exports. That was the result the Government deliberately aimed at under its policy. These missions that were sent and the attempts made by the Government all contributed to compensate us for the decline in our export trade with Africa by expanding our markets in Asia. Really, Mr. Speaker, there is not the slightest sign of economic isolation.

Then I come to a third aspect, a point which was raised by the hon. member for Constantia in particular, when he referred, I can almost say, to the reckless extravagance of the people. He emphasized that repeatedly and the hon. member for Yeoville says the following in the article to which I have referred—

The United Party now says it is because the people have no confidence in the Government that they are spending. Literally the hon. member for Yeoville also says the following—

That is the picture which is sent overseas, Mr. Speaker. That is why I objected so strenuously at the beginning of my speech to the attitude of the United Party. What is the actual position? Had the hon. member for Yeoville only taken the trouble of once again reading the Budget speech of last year he would have realized that the main object of that Budget was to encourage spending. The concessions made in last year’s Budget were aimed at encouraging spending thereby increasing the tempo of development. The year prior to that we were not in the position to do that because that tendency was still absent. The tendency then was to save. That was why the hon. the Minister of Finance made concessions in his Budget last year. The object was to encourage the consumer to spend thereby encouraging the tempo of development. Had that result not been achieved by the attempts made by the Government last year and had there been a tendency to save in spite of those attempts, then it could have been said that the public did not have confidence in the policy of the Government and in the stability of the future. Then it would have been logical to come to that conclusion, but really it is not logical to come to the conclusion, to which the hon. member for Constantia came this afternoon and to which the hon. member for Yeoville comes in that article of his. These things are only happening as a result of Government policy. The fact that hon. members are so quick to criticize once again proves that they do not understand the crux of the whole matter.

As far as the future is concerned, the future which gives the hon. member for Constantia so much cause for concern and in regard to which he drew such Jeremiah-like conclusions, I wish to refer him to the Economic Research Bureau of the University of Stellenbosch which said the following in a recent report—

As a result of the policy followed by the Government a change has taken place, a change which was envisaged. I read further—

The hon. members of the Opposition tell us that the public do not want to invest, that they only want to spend because they have no confidence in the future. Mr. Speaker, there are other aspects I can touch upon in respect of what hon. members have mentioned, but time does not permit me to do so.

In conclusion I just want to reiterate that the nation can be grateful for the fact that things have worked out the way the Government planned; that just at this stage of our national history we can show to the world not only a dynamic national economy but also a strong and forceful economy which commands the respect of every businessman and overseas investor, an economy which makes it very difficult for our enemies on the political front to carry out their plans. It is the task of the Opposition to criticize where they feel they should but I appeal to them not to interpret the facts surrounding our economic development and our economic stability in such a way that it will create the impression in the world outside that it is something temporary and something inherently weak.

The hon. member who has just sat down I am sure will forgive me if I do not follow his train of thought. It will be dealt with by later speakers on this side of the House.

I want to raise certain issues regarding expenditure, affecting the Part Appropriation proposals very much indeed, but which concern another part of the country’s activities and economy. I want to deal with certain aspects of expenditure on defence and to try and elicit some information for the House and the country in regard to very important matters in that respect. Defence to-day, Sir, is the biggest single-spending Department of the state; its expenditure of necessity has grown, until to-day we are faced with figures which even ten years ago we would have probably hesitated even to consider. Including the present year’s expenditure, and not allowing for the largely increased Budget which the hon. Minister of Finance has told us is coming in the new Estimates, this Parliament has voted this Government something in the region of R1,500,000,000 for expenditure in order to put the defences of this country into a proper condition. That has been the total amount authorized by Parliament in what I term direct defence expenditure. Added to that, there is the hidden cost incurred by other Departments. And when I refer to “hidden”, I do not mean it is hidden away purposely, but it is expenditure incurred by other Departments, not debited to Defence, but which has become necessary due to the expansion of Defence and its requirements. I am thinking of the Public Works Department and half a dozen other Departments which are forced into far larger expenditure on account of having to meet defence requirements. When we take all those hidden costs into account, the unknown costs of defence, and add those to the straightforward direct defence requirements, which I have already mentioned, it would be quite a fair proposition to say that during the last 13 years this Parliament has had to authorize the Bill for something like R3,000,000,000 expenditure on Defence requirements.

As the Opposition, one of our responsibilities is to see that the country is indeed getting due value for that expenditure, that the country is gaining in security. It is relatively very large expenditure when one takes into account that by and large it is incurred by the White population of the country only. Added to the direct Defence expenditure there is also the very heavy expenditure increase in connection with our Police, Prisons and other such Votes, all of which have some definite link with the security of the State, particularly when it comes to the internal unrest aspect of defence. These all have to be taken into consideration when we are dealing with defence expenditure. Sir, the only real test of course to find the answer as to whether your defence organization is efficient or not, is the acid test of war itself. That is a test, I am sure, we all hope we will never see applied—not for any doubt of its efficiency, but for the inevitable damage which war must bring, no matter who wins or loses. It is a test nobody wants to see applied. But there is an intermediate test that one can apply and that is the check that I am going to ask for. It is a check based on reliable and authoritative statements and progress reports made at the very top level, Cabinet level. You see, Sir, the country has in the last year or so had far too many defence statements and defence reports made by this, that and the other official, or this, that and the other news agency, statements not bearing the imprint of official authority. All able to be denied when some argument developed about them, leaving the country still very much in the dark as to what actually is transpiring. I want to make full allowance for the hon. Minister’s difficulties where he is bound in certain respects by matters affecting national security, where he is limited in the amount of information that he can give. One accepts that in the case of defence. You cannot talk about these things quite as openly as you can about ordinary matters. But there are a number of directions in which this Parliament as representatives of the country has a right to expect fuller information than what we get.

Can you give us the aspects in regard to which I can give more information?

I will deal with that as I go on, but the hon. Minister himself should be much better aware than I am as to the amount of official information that he can give without impairing the security of the State. His Department are the only people who have the real information available to give to the country. It is not the Opposition. We are trying to get such information. I gave the hon. Minister, on behalf of this side of the House last year a suggestion that a practical means of transmitting this information could be the formation of a special Defence Select Committee of the House based on the British and American practice, a select committee where defence matters could be more freely discussed, matters which could not be discussed in the open House. Parliament as a whole, through its committee, could get the necessary information, whilst at the same time there would be much closer co-ordination and co-operation in defence matters. After I had made the appeal in the course of debate, the hon. Minister gave us the assurance that this proposal would be looked into and that within certain limitations he would see what could be done, but we have heard nothing further about it. I would like the hon. Minister to tell us what progress, if any, has been made, or what decision the Government has come to in regard to that suggestion, which appears to us to be a perfectly sound and feasible one, based on established practice—it has worked well in countries which have a far greater defence liability than ours. It is true that from time to time we are treated to bits and pieces in information reports and newspapers, as for instance that the Government has purchased Canberra bombers or Mirage planes, or various other items of equipment. But they are all in dribs and drabs, with no real authoritative statement as to how far we are making progress in that respect. There is also no real authoritative statement as to what the Government’s general strategic policy upon which its defence organization is being built up. Here I am not touching at all on the question of internal disorder, or any internal trouble. I think we accept that the Government has to-day built up its organization to a pitch where the forces responsible—the police, with the auxiliary forces attached to the police—are sufficiently trained, equipped and sufficiently mobile to deal with practically any type of internal disorder which might occur. I am dealing more particularly with the threat to the country from any form of external aggression. There is no question about it. It is a threat which is steadily increasing in proportion to the success which the countries which no longer like us are achieving in driving us into a perilous and dangerous isolation.

The hon. Minister has asked me whether I could give him a lead as to certain things that he could safely disclose. I think that this is one case where it is time that the hon. Minister of Defence should take the country more into his confidence. After all it is the life of the country that depends on the success or otherwise of his plans. He should take the country into his confidence in regard to the general form of any practical aggression which the Government feels could develop from an external source or sources. One would assume that the Government’s strategic plan is based on dealing with that general form of aggression. It is true that with the rapidity of changes taking place on the Continent of Africa that any possible type of aggression changes almost overnight. But something the country would like to know is: Whom are we arming against, from what direction do we expect aggression might develop, in what direction is it practicable for aggression to develop and what general plan do we propose to deal with it? What is the Government’s broad assessment as to the possible nature and direction of such a threat and in the mind of the Government does such a threat really exist? Probably the hon. Minister could also give the country some assurance in regard to whether or not he is able to get the equipment necessary to fit in with the Government’s strategic plan. We know the difficulties experienced there. And not only the equipment, but also the replacements which are necessary to keep that equipment in order and operation, repairs beyond the capacity of our own country. These are some points that I think in general could be touched on and a reassuring statement made to the country, maybe, without disclosing the actual source or individual from whom purchases are made. It goes without saying that the hon. Minister would not want to disclose such sources at the moment. Although one can appreciate the hon. Minister’s difficulties in this respect, I want to strike a note of warning that over-emphasis of secrecy, particularly in regard to defence matters, the too widespread application of a blanket of silence, can actually react, when it is overdone, to the detriment of defence, to the lowering of the over-all morale of the country itself. The morale of the nation and the people, who due to lack of reliable information, are unable to gauge for themselves just how secure they have a right to assume themselves to be. There is probably no form of State activity of any government which is more subject to or more a target for the activities of the financial tout, the black marketer and that type of person, than the purchasing activities of a defence organization. That is under ordinary conditions. We are not under ordinary conditions. This country to-day is under what I might term extraordinary conditions when it comes to the purchase of defence material. We are in the unfortunate position of being unpopular, isolated, and in many respects the subject of bans and all sorts of restrictions placed on such purchases. Facing the threat of more restrictions which makes the defence job even more difficult. Therefore the Minister and his Department, the people responsible in his Department for dealing with these supply matters are in a much more difficult and vulnerable position than their similar confreres would be in any other state working under normal conditions. Much of the needs of his Department makes it a much more attractive target for these people than usual. The hon. the Minister himself must be well aware that there is a growing volume of unfortunate (I say so advisedly) rumour, surmise and conjecture about alleged malpractices in the procurement of defence equipment. We have had certain of such activities in this country. These will be dealt with by another member in this debate, but I want to refer to certain rumours and statements which have been published, fairly widespread, of the fact that South Africa has been led into buying inferior equipment at excessive prices on the advice of black market touts. In other words that we were forced to obtain certain of our equipment through the black market. It may be exaggerated, as these things usually are, but that does not say that there is not something in it. And the position certainly is not helped by certain news items published in the Government Press, Press controlled by the Cabinet, and in some cases by the Prime Minister. When one sees these statements published in that Press, one accepts that there is some substratum of truth in them, and I think the hon. the Minister would be fully justified in giving much more top-level official information regarding defence matters, particularly these matters I have mentioned and also the assurance, that if such a position unfortunately does exist, there will be no more secrecy in regard to it, that the individuals concerned will be dealt with according to law and punished according to law, irrespective of any other factors. This is a most important matter.

I want to touch on another aspect and that is the complete change which has taken place over the last month or six weeks in the strategic position of our own country vis-à-vis Africa as a whole, the events in Zanzibar and up north in Tanganyika, the mutinies in the other African states. Every one of them has a distinct bearing on the future of South Africa. They impose a distinct new responsibility on defence. Here we have the first foothold of Communism in Africa, or in a territory adjacent to Africa. That has brought our own country well within the practical range of guided missiles. I have seen it said that Zanzibar is a second Cuba. That remains to be seen, but it well could be, and it could well be that some new evaluation of defence requirements will have to be taken to meet this new situation. Flowing from it, there is the question of the whole organization of the port system of this country, the sea route round this country. We have to accept from the lessons of the past that it has to be realized that as far as the Suez Canal is concerned as a sea route, that as far as the Mediterranean and the Red Sea is concerned, they are no longer available in time of emergency. They will be under communistic or united Arabian and North African control. As far as the Western World is concerned, they will no longer exist. Therefore our own coast-line comes right into the forefront. I have heard it mentioned by people as something to be proud of, something that will bring defence aid to South Africa. It may do, but it also brings terrific responsibilities to us, and new dangers to this country if we become the world route to the East. It will throw a huge load on every port in this country. It was something I had to do with during the last world war, and I know what the position was even in those days. To-day our ports are already straining and groaning under the increased load of commercial traffic. What is going to happen when suddenly we are confronted with that other load of strategic sea transport? Is there any provision being made at all to meet it? Is there any investigation, any examination, any attempt being made to begin to equip the ports for this load which we will have to carry? Because our security will depend on its efficiency, just as much as that of any other country. These are vital points to the security of this country.

One last point I want to touch on very briefly is the question of the trainees and the call-ups. We have an increase in the number of lads called up straight from school each year, and there is a growing wave of anxiety amongst parents, amongst educationists, amongst many other authorities of the growing impact being made on the economy of the country by this call-up, as well as the terrific impact which is being made upon the boys themselves. In the limited time at my disposal I am only going to touch on one or two points. There is the question of whether the best use is being made of the boys that are being called up. Military, naval and air services to-day are no longer what they used to be in the days when the bad boy of the family was sent to serve in the Army or Navy. To-day it is a highly developed scientific warfare that we are training for, and you have got to pick the best boys for the job. What the House and the country would like some assurance on is that there is a sufficiently coordinated system at work to sift out the boys after they receive their call-up orders, to sift them according to ability into those units and callings where they can be most useful. In other words, that you will not send the matriculated boy who is waiting to go to the university into a footslogging régiment to which a much inferior educated boy could go, and that you would not sent the boy with the inferior education to a régiment where highly scientific attainments are required. You use the best of your human material at your disposal for the best service it is capable of rendering. I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether that is being done. I would like to know also: In the training camps themselves, are there sufficient properly qualified vocational guidance officers with whom these youngsters can consult about their future careers, to give them some guidance? That is one of the most important parts of training. When this side of the House agreed to this call-up system, the hon. Minister might remember I told him at that time that he was putting himself in the position of the foster-father of these thousands of youngsters and that the responsibility for their future, not only their military career, would rest upon his shoulders. I want to ask him to-day whether these matters are being properly looked after? Is there any provision for studying in the camps for those who wish to get away quietly to study, out of the general hurly-burly of a military camp?

One last question: Are there ample facilities for physical recreation? We have been getting reports that there is a substantial lack of these facilities. That can be dangerous. These youngsters are full of spirit. The very military training they are undergoing helps to develop that. They require an outlet and there is nothing better than physical recreation. Yet take a place like Youngsfield here in the Peninsula. Football fields are probably the cheapest form of recreation you can get. But my information is that there is not even a pair of goal posts that they can kick at. They have to do with anything they can scrape together themselves. That does not give much confidence in the overall picture. These are important aspects of those boys’ future. They have got to come back into civil life, and they should come back with as little unsettling impact as possible, of their military training on the civil side of their life. I would ask the hon. Minister to have the whole of that aspect investigated and see that there is sufficient being done, and being done quickly enough in order to meet the requirements of these thousands of young South Africans that we are calling up.

The hon. member said the following in his speech—he alleged that during the time the National Party had been in power approximately R3,000,000,000 had been spent on defence. He then asked the Minister whether the latter could name any practical aggressor who could have been the reason for that expenditure. In the third place the hon. member objected to the strict secrecy that was maintained in respect of defence matters. The hon. member then went on and expressed his concern about certain malpractices in the Defence Force or in connection with the Defence Force, Then he referred to the training and the people who were trained, and he concluded by expressing his concern about the physical relaxation facilities, or the lack of them. I cannot reply to all those points but I want to react to two of them. How well we know the Opposition is proved by the fact that I knew yesterday already what the hon. member was going to say today and that is why I want to reply to two aspects raised by the hon. member in his speech. The first is the expenditure of approximately R3,000,000,000 and I want to bring it into line with something else the hon. gentleman said, namely, our changed position, the change which has taken place recently. I think it is essential for us to view the necessity of increasing our Defence Vote more and more against the background of our changed strategic position as a result of certain happenings during the past years, particularly during the past few months. The necessity to call upon the nation to be willing to spend to the utmost in order to meet that expenditure stems from an appreciation of our position. The military position of the Republic has changed significantly during the past year. I want to mention the following in an appraisal of the position and that is in line with our whole position. The first point I want to mention is the hold Communism has gained in the Atlantic Ocean, in Cuba and on the West Coast of Africa by means of the submarine bases it has built and practically completed there. The second point I want to mention is the hold which Russia and China have obtained on Egypt at the northern gate of Africa. The third is the weakening of the position of the West on the western front of the Mediterranean Sea as a result of the appearance of the unpredictable Ben Bella along the western side of the Mediterranean Sea. The fourth is the large orders placed by China and Russia on the continent of Africa. The fifth is the closer co-operation—and this is of great importance as far as the future is concerned—between Pan-Africanism and Communism in the struggle against the West and the destructive effect that has on the relationship between the West and Africa and the doors it opens for Chino-Russian infiltration in Africa. The sixth point I want to mention is the hold which Communism has now obtained in the Indian Ocean, within striking distance from our Republic, in Zanzibar. I estimate Zanzibar to be about 1,400 or 1,500 miles from Pretoria. The seventh point I want to mention is the submarine bases which Russia has established along the West Coast of Africa, a fact which must be seen in relation with the severe struggle to gain control over the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean.

The Republic should not regard these occurrences only in the light of a global war, but also in the light of the fact that the front has been moved to a point within striking distance of its own area and that within that distance there are strategically important areas which are under the influence of Communism. Indirectly, the cautiousness or the slackness or unwillingness, under the pressure of other Western nations, to be regarded as an ally or a friend of the Republic, is of no mean significance to us. It must be remembered that the Republic as a stable factor in Africa—I maintain that we are the only stable factor in Africa—is a thorn in the flesh of those powers who are to-day measuring their strength in Africa, in the Atlantic Ocean and in the Indian Ocean. In view of this changed position and the increased pressure that will be exercised in future, we are compelled to re-appraise our position in respect of our own defence against oppression and in respect of retaliation. When making this re-appraisal and appreciating the fact that we should not do anything that will call upon us to sacrifice our identity and our right of self-determination, we must bear the following in mind: Firstly, that as far as our striking power and our ability to retaliate are concerned we must make ourselves as strong as possible and that the R3,000,000,000 to which hon. members have referred, disappears, like dew in the morning sun, before this necessity which has arisen as a result of this new position. Secondly we must bear in mind that the stronger the Republic is, the more difficult will two other things become. The first is: The stronger the Republic is the more difficult will it be for potential friends or allies to overlook or to underestimate our strategic or military value. Secondly, it will be more difficult for any power or combination of powers to attempt an irresponsible manoeuvre against the Republic. Apart from the indirect military value that may flow from the strengthening of our military forces, such a strengthening of our forces and their ability to defend themselves is of inestimable value to the Republic in the process of making friends or preventing irresponsible combinations of powers which may harbour sinister and aggressive plans against us. We can only benefit by it. In order to be ready for any possible aggression, the Republic should exploit every possible channel to capitalize our strategic position for military purposes without mortgaging a single inch of our soil, and avail itself of the difficult military situation in which other powers find themselves and capitalize its strategic position in the light of their inability; maintain long communication lines in case of difficulty, something which will entail large expenditure, and for the transportation of supplies and military equipment. We must make use of our strategic position and cast that against the background of the lack of any strategic military springboards by other powers that are in trouble. We are very prone to regard ourselves as a small nation and to underestimate ourselves in this connection. In the light of recent events, South Africa has undergone a radical change in respect of her military and strategic position. The struggle in Africa is to get allies that are worth something in the economic and military field. I say we should place our best military product on the market and without sacrificing one iota of our identity we should capitalize everything we have. We should tap all possible capital resources to obtain the best weapons and my reply to the hon. member for Simonstown is this that the money we have spent so far to prepare ourselves and to increase our striking force against the possible potential aggressors he talked about, is money well spent. I want to add this: Never before in our history has the nation been more prepared to spend money on our defence than to-day. That is my reply to the hon. member. Do not be afraid. Every penny spent on strengthening our defences is in the interests of our fatherland and in the interests of fortifying our position, strategically, in the military and international spheres.

I want to conclude by saying that as far as the purchase of weapons is concerned, experience has shown us that the South African workers and our industries are standing ready. If there are people who are so stupid as to boycott us because of political or international considerations, I think the guarantee of our future war equipment position lies in the readiness and the ability and the willingness to sacrifice on the part of our own country’s labour force to provide those supplies. Never before have I faced the future with greater confidence. If we want to capitalize our resources, we have enough resources in the Republic to make ourselves so strong that we shall in future be in a practically unassailable position. My reply to the hon. member in regard to the training and the physical relaxation facilities and in regard to certain alleged malpractices is that those are matters which the hon. member should rather discuss with the Minister personally or with his Department because I do not regard this House as the suitable place to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member who has just sat down will not hold it against me if I do not follow him in his poetic appreciation of our strategic difficulties. We have very little time to speak and there are a few other matters which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister.

In the first place I very strongly support the plea which has been made by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) for more information. The Government asks us to vote colossal sums of money for defence, and we have always done so, but we do not have enough information as to how that money is spent and how our Defence Force is trained. That applies to all sides of this House. We want to ask the Minister to devise some method or other by which that information can be given to us.

Another matter that I want to touch upon has also been raised already by the hon. member for Simonstown, namely the irregularities in connection with the purchase of weapons for the Defence Force. Let me say at the outset that there are far too many rumours going around and that far too much suspicion is being cast upon honourable officers and officials in this connection. When matters of this kind are raised it is of no avail to try to hide them behind a veil of secrecy.

What do you mean by that?

I shall come to that later on. Last year we had the case in which the wife of the former Chief of Staff of the army was involved, and immediately thereafter we had the case of Commandant van der Merwe and two others who were accused with him. This case came before the court and the court imposed a comparatively light sentence when one bears in mind the seriousness of the rumours. What I am trying to say is that I think the seriousness of that case was very much exaggerated before it came before the court, otherwise the court would not have imposed such a light sentence. But my point is that the Defence Force as such and the senior officers and public servants were rendered no service by hearing this case in secret or in camera. After the case had been heard the rumours still continued and certain names were still being mentioned. People went so far as to say that this case was heard in camera because there were too many senior people involved and because of the far-reaching nature of these irregularities. [Interjections.]

The hon. member says that it was nothing but rumour-mongering and I say that that is possible, but the rumours are going around and I am pleading here for the senior officers who are still in the service and whose names have been mentioned and on whom suspicion has been cast. It is not fair towards them. I want to say to the Minister that if such a trial is held in public, then all the dirty linen will be washed in public, and the guilty parties can then be made to pay the penalty for their deeds, that is what we want. As far as the information is concerned which may come out in the course of such a trial, there is nothing which is not already known to the enemies of South Africa. Their Secret Services are such that they know all these things; we would not be divulging any secrets therefore. But I think it is no more than fair towards our Permanent Force officers and senior officials to put an end to this sort of thing.

Is the hon. member alleging that the Department of Defence kept something secret?

No. But there was a report in the Press to the effect that this case was being heard in camera at the request of the Department of Defence.

Which newspaper? The Sunday Times?

This secrecy, as the hon. member for Simonstown has already said, recoils on innocent people. I hope that there will be no repetition of this sort of thing, but if it does happen again I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to have these cases heard in public. If that is done we will not have this rumour-mongering. As the hon. member for Simonstown has said, these rumours are still going around. We are now getting these rumours in the Press which supports the Government. Sir, if you read the Vaderland of 9 January you will see that these rumours are being started afresh. Apparently they are not true, because in reply to a question the Minister told me the other day that he himself did not know of such investigations, but that is what the newspapers say. It is nothing but an attempt to sow distrust, and I think it is very unfair towards the members of the force.

Then there is another matter that I should like to raise, a matter which we must regard as being very serious, and that is the loss of ammunition which took place in the Defence Force last year. I put a question to the Minister the other day and he said in his reply that there had been eight cases involving losses of ammunition and that steps had been taken to ensure that it would not happen again. We accept that statement. But the matter is more serious than that. When we look at the report of the Auditor-General for 1962-3, we find that there was a loss in the Defence Force of 1,200,000 cartridges worth almost R60,000.

Was it a loss, or was it a case where no proof could be produced?

The Auditor-General says that there is no proof, but nevertheless a sum of R59,000 had to be written off. This is an enormous amount of ammunition. It would seem that the ammunition disappeared from the stores and there is no record of it. This is a very serious matter because the first question which one asks oneself is who took this ammunition and what has happened to it. It could very easily fall into the wrong hands. We know from Press reports that certain elements go out of their way to get hold of explosives and ammunition.

Then the next question which occurs to us is this: Can the Minister tell us whether any weapons are missing—rifles as well as automatic weapons? No reference is made to it in the report, but one can well imagine that it would not be difficult for an ill-disposed person to lay his hands on weapons and even automatic weapons. Our Citizen Force is armed with automatic weapons and they do not always have the facilities to keep those weapons in safe custody. It may be that some of those weapons have been stolen; we should like to know.

But I come back to this question of ammunition. If it is true that this ammunition is missing, then I think it is necessary that the Minister should not only give us the assurance that steps will definitely be taken to ascertain how it disappeared, but he should find out where it is and if possible it should be recovered. It is an enormous quantity of ammunition. The loss amounted to 1,200,000 cartridges or about 1,000 boxes of ammunition weighing 40 tons. If this ammunition was unlawfully removed from the stores, then it must have been an organized theft, and if that is the case it is of the utmost importance that it should be recovered. We cannot allow this ammunition to be used later on for unlawful purposes.

Then there is another small matter which I should like to touch upon, one to which reference is also made in the report of the Auditor-General, and that is in connection with the Nautical College at Gordons Bay. We notice that in 1962 the number of pupils dropped from 78 to 26 and the cost of training per individual naturally increased from R697 to more than R1,900. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us where the fault lies; whether we cannot get the recruits to take up this course and what attempts are being made to put this very fine institution back onto its feet again.

Then I should also like to support the hon. member for Simonstown when he says that we ought to know more about the training of our Defence Force. We know that when we go to parades on ceremonial occasions we find that these people are excellent; that is all very nice, but we have no proof that these people are being well trained in field work. We do not know whether they are being trained in unitary work or to do manoeuvres in large formations. These are all points on which we should like to have information, for no other purpose than to be reassured that these people are being well trained. The fact that we are spending large sums is no guarantee that we have a strong army to safeguard our position. We want more information and we want to know that that money is being spent in the right way and that the right training is being given.

The hon. member who has just sat down was quite right when he made one point after another and said that he just wanted to bring one further small matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The matters that he brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister were really not important. But I do want to reply to a few of the points he raised.

In the first place the hon. member followed the same course as the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) by saying that the Opposition want much more information from the hon. the Minister about defence matters. It was also suggested that a defence committee should be set up. He referred to what the hon. the Minister said last year—that he would investigate this matter. There may be a great deal to be said for such a committee. As I understand the Opposition, what they really want is a committee to obtain information on defence matters from the Minister. I want to put this question to the Opposition. Will those members of the committee who are members of the Opposition, and the committee members on the Government side, not be placed in an embarrassing position? They will have information which would otherwise have been supplied to all of us, because I take it that any information that can be released can be released whether through the medium of the Press or in this House in reply to questions or by way of policy statements by the Minister. It is therefore not this sort of information that the Opposition want; they want more confidential information. In that case I say that I believe that that kind of confidential information ought to remain in the hands of the Minister and the General Staff. But if the hon. the Minister decides otherwise then it is his affair.

I want to discuss another point raised by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). He referred to the trial of Commandant van der Merwe in regard to the purchase of weapons. The hon. member said quite correctly that suspicion was cast on people who should never be under suspicion but he himself sowed more suspicion this afternoon than was necessary. He asked why the trial of Commandant van der Merwe was held in camera and he created the impression that it was the wish of the Department of Defence or the Department of Justice or the Minister that this case should be held in camera. The hon. member is aware of the fact the Judge said that he did not think that it was in the public interest that the case should be heard in public.

Who made the application?

The Judge said that he did not think that it was in the public interest to have a public trial. Those hon. members are always talking about the inviolability of the courts, why then do they sow suspicion here by saying that it should have been a public trial when it was the Judge who made that decision? It is not fair on the part of the hon. member. I think he must realize that when a Judge, in consultation with the State Prosecutor, knowing the charge and having certain information before him, decides that a case of this nature should be held in camera, the hon. member must accept that fact in the interests of defence.

Another matter in regard to which the hon. member also sowed suspicion was in connection with the report of the Public Accounts Committee of last year in regard to the large quantities of ammunition which are allegedly missing. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) also had the privilege of serving on that committee and he also asked certain questions. I am referring now to a report that has already been published and that is why it is in order for me to do so. The impression was never given that that ammunition was stolen and the hon. member for Hillbrow knows that. The impression that was given was that no invoices had been signed for that ammunition.

Why was it written off then?

Of course it had to be written off. That is always the procedure when unauthorized expenditure has been incurred.

But that does not mean that the money was stolen or that it was spent illegally. The impression gained by every member on that Select Committee was that the ammunition had not been stolen but that invoices had not been signed for it. The hon. member for North-East Rand has had experience as a soldier. He has had to deal with Quartermasters who were not Brigadiers but men of quite subordinate rank, who had had no training in bookkeeping. Does he want to tell me that he finds it strange that ammunition should disappear? And remember, this ammunition did not disappear from one store only or from one Command only; it disappeared from stores throughout the whole country.

That is a very poor excuse.

If it is a poor excuse then it means that poor evidence, wrong evidence, was given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts and that no proper investigation was made. I am speaking here from memory but the hon. member must have the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts last year before him so he can look it up and tell me whether I am correct or not. There was not the slightest suggestion that theft had been committed. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not say that a single round of ammunition has not been stolen. It may well be that ammunition has been stolen. But in any case, where this sort of thing is brought to the notice of the authorities, when a theft is reported, action is taken just as it has been taken before where other people have committed offences of this nature. They have been charged. That is also the information that the hon. member was given in reply to questions which he placed on the Order Paper a few days ago. One should not in one breath try to suggest that one is the friend of the soldier and that no suspicion should be cast upon him and then in the next breath sow the seeds of suspicion oneself. I know that that is the sort of thing that the hon. member for North-East Rand as a good soldier despised when he was still in the army.

The hon. member for Simonstown made a few remarks here about which I would like to say a few words. I have already dealt with the question of the information that he wants on defence matters. I was struck by the following question which the hon. member for Simonstown put to the hon. the Minister: “Against whom are we arming?” He wanted to know against whom we were arming ourselves. I do not want to reply to this question on behalf of the hon. the Minister but I answer it as a South African. My reply is that we are arming ourselves against any enemy who may be stupid enough to want to attack South Africa or who threatens our safety. It makes no difference to us if they are Laplanders. No, I am sorry that I mentioned a name; I should prefer not to mention the name of any particular country in this connection.

Loafers (lieplappers).

Yes, that is the word that I wanted to use; I wanted to say “loafers”. It makes no difference who it is who tries to threaten South Africa. We are arming ourselves against anyone who threatens South Africa’s safety or who is stupid enough to want to attack South Africa. The hon. member asked where the hon. the Minister was obtaining the weapons that we were purchasing. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have daily proof in this regard. The hon. member himself knows what weapons we are purchasing. But there is another statement that we cannot allow to pass unchallenged and that is the hon. member’s statement that the secrecy that surrounds our Defence Force may have a detrimental effect upon the people of South Africa; that it may detrimentally effect the morale of the people of South Africa because they do not know how South Africa is placed as far as her defence is concerned. I think that is a completely erroneous statement. Indeed, as I know the public, I believe that their morale is very high to-day. They expect us to be able to challenge the world. I do not think that the hon. member’s statement is correct. It is not my intention either to repeat what the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) said. But I want to say this: In my opinion there has never been a time in the history of South Africa when the people have been as determined as they are to-day to defend South Africa against any aggressor with all the power at their command. We find this attitude on the part of all sections of the people and in all parts of the country. [Interjection.] When the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) tells me that I am talking nonsense it means that she is not aware of what is going on in this country. The fact that the hon. the Minister and his General Staff withhold information from the public when they think that it is not in the interests of South Africa to make that information known or when they think that that information can be misused by any possible enemy of South Africa, is something that does not disturb the public of South Africa at all.

Reference has been made repeatedly in previous debates and also in this debate to malpractices that have apparently taken place in our Defence Force. The army, the Permanent Force, is a large undertaking. There are many men in its service; there are many men who are being trained in it. One has to deal with men of many different types in all the branches of the Defence Force. I do not think that they are all little angels because if they were they would probably not be soldiers.

Except the Minister!

The hon. the Minister can speak for himself. I accept what he says but as yet his wings are not very long! I believe that ammunition may perhaps be lost here and there and that things may perhaps happen now and again which are not to the liking of an angel. But to create the impression in this House which the hon. member has created and to refer to Press reports, to the slanderous campaign of the Yellow Press …

This appeared in the Vaderland.

The report in the Vaderland to which the hon. member refers dealt with another matter. [Interjection.] In any case the hon. member will have the opportunity to support that accusation but I think it is being very unfair towards the Permanent Force to make use of gossip of that nature in this House without being able to produce authentic and concrete proof. Any member of the Opposition who has any complaints based on information received and who does not go to the Minister or the Department of Justice with that information, is committing an offence. But it is also an offence to start a whispering campaign about members of our Defence Force when they cannot defend themselves here.

Listening to the speeches here this afternoon has given me every opportunity to enter into a first-class argument, but the occasion demands and requires—and I appreciate it—that a maiden speech should be on a non-controversial subject. May I say that I am glad that on this occasion I do not have to reply to some of the speeches we have heard here. I would, however, say, in dealing with the prosperity of this country that, I have had the opportunity of traversing practically the whole of the Cape Province and I have seen people in all walks of life, particularly the Coloured community and those belonging to the less-privileged classes. I would like to say to the Minister of Finance quite firmly and clearly that the prosperity of which we have heard so much has not filtered down or penetrated to those in the lower income brackets, and I do hope that an effort will be made to ensure that the prosperity which is undoubtedly with us—perhaps it could be greater than it is at the moment—will be shared by all these people who live within the boundaries of the Republic, who are part and parcel of our Western civilization and who are entitled to a fair share of whatever is produced and whatever is consumed. I must say that in the course of my activities recently I gained first-hand knowledge of the attitude of the Coloured community towards certain policies of the Government. I do not propose to deal with those policies now except to record that separate development, the group areas and job reservation—I have thought very hard over the word that I should use because I want to put it in the mildest and nicest way—are not favoured by the Coloured community. I hope to have the opportunity on some other occasion of expounding the views of the Coloured people on these matters which are of such vital importance to them.

Sir, the Republic of South Africa has a Coloured population of 1,500,000. They are part of us, and in this House there are four people charged with the task of looking after their interests and of pleading their case. I hope during my sojourn in this House to be the means of bringing their case fairly and squarely to the attention of the Ministers’ of the Government in the earnest and firm hope that what I have to say, together with what is said by the other members here who represent the Coloured community, will not fall on deaf ears. A thing which concerned the the Coloured people very seriously in the last few months was the statement by the Prime Minister, a statement to which I merely refer in passing, that there were going to be no concessions and furthermore that they were to have no homeland. It will be my earnest endeavour, tough though the undertaking may be. to persuade the hon. the Prime Minister to make a few concessions because the time has come—and I think the Coloured community is in the best position to say what I am now going to say—when we should reason together, all of us. We should get to grips with our problems, not on the basis, as they say in Afrikaans, of “skelling” each other out, because I do not think that helps, but to use a little sweet reasonableness and to realize that concessions must be made because when concessions are not made only demands can be made. Words are the only weapons at our disposal. They are the only weapons we can use or will use. I therefore make this appeal. I say that if we would parley together and discuss our problems in a reasonable way we could live together in peace, harmony and concord but in order to do that, we have to attempt to see the point of view of others who by the grace of God have been thrown amongst us and who live with us and who, for better or for worse, have their future, their welfare and their happiness in our hands.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden), who has just sat down, on his maiden speech. I had the privilege of serving with him in the Cape Provincial Council for several years, and I want to say here that a feature of his whole attitude there was his enthusiasm, whether one agreed with him or not, and since we are at the threshold of a new dispensation in South Africa to-day in respect of our Coloured population, a new dispensation which has been initiated by this Government, I want to express the hope that he will use these fine qualities of his in the right direction for the benefit of the people whom he represents in this House.

I rise really to raise a matter here which is perhaps entirely against the trend of the debate up to the present moment, but it is a matter which in my opinion is appropriate and of real importance. I do not therefore want to react to any of the arguments advanced by the Opposition except to say in passing that although it may sound paradoxical to-day in our present situation, there are two things which are true in respect of the Opposition Party in our present political setup. In the first instance it is true that in our White political set-up the Opposition Party today is nothing but a half-living political anachronism, as it was described on one occasion by the hon. the Minister of Finance. In essence that is what the United Party is to-day in our White political set-up—a half-living political anachronism, a powerless party. To use the language of the Bible, we are dealing here really with an Opposition which is like an elk in a trap. But on the other hand it is equally true that never in the history of South African politics has there been a political party whose policy has been so potentially disastrous as that of this Opposition Party. Let me pause for a moment to motivate this statement. We have an Opposition Party here to-day whose policy is to have an undivided State in South Africa. What is the effect of this policy? It is simply this: The United Party with its policy of an undivided State is teaching the large Black Bantu majority in South Africa to aim at Black domination over the whole country. That is the effect of this policy of an undivided State. The United Party is maintaining an image which makes it extremely difficult to canalize Black ambition in this country and to guide it in the direction of separate freedoms.

May I put a question?

No, the hon. member can put his question to me outside in the street. Not only is the United Party maintaining this image but it is continually creating a climate which constantly stimulates the expectations and ambitions of the Black majority in the direction of Black domination over the whole country—not liberation through division. What the United Party preaches to-day is a one-nation theory, a policy which must result in one thing only and that is eventual Black domination in this country. And what is the effect of the United Party’s policy as far as the outside world is concerned? The United Party is prepared to say to the outside world to-day that in South Africa it is prepared to make a start in granting political rights to a Black majority within the same Parliament; in other words, it is creating the impression that the White minority in South Africa is simply another colonial minority which will eventually have to yield to Black ambition. I repeat therefore that what we are dealing with in South Africa to-day on the one hand is a political party, a political anachronism, a party with no influence in South African politics, and on the other hand a party whose policy is potentially more disastrous than that of any party in the history of South African politics.

Mr. Speaker, I leave it at that. The matter which I want to raise here timeously and which I regard as being of very real importance of the next delimitation of constituencies.

What does van der Merwe of Beaufort West say?

It is true that we recently obtained the figures in respect of the general registration which has just taken place, and I take it that attention will be given towards the end of this year or perhaps early next year to the question of the next delimitation and to the question of the appointment of a Delimitation Commission. The provisional figures which are available at the moment in respect of the recent general registration are disturbing and I ask the Government to give its urgent attention to this matter. Let me deal with the situation as far as the Cape Province is concerned, and let me say here at once that I do not want to approach this matter from a provincial point of view. Let me rather refer therefore to the southern complex of our country. The figures show that if there is to be a delimitation to-morrow on the basis of these provisional figures, the Midlands complex of the Cape will have to forfeit three seats immediately.

Surely not Cradock!

I want to emphasize that these figures are provisional figures, but according to these provisional figures the average quota works out at 11,714, and if one works out the number of voters per province then it comes to 49.25 for the Cape Province. That will mean that at the next delimitation the Cape Province will have three seats fewer which will then bring the number of Cape seats to 49, fewer than ever before in the history of this province. But that is not all. Already there are very strong indications that the Cape may lose a fourth seat. If we take the first interim registration after a general registration and look at the trend revealed there, we find that we run the risk that the Cape Province may very well lose a fourth seat. What is going to happen at a future delimitation once we have forfeited these three seats? We find the following position when we examine the trend followed by previous Delimitation Commissions in the delimitation of constituencies. Take the Prieska constituency, for example. At the last general registration Prieska had 7,877 voters, in other words, 3,896 fewer than the average provincial quota—if I may put it that way, although it is not really the correct term. In other words, a constituency such as Prieska has already been unloaded by more than 33 per cent. One finds the same situation in a constituency like Kuruman where there are 8,838 voters—3,735 below the average quota. The next one is Cradock with 8,046 voters, that is to say, 3,727 below the average quota. The next one is Graaff-Reinett and then there is also Fort Beaufort, and so I could go on. In other words, it is perfectly clear that these three seats which will have to disappear will have to come from the Midlands complex of the Cape Province. But the story does not end even there. We have this further picture that once the Cape Province has lost these three constituencies—and they are constituencies which will probably have to disappear from the Midlands complex of the Cape—a further two seats will have to be given up by the Cape Province in the Midlands complex, one to the urban complex of Cape Town and the other to the urban complex of Port Elizabeth. In other words, we are going to find ourselves in this position that at some future delimitation five constituencies will have to disappear from the Cape Midlands complex. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, “with tears in my navy-blue eyes”, as an old gentleman once said, how are we going to cope with this problem of the depopulation of the platteland?

Put the Coloureds back on the Common Roll.

That will mean that since 1938 we will have lost 11 seats in the platteland complex of the Cape Province; that 11 seats will have disappeared. Section 43 of our Constitution lays down the formula according to which a delimitation must take place. Amongst other things, the following five factors have to be taken into account; a certain amount of weight has to be attached to them. What weight is to be attached to them is left to the discretion of the Delimitation Commission concerned. The one factor is community or diversity of interests, and I maintain that under the present situation we shall not be able to attach any weight to this aspect of the delimitation formula. The next factor is means of communication, which is no longer really a factor in our modern world. The next factor is physical features, a factor which makes the delimitation all the more difficult, as was pointed out by the last Delimitation Commission. The next factor is existing electoral boundaries. What becomes of this factor in the present delimitation formula having regard to the picture which I have outlined here with regard to the southern areas of our country? The fifth factor is sparsity or density of population. In the present situation no effect can be given to this factor either by a delimitation commission. In these circumstances I want to ask whether it has not become urgently necessary for the Government to give its attention to this matter, because the question arises whether our present delimitation formula is not out of date in many respects, and I want to ask whether it is not necessary for us to investigate our present delimitation formula immediately or as soon as possible. I would even go so far as to say that if such a commission of inquiry cannot bring out its report before the next general election we must hold the election in the normal way until such time as such an inquiry can be instituted. I do not want to indicate here what lines should be followed, but there are one or two aspects which I just want to mention. The first is the question of the size of a constituency. Should this not become a more important determining factor rather than a 15 per cent unloading? Because if it becomes necessary to re-delimit certain constituencies because they are loaded with, say, a few thousand voters and it therefore becomes difficult for members to represent the voters in such constituencies, then the contrary is equally true. May I refer here to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree). At the moment he represents a constituency the area of which is bigger than that of the whole of the Free State. During the recess he had to go and attend to his work there on behalf of the party which he represents and on behalf of the voters whom he represents. He had to address 92 meetings in this constituency of fantastically long distances. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask whether this matter should not receive our attention. There is the question of maximum loading and unloading. The three previous delimitation commissions tried to preserve a balance between loading and unloading, but they did so on a provincial basis, and although this situation should really benefit the southern part of our country it is very much easier in the particular circumstances to apply that ratio with greater effect in a province like the Transvaal. There may be a third factor, and I mention it here in passing. Is 150 the final number of seats? Since Union the number of seats has been increased by 29 and I do not think anyone of us believes that the present number is the final number. Would we not be able to overcome certain anomalies if we increased this number?

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying this: In creating a new pattern for the future we in this southern complex of our country form the spearhead. In the eastern parts of this complex we are creating a separate freedom for the Transkeian Bantu. In the Western Cape complex we are engaged in purposeful planning to make the area in which the White man is domiciled more White than it is at present. In this southern complex we also have 95 per cent of our Coloured population in respect of whom the Government is to-day following an entirely new pattern for the future, and I ask whether we in this complex can afford to forfeit more seats in this, our highest legislative assembly.

I am sure that the matter raised here by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais), who has just resumed his seat, in respect of the future delimitation of constituencies was directed to the Minister of the Interior, and I am sure that the Minister will reply to it. It is a matter which rests with the Government. I know that it is a real problem, and I know that the constituencies in the rural areas in the Cape are becoming increasingly larger. That is a tendency we have noticed increasingly for the past 15 to 20 years already. It has become increasingly clear that those areas in the Cape Province will increasingly become depopulated, with the result that the constituencies will become increasingly larger. But if we as a nation had devoted attention to the rural areas, we would not have landed in this position where the rural constituencies are becoming so large. But I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member in that regard. As I have said, he directed his remarks to the hon. the Minister.

However, I want to come back to something else which the hon. member said. He said in the beginning of his speech that the policy of the United Party was one of having an undivided state, with the result that in the course of time we would hand over the country to the majority group in terms of the principle of one man, one vote, and that consequently the Black man would eventually govern the country. By implication the hon. member for Moorreesburg of course says that they on that side stand for a divided state; that they want to divide South Africa into compartments—compartments for the Black man, for the Coloured and for the White man, and in addition a compartment for the Indians. But what are the facts of the matter? The fact is that the hon. member for Moorreesburg and the Nationalist Party have no reply to the question we have already repeatedly put to them, namely: Where is that state that you want to create for the Coloureds? The hon. the Prime Minister said at Swellendam last year—and I quote from the Burger of 21 October 1963—

It is therefore admitted that having Coloured separate states is not the solution, but in the meantime, according to Press reports, the Government is creating a super-structure in order to give the Coloureds a separate state. But is that so? Where is it possible to create a separate state for the Coloureds? Where is it possible to create a separate state for the Indians? But the hon. member for Moorreesburg, by implication, intimates that they on that side of the House stand for a divided South Africa. The hon. member says that in essence the United Party itself is responsible for its catastrophes. In other words, this party has never yet done anything good for South Africa. But last year there was an election in which the hon. member for Karoo won, and who was his opponent? His opponent was Mr. Daantjie Scholtz, a former member of this House and the Deputy-Chairman of Committees. And what did he propound? He said—

He continues—

What is he objecting to? Mr. Scholtz objects to the implementation of job reservation and the implementation of the Group Areas Act in respect of the Coloureds. But now the hon. member for Moorreesburg says all the evil lies in the United Party. But their own people, the people whom they are prepared to support when they are nominated as candidates for the Coloureds, say precisely what the United Party has been saying for 15 years in this country already. If the United Party is such a failure as an Opposition, if we cannot give guidance to the country, I want to know how it is that a man like Mr. Scholtz can say precisely the same things as the United Party in regard to the Coloureds. The hon. member for Moorreesburg knows very well that there is not a single place in the Karoo constituency where Mr. Scholtz was not assisted by the local Nationalist Party organization. I want to quote further from what he said. I read from the Burger—

That is what the United Party has always said. That is the thing which the United Party has always said is an injustice to the Coloureds. But if all the evil is inherent in the United Party, and the party opposite has so much success with their policy, why is it then necessary for the Burgerto predict that in respect of the Bantu homelands it is for the Nationalist Party itself to convince people, and it is not so much the duty of the United Party or others to do so? I want to quote what “Dawie” wrote on 30 March last year—

But they tell us that the evil is really inherent in the United Party itself, and that they enjoy the support of the people. Sir, the hon. member for Moorreesburg says that their policy is one of partitioning South Africa. He does not have to try to convince us that that is their policy. We believe that this is the policy of that side of the House, because the hon. the Prime Minister tells us that this is his policy, and we are prepared to accept his word, but the hon. member tried to convince the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), who said the following on 2 November 1963—

That was at a meeting addressed by the hon. member for Parow, together with the hon. members for Moorreesburg and Stellenbosch, at Tulbagh. This is what he said—

They are the honest people. We are the party without a policy. They are the party in power! The people trust them so much because they are always honest and put their policy to the people! But the hon. member for Parow, at a time when he had his full political wits about him, had to admit that the Nationalist Party did not yet have definite future plans for the Coloureds. That is the tragedy and the irony of South African politics to-day, that on that side of the House one has a Government which has 105 seats here, but outside they do not enjoy the support of 50 per cent of the voters whom they represent. If one talks to people individually, including Nationalists, they tell one that the United Party policy in respect of immigration is correct, that its policy in respect of the Coloureds is correct, and that its policy in respect of not dividing up the country is correct. Why then are hon. members able to form the Government of this country?

Why do so many of your supporters leave you?

There are two reasons why hon. members opposite are able to form the Government. They are being kept in power to-day simply because circumstances outside the control of South Africa, circumstances on the Continent of Africa and circumstances in the world keep them there, but not because the people of South Africa support their policy. That is so because one can analyse their policy and come to only one conclusion, viz. that the policy will not be able to preserve White civilization in this country when Bantu states are established and secondly, that they do not have a definite policy in respect of the Coloureds. In respect of the Bantu, their policy will result in the White man not only losing his authority over the smaller South Africa, as they put it, but over South Africa as a whole. And in respect of the Coloureds they have no policy which will really persuade those people to take the side of Western civilization. Those are the facts of South African politics to-day. But we are told that the evil is really inherent in the United Party.

In the last few minutes at my disposal I should like to mention a matter which affects the farmers of South Africa. We have heard from the Ministers of Agriculture that the troubles of the farmers should not be laid at the door of the Government. They are not the scapegoats. No, the trouble is really due to the higher land prices, and the solution will not be to grant the farmers higher prices. The Minister of Agricultural Economics made the same statement a few days ago, and it is a statement he made also on various occasions last year, firstly when he addressed the National Party Congress, and also the Transvaal Agricultural Union Congress. I have extracts from four different newspapers of the Minister’s speeches, and every report agreed with what the hon. the Minister said only a few days ago. He says—

That comes from the Landbou Weekblad of last year. I can also quote from the Burger of 6 September last year, where he said the same thing at the National Party Congress—

I can quote four different cuttings where the Minister said precisely the same thing, and now I want to put this question to hon. members opposite. If they say that stable prices and increased prices for agricultural products do not benefit the farmer, do they want to intimate that the farmer should be satisfied with low prices? I want to ask the Ministers of Agriculture: If they think that high prices or stable prices are not the solution, then there is only one alternative left, and that is that prices should be low, and is it then the policy of this Government that the farmers should receive low prices? That is the main difficulty of the farmers. It is not that land prices are too high, but because they increasingly have to be satisfied with lower prices for their products, while production costs are increasing. There is no doubt but that the margin of profit of the farmer has become increasingly smaller under this Government over the past 15 years, and that is the reason why increasingly more farmers leave the land. We on this side are entitled to ask the Government: If it is not its policy to guarantee high prices, then what is its policy? Is it its policy that the farmers should be satisfied with less and less for their products? [Interjection.] The hon. member for Cradock says that is nonsense, but is he in favour of higher prices? [Interjection.] The hon. member says he is in favour of stable prices. I am glad to hear that he differs from the Minister, because the Minister has repeatedly stated that he is opposed to increased prices and also to stable prices. [Interjection.] I really would not like hon. members to say that the Minister did not say so, because he said it repeatedly, as I have already shown. It was reported in the Burger and the Oosterlig of 6 September, and also in Merino. We on this side feel that the farmers, in spite of the wonderful prosperity which is supposed to prevail in the country, do not get their legitimate share. We know that agricultural production has increased. Nobody denies that. It increased by R27,000,000 in the past year, but the matter which can not be brought to the notice of the Government strongly enough is that in spite of the increased production, the margin of profit of the farmer is steadily decreasing, and that is the trouble. It is no use saying that production is increasing if increasingly more farmers have to leave the land because they cannot maintain their standard of living as the result of the fact that their prices are too low, and that is the task which the Government should tackle in the year that lies ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was concerned particularly with two matters. In the first place he attacked the policy of this side without referring to any policy on that side which could be substituted for it, and secondly his speech dealt with what the hon. the Minister is supposed to have said, that high prices will not benefit the farmer. The hon. the Minister has denied it, and I hope to return to this point after the dinner hour. But allow me to say this in regard to policy. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) referred to-day to the prosperity in the country, and he heaved a deep sigh and remarked how much better off the country would have been had the United Party been in power. But if things had gone better, it would only have been as the result of some policy of theirs, and now I do not know what policy the United Party has had for the past 15 years which could have made this country more prosperous. Now it is unfortunately true that the Sunday Times recently said that no Nationalist Member of Parliament could really make a speech unless he had read the Sunday Times, and I want to begin by quoting from the Sunday Times of 7 April 1963. After the Leader of the Opposition had announced his umpteenth new policy, I read the following in the Sunday Times of 7 April 1963—

If the United Party, which has now been sitting in the Opposition benches for almost 15 years, only last year, according to the Sunday Times, for the first time announced a comprehensive policy then one asks oneself with reference to which policy would the United Party have succeeded in achieving greater prosperity in South Africa? With reference to the election in Namaqualand, just allow me to indicate from this pamphlet what the position is in regard to the so-called policy adopted by the United Party. It really amounts to this. A son attended university, and towards the end of his third year he telegraphed his father: I cannot come home for this vacation; send me some money to spend here. The father telegraphed him: Did you pass or fail? The son telegraphed back: Yes. And the father telegraphed: Yes what? The son telegraphed: Yes, Dad. That is how far we have come after 15 years with the United Party and the Leader of the Opposition in regard to their policy: Yes, Dad. I read here—

Listen to this, Mr. Speaker—

And now we get the egg-dance. On 18 October the Free State secretary of the United Party, Mr. Jan Fourie, tells the Friend—

In the same paper in which Mr. Fourie’s statement appeared, the following was said in a leading article—

On 24 October a letter by Mr. Jan Fourie, the secretary of the United Party in the Free State, appeared in the Volksblad, in which he quotes from a handbook for better race relations issued in August 1963, and which is a statement of United Party policy in regard to race relations. I am just pointing to the egg-dance performed by the United Party in connection with their race policy. Then we continually hear in this House: Where would this country not have been had the United Party been in power with its policy? In this letter he clearly states that the policy of the United Party is that the Bantu will be represented in this Parliament by Whites. On the same day that this letter by Mr. Fourie appeared in the Volksblad, Sir de Villiers Graaff stated at Heilbron that the right to have direct representation in Parliament could not be withheld from the Natives indefinitely. The next day on 25 October Sir de Villiers Graaff stated at Winburg that our children would only have to decide one day whether they would give Natives representation in Parliament or not. But what does Mr. Mitchell of Natal say? On 25 October the United Party leader in Natal stated that the policy of the United Party was that the Natives would be represented in Parliament by Whites. On 26 October again Sir de Villiers Graaff stated, on the farm Merriesfontein in the district of Bloemhof, that—

It is an egg-dance such as has never been seen before, Sir, with regard to something which one cannot call a policy.

The hon. member repeatedly pointed out and emphasized that the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing is supposed to have said that there can be no increase in the price of the farmers’ products—none at all; that it would not benefit the farmer to receive higher prices for his products. Not only here, but also at the Congress, the hon. the Minister very clearly stated his standpoint in this regard. We on this side feel that an uncontrolled increase in production prices will lead to inflation in regard to land prices, and that eventually it will result in a vicious circle from which we will not be able to escape. The denial of the hon. the Minister that he said this is based on the facts. We had the same sort of thing when it was stated that the two Ministers of Agriculture had said that all small farmers would have to leave their farms, and when the Minister spoke about the consolidation of farms in order to give farmers a better chance to make a living.

I shall revert to this denial by the hon. the Minister after dinner. In the meantime, seeing that the debate has now swung over to agriculture, I want to follow a course somewhat unique in the sphere of agriculture, a course which to some extent deviates from the stereotyped speeches we have so often made and listened to here. I should like to refer to agriculture, in relation to the food question.

Business suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended, I promised to revert to the allegation made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) in regard to what the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing is supposed to have said, viz. that higher prices for farm products will not help the farmers, as if he was thereby intimating that he would not allow it. I looked it up and found that the Minister had denied that report, and that denial appeared in the Press. Here is the denial of the Minister, namely that it would be ridiculous to say that higher produce prices would not help the farmer, just as ridiculous as it would be to say that higher salaries and wages would not benefit the wage earner. The Minister further says that if in fact he had said anything like that, he could be regarded as a man bereft of his senses. The hon. the Minister was replying to an allegation by the Opposition that the farmers were leaving the land as the result of low produce prices. He said further that even high prices for products in some cases had the effect of farmers leaving the land. That sounds paradoxical, but he immediately gave the explanation that when things were going so well the large-scale farmers bought out the smaller ones. They offer attractive prices and the small farmers sell, because with that capital they are able to make a better living elsewhere. And the farmer who wants to expand and who has the capital is prepared to pay that very attractive price for the land of that small farm. In that way there are also farmers who leave the land as the result of high prices, and not of low prices. That is how the Minister put the matter. The Minister said that high prices alone could not solve this problem. He said that there were also other factors and other measures which should be applied in order to improve the position of the farmer. Surely there are rebates, subsidies, standardization, soil and water conservation, the effective use of labour, selection and land prices. I am not mentioning these things in order to defend the Minister, but we know they exist. If all these things are taken into consideration, the farmers’ position may be improved. The Minister has said that simply increasing prices will not help in itself. But you know, Sir, one can play with words. I want to give an example. I hope you will allow me to read this little epigram. We all know what an epigram is. I see a thoughtful expression on your face, Mr. Speaker, because you never know what to expect when an hon. member talks in this way and you will not be able to judge before I have read it. If the Minister were to read this epigram he would read it in this way—

Niet in de hel, dat weet ek wel.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) would read it like this—

Now you can see, Sir, how one can be reduced from a state of happiness to one of misery merely by changing a comma in what the hon. the Minister is alleged to have said.

Mr. Speaker, I have prepared a speech on the relationship and the indivisibility of agricultural production and the problem of nutrition. But now it is clear to me that I cannot make that speech because my time has elapsed. I just want to make one point before I sit down: This is a particularly good speech, and I am sure I will be able to use it on a later occasion.

I want to congratulate the last speaker on the latter portion of his speech. It was excellent. Sir, it must be a great satisfaction to the hon. the Minister of Finance to be able to get up in this House and tell us that he has been able to send abroad R12,000,000 of the State’s finance for short-term investment in addition to the R51,000,000 that has already been sent abroad by private banks. But this golden statement of the hon. the Minister’s is somewhat tempered by the fact that he had to tell us in the same speech that he had extended the terms of the revolving credits of the United States and Germany at rates far in excess of the money market rate in this country and that these credits, to quote the Minister, “may be required not so very far in the future.” I hope, when we come to the Budget speech, that the hon. the Minister will elaborate very considerably on that last statement.

The statement of the hon. the Minister’s loses its effect still further, Sir, when one realizes that the gold and foreign reserves are maintained by an artificial barrier which has been placed around the export of funds from this country through the medium of exchange control, and that the problem of inflationary pressures is also mainly a problem of too much money. When too much is available it is an indication that much of the tempo of our increased production has resulted from the absorption of surplus capacity and the employment of those people previously unemployed and not from new production. At the same time the hon. the Minister is faced with rises in prices of various commodities.

I want to deal in particular with the question of the rise in the price of petrol. From now on I address my remarks to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I believe that the hon. the Minister has treated this country with considerable discourtesy in this matter of the rise in the price of petrol. What is the history of it? Some while ago a short notice appeared in the Press saying that the price of petrol was going to be increased and that the increase in price was to be utilized towards the cost of the new pipe-line. This was eventually denied by the Department and it was said that if there were to be an increase it would certainly not be used for the pipe-line. Then a couple of weeks ago, on a Sunday evening, the price controller announced an increase in the price of petrol. According to the Daily Mail of 27 January all that was said was this—

No reason is given in this statement for the increase in the price of petrol. We are not told who is to benefit; is it the State, the supplier, the petrol companies or the garages? All we do know is that the motorist is not to benefit. Then the following appeared in the Star of the same date—

Here at last we knew who was going to get the benefit. Then he goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a correct attitude of the Department of Commerce to take in relation to a product which is so universally used. In 1963 508,000,000 gallons of petrol were sold in this country and this 0.6 cent rise mean a minimum of R3,000,000 into the pockets of the petrol companies. But the Department does not seem to be very concerned about that. Their attitude is merely: “After all, if you buy 10 gallons of petrol it means you will only be paying 6 cents more”. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence about this increase in the price of petrol. If you talk to anybody you get no information except that certain discussions were held and that everybody seems to have come to a very happy agreement. The R.A.C., for example, Sir, one of the organizations which looks after the motorists, said, according to the Cape Argus of 27 January—

Nobody, not commerce, not industry, not the automobile associations, seems to come forward with the usual complaints which rightly take place when there is an increase in the price of petrol. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us with whom he made arrangements and with whom he had discussions and who agreed to the increase in the price of petrol? For certainly the public of South Africa was not taken into his confidence and the increased price was certainly just thrown on them.

There are one or two other factors. The price of premium petrol has been increased as well as that of ordinary petrol. In a publication by the Automobile Association in June 1963 they complain that premium petrol was over-priced. But the present increase applies to both premium and ordinary petrol so that to-day ordinary petrol is netting a gross profit of 6.55 cents and premium petrol is netting a gross profit of 8.5 cents; and these have now both gone up by another 0.6 cent. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister why does this increase apply to both classes of petrol. There is something else: Was the increase in the price of petrol really necessary? In the Financial Mail of January 31 they say—

But here is an interesting factor, Sir, if this report is correct, which I have no doubt it is—

So whereas this particular oil company was getting a return of per cent on its capital in 1959 it had achieved 5.2 per cent in 1960, 6.3 per cent in 1961 and 5.9 per cent in 1962. And yet the hon. the Minister, in his wisdom, has deemed it necessary to give an increase which is going to cost this country R3,000,000 to R4,000,000 per annum.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the public of South Africa is entitled to an explanation of this rise in the price of petrol. Everybody is affected. It is no good being naive and it is no good the Department telling us that it is only going to cost us 6 cents per 10 gallons of petrol. There are users in this country who use tens of thousands of gallons of petrol every month. We have the hon. the Minister of Finance talking about beating inflation with which we are not dealing to-night but this is not beating inflation, Mr. Speaker; it is jumping inflation to the extent of R3,000,000 to R4,000,000 per annum, and I hope we shall have an explanation from the hon. the Minister.

After having listened to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin), I gained the impression that they are just concerned about the large amount of money which is available in the country. That was really the criticism he tried to express. In regard to the second portion of his speech, which dealt with the increase in the price of petrol, I unfortunately cannot reply to him. I leave that in the efficient hands of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

It is quite clear. All the speeches this afternoon, starting with the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), were to me very splendid testimonies to the success this Government has achieved in bringing about such a tremendous upsurge in the economy of the country. In spite of the doubts he tried to express, his whole speech was larded with acknowledgment that things are going well with our country. The hon. member for Constantia was just concerned as to whether this economic upsurge will be maintained. I immediately want to assure him that this Government, with its well considered policy, is the only one which can maintain, develop and guarantee this economic upsurge. We can also give him the assurance that the greater demands made on our transportation system through the increased production will also be coped with under the efficient guidance of the hon. the Minister of Transport.

I do not know whether the Minister of Transport can feel flattered because the hon. member for Constantia gave him such a good testimonial to-day. I have sympathy with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) who, it appears, has now become the main critic in regard to transportation. It appears that recently there was a change in the Shadow Cabinet of the Opposition, because the hon. member for Yeoville is now the chief Railways critic. We should like to see how strongly he can criticize the Minister of Transport, seeing that his bench-mate has such a high regard for the Minister. We surely all agree that in order to maintain this economic upsurge it is necessary to have the necessary capital in the country. This cannot be disputed. It is general knowledge that the coffers of the country are running over, so much so that investments abroad have had to be considered and investigated. The Minister said in his speech that he intended investing some of our superfluous capital overseas. A man like Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, inter alia, said the following—

In the first place we must have the necessary manpower in the country. We have all the necessary unskilled workers as the result of the large numbers of non-White workers we have in the country. The potential of these non-White workers will in future be utilized much better as the result of their upliftment, a task which this Government is tackling. In this regard we think of education, housing, etc., which will certainly make them better workers. We also know that in the near future we may perhaps have trouble in regard to skilled workers and technicians, of which there may possibly be a shortage. But thanks to the policy of this Government, their numbers will be complemented judiciously by immigration. As far as the distant future is concerned, the picture is much brighter. It is a matter which enjoys the attention of the Government every day. There is the Scientific Advisory Council which investigates the question of the available manpower so that it may be put to the best use. We have the Education Advisory Council which will give guidance in applying the best possible methods for the training of our manpower potential. If we want to stabilize and maintain this economic growth, it is necessary to have peace and safety in this country. Thanks to the efficient actions of the Minister of Justice, who has ensured the internal security of our country, in spite of the fact that the Opposition so sharply attacks the 90-day detention clause, saboteurs find it very difficult to operate in our country to-day. Our Minister of Defence has built up a military force which is respected by most nations in the world. We need not argue further about that. We accept that the Republic of South Africa is one of the few countries in the world in which there is complete peace and order and where the safety of the individual and of his possessions is ensured. We must admit that under the régime of the National Party, our national safety and a stronger economy have been assured.

Now the question arises: To what is this economic growth, this prosperity, peace and safety in our country due? The hon. member for Constantia also put that question. He asked: “To what do we owe this prosperity?” But to me the reply is quite simple. The country was able to make this rapid progress in the economic and other spheres in recent years because it is being governed by a Government elected by the National Party, a party which is based on principles. The National Party was established under the efficient leadership of General Hertzog. With the slogan, South Africa First, he built and developed this country. The National Party has stood firmly on two legs since its establishment. The one is the ideal of freedom and the other is the ideal of apartheid. To-day, after 50 years, the National Party still stands on the same principles on which it was founded. The policy of the party, ever since it was established, has run like a golden thread throughout its history, i.e. the ideals of freedom and of apartheid. We need not discuss this further; I am merely stressing the fact. I want to point out one further fact to the Opposition, namely that the basis of our economic growth and of the industrial development of the Republic was laid down by the first National Party Government in this country. That Government, under the leadership of General Hertzog in the ’twenties, and under the leadership of Minister Havenga, gave us a policy of protecting our industries. Unless we had that, we would not have had the industrial growth we have in South Africa to-day. I do not want to rub it in, but we know how the then Opposition criticized and opposed Mr. Havenga’s policy. To-day it is accepted, and they must concede that if it were not for that policy of protection implemented by the first Nationalist Government, we would never have had this economic growth.

The second foundation laid by the National Party to ensure our recent economic growth was the establishment of ISCOR. Everybody to-day accepts that this is the basis of our economic and industrial development. There were many disputes about it, and I do not want to rub it into the Opposition too hard. The most important point of all is that this economic growth and prosperity under the Nationalist Government is due to the fact that the National Party had great leaders. To-day we can mention the list of National Party leaders with pride. They were men who captured the imagination of the people. Beginning with General Hertzog, there were Dr. Malan, Advocate Strijdom and Dr. Verwoerd, all men who captured the imagination of the people. With such leaders it is obvious that a Government can and must reach the heights. In contrast with that, we have the Opposition to-day—we need not emphasize it—which lacks leadership. If they do not get rid of their Leader they will be landed with him. In the second place, the United Party lacks a clearly defined programme of principles. In the past we have had so many divergent interpretations and standpoints in regard to their colour policy that we really do not know what to believe. It is no wonder that the people outside are increasingly leaving their ranks. If the Opposition in any way envisages becoming the future alternative Government, they must see to it that they have an efficient leader and a well defined and clear programme of principles.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite have followed the same pattern they have always followed ever since I have been in this House. We have just listened to the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) who represents a constituency but who never talks about his constituency. According to him everything is rosy in the garden; they can swim on Sunday, or is it never on Sunday? I am not so sure.

Various members, including the hon. member for Welkom, have protected the Ministers. It must give great relief to the Cabinet that every member on the Government side gets up and defends their policy. But never at any time do you hear them talking about their constituencies. One wonders whether they have just been elected here en bloc to speak on behalf of the Nationalist Party. The hon. member for Welkom went to great lengths to praise the Minister of Finance in regard to the investment of free capital overseas. He said that was a wonderful thing and that we had a wonderful Minister. We are told that there is very great prosperity in this country. We have not seen any relaxation of import control to any degree; we have not seen any relaxation as far as any capital flow is concerned. Let us give this prosperity a test. Let us release these various controls and see how good this prosperity is. I think that will be the test. Just the other day the Minister introduced a Bill to control prices. I want to remind the hon. member for Welkom about this country of ours, this country that is enjoying peace, this country of which a part is living under Proclamation 400, this country in which quite a number of people are locked up under the 90-day detention clause; this quiet, peaceful country. Let me tell him that this is a very small country. The hon. the Minister of Defence made a speech last year and he said that his Government should, as one of its major tasks, try to make a break-through to the African States. He realizes that this country is isolated here. The rest of the world is out of step; we are the only country in step. The hon. member for Welkom gave us a long explanation on the history of the Nationalist Party. We know its record. [Interjections.] Do not let us go back to the war because it makes very bad reading and it makes very bad listening to. To tell us that the industrial development in this country is due to the Nationalist Party is just so much nonsense. The Nationalist Party did everything they possibly could during the war to upset the foundation of this great industrial development. Since the war they have done everything possible to upset labour relations in this country on a racialistic basis by killing industrial development. So please do not make those claims; it is just ridiculous to do so …

You have done well since the war.

So have you; you are sitting in this House. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the very great leaders of the Nationalist Party. I admit there were some very great leaders in South Africa—General Smuts, General Botha. I want to talk about the very great leader we have with us to-day—Sir de Villiers Graaff. [Laughter.] You may laugh, but when you are sitting on this side of the House, and that is not very far away, you will see that our Leader, the Leader of the Opposition, will lead South Africa back on the road of no control and full confidence in this country.

I want to deal with something that affects my constituency. I want to go back to the fishing industry. I am sorry the hon. Prime Minister is not here because I know he is very interested in fishing. The fishing industry in this country has been described as the stepchild of the South African industries, and it has over the last year or so grown into one of our very wealthy giants. We have become one of the largest exporters of canned pilchards and we are the third largest exporters of canned fish and fish body-oil. I would like to tell my friends from the north who are intent in moving everything from the Western Cape that it even rivals the great steel industry that they are developing up there. The foreign exchange it is earning at the present moment equals that of the wine industry, and as it develops, I hope it will help the Minister of Finance in the respect that he will not have to call on those loans that he has arranged for overseas. He has made arrangements for those loans because I think he is also not too happy about the question how long this prosperity is going to last. I may say that we of the United Party have every confidence in South Africa and that notwithstanding the Government the prospects are good. We know that the voter outside is sensible and when the time comes he will remove the present Government and put in a Government that will take care of things.

What has that got to do with the fishing industry?

I want to tell the hon. member for Kempton Park that we cannot move the fish to Kempton Park. Sir, the fishing industry in this country is like the diamond industry on the coast—it cannot be moved.

That is a border industry.

A border industry on the coast! This fishing industry during the régime of the United Party was considered of such importance that the hon. member for Constantia set up the Fishing Development Corporation, one of the most successful development corporations that exist to-day and one of the corporations that is making money. I want to give credit where credit is due. This particular corporation has done an outstanding job in respect of harbours, boats, housing and has assisted wherever possible. But they are mainly concerned with inshore fishing and not deep-sea fishing. There seems to be an amount of misunderstanding when we talk about providing facilities for inshore or for deep-sea fishing. They are two different types of fishing, but we find to-day that deep-sea fishing, where there is a lot of competition, is just as important as inshore fishing. The Food and Agricultural Organization which prepares the world production records has estimated that in 1962, something like 44,720,000 metric tons of fish were caught in this world of ours, and South Africa and South West Africa shared in that to the extent of just over 1,000,000 ton. Our industry is creeping up. Now the Government’s approach to this gold mine of ours, on the coast of our country, I would like to say is conservative, is not dynamic—I am not going to suggest that the Government should introduce a crash programme, but here in Cape Town, we have been waiting for a number of years for the building of a fishing harbour. The hon. Minister of Railways says that he would like to get rid of the fishing boats out of his harbours, but that it is up to the Minister of Economic Affairs to do something about it. He has to provide the money and has to say where the harbours should be built. The Minister of Railways says that once that has been decided, he will get on with the job. I believe he would do so. A company wanted to put up a refinery in Cape Town, which is now been proceeded with, and they wanted a deep-water berth, and, believe it or not, that is in the course of construction and will be completed in the next couple of years. But as far as the Minister of Economic Affairs is concerned, his Department have been taking samples over a number of years and the latest report we have tells us that the matter is still being examined and that sites are being tested, and it will be some time before we will know where this harbour is going to be built. But, Mr. Speaker, there is some urgency for this particular harbour. Only to-day if you look out into the bay, there were some of the five largest stern trawlers that you have in the world to-day. They come from other countries, and they are fishing off our coast, as far as 200 miles out, not in our territorial waters, but they are bringing fish up and this fish is exported. We, through the lack of facilities in this country, do not offer any encouragement to local industries, to local companies to build these boats because they have nowhere to put them. Furthermore I might say that one of these particular companies is very anxious to share in our prosperity in this country and are prepared to invest money in this country by the formation of a company. I think we all welcome that, but there again their efforts are going to be stymied because we have not got the facilities. What we want in this country of ours is first-class harbours for our fishing industry; we want to see this harbour in Cape Town built. Furthermore, where we build these harbours to help our fishermen on the coast, we want adequate cold-storage facilities. Boycotts do not count here, because people have to live and they have to eat to live and there is a wonderful export market for our fish. We would like to see these cold-storage facilities provided. We have them in Cape Town for our fruit and we would like cold storage provided for the fishing industry as well. We would like to see facilities in Cape Town and places like Kalk Bay and Hout Bay. We know private companies do their best, but we feel that the Government should do something about it on a big scale. It is a case of getting on with the job. We have been dallying far too long with this gold mine right at our door. I feel—I do not know whether it is because the administrative capital of ours is in the Transvaal, where fishing is not so good—that we in the Cape are left in the cold. I want the hon. Minister to do something about it and please make a statement in this House as to what is going to happen, especially in regard to the fishing harbour here in the Cape.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) says that we never mention our constituencies. I listened attentively to him but did not hear him mention the name of his constituency of Salt River. Once, on the contrary, I heard him discuss in great detail what is happening at sea. I think that his speech was probably prophetic. I take it that in a few years’ time that will be the only place in which they will still be able to win seats, but those seats will probably be under water and not on the surface.

I also listened to the speeches that were made during the course of this debate. Some of them were quite humorous but I do not think that this House is always in the right mood to be able to laugh at a good joke. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) told us that the United Party has the majority of voters on its side. I take it that that is the reason why our party is going from strength to strength. This makes me think of the lad who had been fighting and when he arrived home covered with blood his father said: “What have you been doing?” He said: “Father, I have been fighting.” His father then asked him: “What happened; who won?” To which he replied: “Father, I won, because while we were fighting, we fell down and I fell underneath, and then we both ran and I was in front.” That is precisely how hon. members on that side reason; that is their logic. They say that the wealth of South Africa, our prosperity, is certainly not due to the policy of the National Government. The other day when I was paging through the old Hansard, just for something to do, the Hansard of the days when I was not a member of this House, I was struck by the terrible prophecies that were made by the Opposition in regard to what the position would be immediately after we became a Republic. They said that the misery that would result would be due directly to our policy. Now that we have great prosperity in the country instead of misery, it suddenly has nothing to do with the policy of this Government and with the administration of this Government. It has happened purely by chance! This is really a wonderful way to argue but I must say I find it very strange. Unfortunately I do not have the time to discuss the speeches of hon. members of the Opposition any further because I want to talk about other very important matters.

Some of the hon. members on this side of the House, particularly the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) raised some very important matters to-day. In his speech he referred to the depopulation of the platteland by Whites. He said that our numbers there are becoming fewer and he pointed out how far behind the Cape was in the economic sphere. I personally think that the depopulation of the platteland by Whites is not put in quite the right perspective. I do not think that it is so much a question of depopulation that is taking place as far as the platteland is concerned. If we peruse the voters lists we find that there has been a gradual increase in the number of voters in the rural areas but that increase has been far slower than the growth in the rest of the country and this is due to various factors. It is quite obvious why the growth in the northern parts of our country has been so much faster. In the first place this growth has taken place because of the gold that has been found there. Gold has a tremendous power of attraction and it is the gold that has to a large extent been responsible for the fact that people have invested their money in the northern areas. Another reason is that coal and water has been found there and these have provided the north with cheap power. One can understand that industrialists have been attracted to the north because of these factors. There is water for domestic consumption, for commercial purposes, and I can well understand that these factors have been partly responsible for the swifter growth there. Another factor which has contributed very directly to this position is our traditional railway tariff policy. I know that is now being reviewed and I hope that things will be rectified. The poor transport facilities in our part of the Cape have to a large extent been responsible for the fact that part of our country—a very large part of our country—is extremely thinly populated and that the whole of our part of the country is gradually being emptied of inhabitants.

Mr. Speaker, an analysis of the reasons does not get us anywhere. I think that the time has come when something will have to be done to combat this position. What can be done to help and improve this position? I want to say immediately that I believe that the solution to the problems will have to be found in the north-west itself. I do not want to make the same mistake as that made by the hon. member for Salt River and that is not to speak about my constituency. I shall try therefore to come a little closer to my constituency. When mention is made of the north-west, it is often referred to as a country of samples. I am not trying to detract from the Vaal River and to belittle the samples found there. I am referring here to mineral samples. It is generally well-known that there are a large number of mineral deposits in the north-west; that the country is particularly rich in mineral samples but that those samples have never actually been properly tested. Nothing has actually been done to find out what can be produced there. That is why it has simply remained a country of samples. I just want to say that one of the important reasons why the samples have not yet been thoroughly investigated has been the inaccessibility of that area. Large parts particularly of the mineral-bearing areas, the rich mineral areas, cannot actually be reached unless a helicopter is used or one goes on foot and even then things are still very difficult. I think of that tremendous area, the Richtersveld, which covers hundreds of miles, which has very rich mineral deposits, or let me say, from which we have had many samples of various uncommon minerals that very definitely merit research. I think that the development that has taken place over the past while has now made it possible for us to do something in this connection.

Before I discuss this matter any further I want to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs for having visited my constituency during the last recess and for the very sympathetic way in which he has approached our problems there. I gained the impression that he was really impressed and that what was being done there opened his eyes. I want to thank the hon. the Minister very much indeed. I also want to express my thanks to the Secretary for Mines who has always been sympathetic when we have approached him with our problems. I know that he is very keenly interested in the development of that area and that he has a great deal of confidence in that area. I also want to express my thanks that certain official posts in my constituency have been regarded and that we are now going to have more officials there. I also want to express my thanks to the capable officials whom we have there and who work under difficult conditions. They are doing good work and I am sure that we will get somewhere with people of this calibre. The Director of Metallurgy will also be visiting that area in the near future and I believe that this will lead to even further development. I want to thank the Secretary for Mines for his share in bringing this about.

Mr. Speaker, we all know about the diamonds of Namaqualand and we all know about its copper, but what few people know about is perhaps its sillimanite and corundum that is being mined there to-day with great success by private entrepreneurs. Few people know too that the diamonds in Namaqualand are spread over a surface area of thousands of morgen, that these have now to be localized before they can be developed and that there are still large copper deposits which have as yet not been touched. We simply do not know what those copper deposits can produce if we do not develop them. I am sure that the public of South Africa are quite unaware of the fact that there we have very large deposits of wollastronite, phosphates, barytes, sillimanite and siliconic acid. Until recently it was felt that pegmatite could not be developed there there economically. This idea has now fortunately been proved wrong. A private undertaking started to mine pegmatite a few years ago. They are now on their fifth tunnel and they have achieved a great deal of success. We want to continue to mine pegmatite. I am quite sure that hon. members know that there are other places rich in beryllium wolfram, tantalite, columbite, bismuth, lufidolite, spudomine, mica and so forth. These are all base minerals that are found there.

Our problem has always been transport, water and so forth. We have, however, had a certain amount of development there recently and under the good Government that we have in this country I am convinced of the fact that that area will be given attention. Certain things have been done over the past years that would not have been done under the old United Party Government. We had an interdepartmental commission of inquiry there recently on which were represented the Departments of Coloured Affairs, Water Affairs, Agricultural Technical Services and Mines. That commission found that if the Orange River Scheme was developed to its maximum and if the area that had been reserved for the Coloureds was developed to its full potential, it would become necessary to build a road between Vioolsdrift and Alexander Bay. This would immediately open up an area for us Which up to the present has been completely inaccessible. It has been impossible to enter this area with anything other than a helicopter or, perhaps with a particularly good jeep. It has been impossible to bring a drilling machine into that area. With these developments I believe that tremendous possibilities are being opened up. The Orange River Scheme will give us power, cheap electrical power; it will give us water for domestic and commercial purposes. I believe that if hydroelectric power can be generated in that area it will in the distant future lead to the supplementing of our power by means of a nuclear power station because the minerals that are needed for that purpose are to be found in that area.

We have confidence in that part of the country. Commerce has confidence in that area. Take for example the wonderful ship that arrived in Table Bay harbour to-day, the Swazi Coast, which will be put into service between Cape Town and Port Nolloth. The people in that area have confidence in the development that is taking place there. A large development company has been established there. Everything points to the fact that people have confidence in that area. And now I want to direct an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I should actually ask for an Odendaal Commission because the area merits it, but that would perhaps be rather ambitious at present. That is why I appeal to the hon. the Minister to ask one of his Departments—the Department of Economic Affairs or the Department of Mines—to initiate inter-departmental discussions at high level, perhaps at Secretarial level, if possible. Unfortunately, because my time is limited, I cannot motivate my case any further but I ask that the Departments of Mines, of Railways and Harbours and of Defence, the Provincial Administration, the Departments of Agriculture and Water Affairs and the Department of Coloured Affairs should all participate in the discussions of this departmental committee, see what can be done for the development of this area and determine its potential. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to think in this direction and I want to give him the assurance that I am convinced that the solution to the depopulation problem will to a large extent be found up there in the north-west. The leeway that the Cape has to make up in the economic field today may to a large extent be made up by an investigation of the possibilities I have mentioned.

The hon. member who has just sat down opened up on a very sound note. He said that the Opposition had maintained that the prosperity which the country was enjoying was not due to Government policy. He tried in some measure to destroy that argument, but failed lamentably, because he did admit that a great deal of it was due to the fact that a number of new mines had started and obviously had contributed to the economy of the country. Mr. Speaker, this side of the House does maintain that the prosperity of South Africa at the present time is not due to the policy of the Government. It is due, as they well know, themselves, to the remarkable wealth which this country enjoys, a great deal of which this side of the House when it was in government helped to initiate and put onto the road to full development. The development of the mines in the Free State formed the basis of the future prosperity which the country is enjoying to-day and for which the Minister tries to take credit. The hon. Minister of Finance must also admit that in this upsurge of progress it was necessary to have a free flow of labour and a plentiful supply of labour which the country enjoyed over the last ten years in the integration of a further, 1,000,000 unskilled workers into urban and rural life of South Africa. All these factors are important factors in helping the economy of the country.

I want to say further that the hon. the Minister must also answer as to why the prosperity of this country has developed in this remarkable manner when in fact it is due largely to the beleaguered economy Which this Government established some years ago when the reserves of our country began to drain away and when it feared the consequences of the loss of friends that it was beginning to suffer because of its policies. The economy immediately became anchored down and the doors of the country were closed. So we enjoy year by year nearly R400,000,000 to R600,000,000 of money which flows into the coffers of insurance companies and into the coffers of the Treasury from the mines whose production is increasing year by year, and money which also flows into the various savings accounts of building societies, banks and others as a result of the thriftiness of the public as well as the fact that the money cannot be invested as in any other economy namely without any limitations and without being restricted in any way. I do not begrudge my country this prosperity, no South African does, and some of the nonsense we hear on the Government side of the House that we begrudge the wealth we are enjoying must be answered by the fact that every South African not only enjoys the economy and the prosperity, but is working hard to help to build it up. After all private enterprise which must make use of the moneys which have accumulated is doing what we find in many other countries where there is a surplus of money—money is being ploughed back into industry and commercial undertakings and the development of land. The money is being made use of, despite the Government, because money cannot lie idle and deteriorate in value. So one has to accept this policy, but nevertheless one must carry on and usefully employ the wealth of the country as it accumulates. It cannot lie idle. That is the common sense economic line which any country follows. But I would like to say further, Mr. Speaker, that the prosperity we are enjoying is not peculiar to South Africa. The prosperity which we are enjoying is a trend which one finds in other countries of the world to-day. Practically all countries are enjoying a trend of prosperity to-day. There are many reasons for it. Even the American economy, which we said was on the downgrade, has also experienced a sudden revival. If one looks at the economy of the Common Market and the economy in Europe in general, one finds the same trend. It is even true of Britain (which at one time was decried by the Government side), the economy of Australia, the economy of some South American countries, that of Canada—all these economies are enjoying a buoyancy to-day which is certainly not less than the buoyancy and the rate of progress that we are enjoying in South Africa. So the hon. Minister of Finance cannot take credit to himself that it is as a result of the policies of the Government. The point I want the Minister to answer is this: I would like him to tell us how he is going to accept the advice given by this side of the House to entrench and contain and protect this buoyancy of the economy. There is only one way he can do it. He must bring about a cessation of the fear which this country has and should make its flow of money freer. If the hon. Minister can satisfy us that he need not rely on his control regulations, his foreign exchange regulations, to keep the economy beleaguered in order to maintain it, then we will get to appreciate that he has some appreciation of maintaining and continuing the prosperity and the buoyancy that South Africa is enjoying to-day. All countries have a reasonably free flow of money. In fact, Sir, economists have told him, and he knows it himself, that there is always the fear that unless we can relieve ourselves of the tremendous moneys that are accumulating year by year, by investing abroad, we will certainly go into a period of high inflation. That is one of the difficulties he has to face and which he has not been able to answer thus far.

Are you the new prophet?

I am not prophesying. I am not prepared to listen to the nonsensical interjections from the hon. gentlemen who try to create an image that we are un-South African in our outlook. Our concern is to ensure that the economy of our country shall be healthy and there is a serious fear in the minds of many economists that despite the remarkable prosperity we are enjoying, the economy is not a healthy one. It is like a person who looks well …

You do not look too bad.

The hon. member even does not look well. The point I want to make is that a thing may look very healthy and rosy on the outside, but is has to be healthy right through, the cross-section of it has got to be healthy, and that is what the hon. the Minister has got to convince this House and the country of—not smugly that he has a prosperous economy, but rather seriously that he has a healthy economy. I want to say that there are certain trends of Government policy which will have a very unhappy effect on the country. We have listened to speakers to-day who spoke of the fact that despite world opinion this is what happens in South Africa, and despite the views of UNO this is what happens in South Africa. The contention all the time is that this side of the House has no right to warn about what world opinion says and what other people outside in the world say. But surely the Government should not adopt a negative policy of that nature. Surely it should be positive and try to make friends, even though they may have a lot of enemies. Surely the attitude of anyone who wants to find a healthy way of life is to make friends and break down the barriers and the prejudices in order to make friends. How does the Government expect this country to believe that they can continue to be impudent about the attitude of other peoples in the world, without making any effort to restore friendship and some links of understanding between ourselves and other nations? I believe it is a trite principle that one must make friends and have friends, and in order to do that we must take positive steps to bring this about, and one of the ways of doing it is to try to improve our image abroad. I want to say categorically that the Information Department is not taking positive steps to improve the South African image. I am sorry the Minister is not here, but unfortunately they rely on some films they have taken. Quite a number of members of this House have had a chance to travel and I have spoken to people in other parts of the world. To my view we, the unofficial ambassadors of South Africa, have helped to improve that image because we have been able to talk to people about our country and its problems. I want to say immediately that I find sympathy on the part of other people in the world when we discuss our problems, which are unique to this country. But when you arrogantly throw across a picture and then criticize people in other parts of the world for not accepting your point of view, how can you expect to have understanding? I would suggest that the Minister of Information must not sell Government policy abroad; he must sell South Africa. I would like my country to be presented properly to the world, and not the Government’s policy. After all, why should the world be of the opinion that no opposition exists in this country and that it is only a one-party Government? That is what they would like to see. It is all very well for them to say the Opposition is weak and to deride the Opposition, but in doing that this Government is destroying the image of South Africa. That is what Ghana is doing. Ghana decided to have an election in order to establish a one-party state. Our Government surely, wishing to preserve a democratic institution and to give a correct world image, is surely not prepared to decry the Opposition where world opinion does not even know that an Opposition exits. [Interjections.] We should try to improve the image of our country abroad, not for to-day but for to-morrow and the next day, and if we do that we will make friends. The Minister of Finance knows, and he has been told by other members, of the very unfavourable image we enjoy politically in the very countries from which he gets loans. We know that bankers will give him the money, but bankers have given money to Nigeria and to Ghana and they have even invested money in the Congo. They will invest money anywhere if there is a chance to earn interest. But the Minister should not seek solace in the fact that because they think they are getting a reasonable interest therefore he has overcome the problem of our not having friends abroad. I believe that this country, which has always enjoyed very high standing and friendship in the world, should try to make friends.

I should like to tell the Minister of Economic Affairs something else. I was in a country which is about 2,500 miles long and 2,000 miles broad, Australia, where he has a trade commissioner resident in Canberra, which has a population of about 40,000 people and is 250 miles away from Sydney, which has 2,500,000 people, and 300 miles away from Melbourne, which has 2,000,000 people, but his trade commissioner sits in Canberra. He has no office even in these two big cities, and I think that difficulty prevails also in other parts of the world. I was also in another part of the world, and this I will not disclose simply because I do not want to embarrass anyone. But there the trade commissioner is crying out for proper propaganda from South Africa. He says: I can sell my country with a great image every day if only I have the facilities and the means. I was led to the very sad conclusion that this Government is quite happy to be in isolation. It is one of these unfortunate psychological complexes where, if they are in isolation, they can appeal to the sympathy of the public and call upon them to stand together because the world is against us. We do not need to have that kind of thing because we are not that type of people. We are people who can move freely in all parts of the world and make a very good impression if only the Government, with its machinery, would help a proper impression being created.

I believe there are two ways in which our country may improve its image. One is by sound and intelligent propaganda, and it should be done through ambassadors, and not artificial ambassadors. The second method is to have sound business links. I want to tell the Minister of Economic Affairs that a few years ago he sent two or three trade commissions to the East, to South America and to Australia. I mention Australia because there has been talk in international circles by people who study these matters of a possibility of a common market between ourselves and what we call our sisters of the South, following a very interesting book written by a South African in regard to the links between ourselves and those countries. These missions that went abroad went to cocktail parties and met important people, but nothing came of it, unless the Minister can tell us how our trade increased. But I find that if the Department would encourage people who are actually engaged in business to go there to investigate matters in certain fields of industrial activity, they would bring back very much better information which would enable us to establish sound and proper trade links between ourselves and those countries. I want to repeat what I said before. We must not content ourselves with the fact that we are enjoying at the moment unprecedented prosperity. That is due to many factors which the Minister of Finance has neither initiated nor controlled. He can only reap the benefit of it. But if we are to maintain a healthy economy, we must improve our image abroad by an amelioration of the policies of this Government and by improving our trade. When I go abroad I want to be faced with a question from an individual as to what my country is like, but not what is my country’s policy in regard to the Olympic Games and in regard to job reservation, etc. I say we have failed to be positive in our approach to public relations between South Africa and other countries, and we have even failed to build up new and stronger trade links with other countries. I say we must give it serious attention and not allow ourselves to be deluded by some of the things we have heard here to-day, always decrying what the Opposition says, and stating that we are a prosperous country. We must be a positive country and not a negative one.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refute the allegation made by the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) that the Government is not responsible for the prosperity prevailing in our country to-day. Business people in this country have confidence in the Government and it is for that reason that they are investing their money in the gold mines and in industry. Another reason is the availability of labour. It has been this Government that has made this possible for them and that is why they have confidence in this country. While the United Party has no good word to say for the efforts of the Government, I shall, later in my speech, tell the House what strangers have to say about our economy and I hope that hon. members opposite will learn a lesson from it.

The hon. member spoke about isolation. That is all very well. We must try to win friends overseas. We have the Department of Information and the Department of Foreign Affairs for this purpose. We know that these people are doing their best and we are spending large sums of money in this regard. But what is actually the position? It has been stated in this House previously this year that what people want is that we should hand the country over to the Bantu. We cannot satisfy those friends whom the hon. member has mentioned with anything less than a policy of one man, one vote.

Who asked for that?

Sir Edgar Whitehead offered at UNO to hand over Southern Rhodesia to a black majority within 15 years and they were not satisfied with that offer. And so all that I can imagine is that the hon. member is prepared to bid higher than Sir Edgar White-head did. The United Party do not hold a licence to sow the seeds of dissention in this House but they do have a licence to give credit to the Government where credit is due. It is the practice when money is voted for the country’s administration that the Opposition has the opportunity to criticize the Government. We have nothing against this but I am opposed to the fact that they should use this opportunity simply to pass destructive criticism which is not in the interests of South Africa. We know that the Opposition make promises to the voters until they are blue in the face. They make promises that will cost hundreds of millions of rand although they know the funds are not available to make good those promises. They promise numbers of services to people and at the same time they say that the taxpayers should pay less tax. How can they reconcile these two things with each other? But I can understand why they do this sort of thing. They know that they will never come into power and so have to answer to the voters for their irresponsible actions in this House. It is the duty and the task of this Government to give maximum services to the public by means of the imposition of minimum taxes, and that is what we are doing.

I looked up the amendments that the Opposition moved in this debate over the past few years. In 1961 they were worried about the continued out flow of investment capital, the loss of skilled, useful citizens, the general sluggishness of the country’s economic development and the resultant slump in our agriculture and in our trade. The Government has gone into all these matters and it is still giving these matters its attention. The matters that they have mentioned in their amendment to-day are also matters to which the Government is giving attention. In 1961 the Opposition spread frightening stories throughout the country. They talked the country into bankruptcy. They painted a black picture of our economy. If they go back over their speeches—I am referring amongst others to the hon. members for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman)—they will cover their faces with shame. Last year they asked for higher pensions, a matter to which we are all sympathetically disposed, but over the past ten years with the exception of two years, this Government has improved the position of pensioners each year and we still do more for them.

What is the truth about the economy of South Africa? The truth is that notwithstanding all the frightening tales of the Opposition, this Government is becoming stronger and is progressing step by step with the result that the number on that side of the House is becoming smaller and smaller. Things are going well in our country and that is why the Opposition are so concerned. Under this Government South Africa has become one of the most prosperous countries in the world. In saying this, I must say immediately that I sympathize with the people in my constituency and in the northern Transvaal generally who are living in drought-stricken areas and who have not been able to share in this prosperity. Unfortunately the Government has no control over climatic conditions. But here, too, the Government has been of assistance and we are grateful for it. Not only do our Whites enjoy a standard of living that is amongst the highest in the world, but the standard of living of the Bantu is also higher than that of any other nation in Africa. It is admitted that South Africa is one of the countries that offers the best prospects to the investor. We are now producing 70 per cent of the free world’s gold. We are producing more gem diamonds, chrome and platinum that any other country in the world. We are second in the world in our production of asbestos and antimony and third as far as manganese and industrial diamonds are concerned. We also produce large quantities of copper, coal, silver and magnetite. The value of our minerals amounts to R900,000,000 annually. Over the past 50 years since 1910 our production has doubled regularly every 10 years. Our coal and iron ore is amongst the cheapest in the world and that is why South Africa is in a position to produce cheap steel and power. But this National Government has harnessed these riches and has made good use of them. It has not been asleep as the United Party was when it was in power. We started Iscor in the 1920’s and under the present Government we started Sasol and Foscor, undertakings that the Opposition opposed. What is more, we will find oil some day. What a stimulant these great State undertakings have been for our economy. Our industrial production rose from R992,000,000 in 1947 to R3,175,000,000 in 1961. Our factories are to-day responsible for 25 per cent of our national income. In 1961 our national income was R4,271,000,000, treble the 1947 figure. Our public debt at the moment only amounts to R175 per capita of the population as against an amount of R964 in the United States of America. Under our Government South Africa has progressed to such an extent that she is attracting the attention of the Bantu around us, and now that the Whites are leaving the other Africa States, large numbers of them are coming to South Africa because they think that the policy of this party is the right one and because they know that our economy is flourishing. Our population is increasing by 250,000 each year and this is giving us a greater market for our growing industrial and agricultural production. The numbers of Whites are being supplemented further by the immigration policy of the Government and our sources of skilled labour are being strengthened in this way.

We find that over the past years the United Party have complained about and moved motions in connection with unemployment but to-day they resent the fact that there are not sufficient people to do all the work. But the Government has to bear the responsibility for this. It takes the credit for the prosperity that exists in the country to-day but if things go wrong it must also take that responsibility. The Opposition must realize that when things are going well the Government should also be given the credit. The growth of our country is the direct result of the policy and the programme of action of this Government. I want to refer to what Prof. Horace Gilbert of the U.S.A. had to say. He said—

That is what he thinks of our economy, but that side of the House has no good word to say about our economy. Development projects costing R2,000 million have been announced over the past few years for the vast proportion of which this Government has been responsible. Amongst others there is the Orange River Scheme, the Pongola Dam Scheme and our great defence plan and railway construction programme which it is estimated will cost R400 million over the next 10 years. It is estimated that Iscor will spend about R600 million over the next 10 years and Sasol R30 million. South Africa’s Balance of payments position showed a deficit of R71,000,000 in 1960-1. It was in that year that the prophets of doom forecast a dark light for South Africa and gave us no hope for the future. But the year after that, in 1961-2, there was a surplus of R249,000,000. When we take an important industry like the motor-car industry, we find that the Director of Imports and Exports had the following to say as far as spare parts were concerned—

Here we also find an acknowledgment that the motor industry is being stimulated by the Government because people are being encouraged to use more South African spare parts. This has resulted in a boom in this industry. The engineering industry has also been assisted in this way and one finds that a salesman to-day is proud to sell one a motorcar and to say that a certain percentage of South African material has been used in the manufacture of that car.

In regard to South Africa’s economic future I should like to read what Mr. Arthur Goldman had to say, according to a report that appeared in the Sunday Express—

He said this in 1962. Take our fruit exports. In 1960-1 when the referendum on the Republic was held, the United Party asked what our fruit farmers would do with their fruit. In 1961-2, just a year after they had spread their stories about bankruptcy, our fruit exports to Britain increased by 23 per cent over the exports for the previous year. They like our products there. The sound economic position of South Africa is due to the steps that have been taken by this Government. State expenditure in 1947-8, expressed as a percentage of our net national income, was 22.9 per cent. In 1959-60, it was 21.9 per cent, one per cent less. Taxes for 1959-60, also expressed as a percentage of our national income, amounted to 13.6 per cent while in Britain the figure was 29 per cent for 1957-8, more than twice as much. An encouraging factor that we must not lose sight of is that our workers in this country are satisfied. We have labour peace and no strikes. This is the reason for the Opposition’s concern and why they do not have one good word to say about our economic growth. Indeed, the National Party has a record of which it can be proud.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand) has said a number of things about the United Party. I certainly cannot reply to all of them in the time at my disposal but I want to mention a few of them. One thing he said worried me a little. The hon. member said that things were going well with South Africa. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) said the same thing. But then the hon. member for Pietersburg went further and said that that was why we were so concerned. What was the insinuation? That we on this side of the House want things to go badly with South Africa.

Precisely!

I thought the tunny would bite. The insinuation is that hon. members on this side are un-South African. I feel that the sooner hon. members opposite accept the fact that all hon. members, including the Opposition, are members of the South African nation and work in the interests of the nation, the sooner things will go well in this country. I do not think it redounds to the credit of any hon. member in this House to accuse an hon. member on this side of not being a South African.

But the hon. member did not stop there. He also said that we found it extremely difficult to make friends overseas because those people wanted a policy of “one man one vote”. I want to ask the hon. member this: Which White Western country has ever said that?

All of them.

The hon. member cannot answer because no such country has ever said such a thing.

May I ask a question?

No, the hon. member is too long. (Laughter.) Why does the hon. member say these things? He knows better. He spoke about Southern Rhodesia and then he used the cunning argument that Southern Rhodesia had made the offer to the oversea countries that Southern Rhodesia would be black within 15 years and that those countries did not want to accept that offer. What is the conclusion? The hon. member could only conclude that we, the Opposition, would offer a better proposition; in other words, that this side of the House was in favour of “one man one vote”. That is the story that they want to tell the people outside. The Nationalist Party can continue to paint that picture to the people but on each occasion that it is painted in that way on a public platform, the person painting that picture will know that it is untrue. Hon. members opposite will be co-responsible if a picture of that kind is painted. But the hon. member did not stop there. He said that we were the people who had made so many promises. If it was an hon. member opposite I would remain silent about promises.

Mention one that we have not carried out.

I only have 20 minutes and it would take me the full 20 minutes to read out all the promises which they have made and which they have not carried out. Where are the free vacation resorts that they wanted to give to the workers? [Interjection.] Hon. members know who said that but they do not remember their own promises. Where is the national medical scheme and what has happened to the promise that the workers would participate in the profits of companies? The hon. the Minister of Transport made that promise. Hon. members opposite should be rather careful when they talk about promises. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Actually, I want to discuss another matter. It deals with a subject that is very close to the hearts of hon. members opposite and which is a source of worry to me. I refer to the question of job reservation. [Interjections.] Hon. members there have only two things on their minds, the Broderbund and the Sunday Times. I want to say a few words about job reservation. This is a principle that was introduced into South Africa because the Government believed that the White worker would be faced with competition from the Coloured worker and because the Government also believed that it was necessary to protect the White worker. As I see the matter, that is the specific purpose of job reservation. But there is also a general purpose. Broadly speaking, job reservation must be viewed as one of the aspects of the policy of the National Government that is aimed at ensuring the survival of the White man in South Africa. I think that is the background against which we must approach the question of job reservation, approach it, study it and judge it—the safeguarding of the White man in South Africa and the retention of his way of life. In considering the question as to how far job reservation serves this purpose, there is one other aspect which the White man in South Africa must never forget.

As I see the matter the White man in South Africa can only survive if he acts in such a way that his best will be good enough to justify his survival. In other words, he must develop to such an extent as far as his character and his mental ability are concerned that his survival will be justified on those grounds. In this connection it can be said that throughout the ages the best in man has only come to the fore as a result of trouble and competition. Competition is the factor which throughout the ages has pushed people to the top. It is competition, struggle and hardship that strengthens and tempers nations. On the other hand, it is the absence of struggle and competition that makes a nation deteriorate into a dull mass, unprepared and unable to fight the battle that has to be fought. It is precisely in this respect that job reservation is a source of worry to me. I am worried because job reservation excludes the element of competition and gives the White man a sham protection and false security. In any case, I fear that the White worker may develop such a frame of mind, a spirit of “I need not be afraid; the Government will help me” and that he need not therefore fear competition from other races. The State will ensure that he has no competition by reserving his job. If such a frame of mind grips a nation, it will be the easiest thing in the world to lead that nation to its destruction. My plea to-night is that if job reservation makes any contribution at all, no matter how small, to a blunting of the spirit of the worker in South Africa, then it must be abolished. What is the use of job reservation producing material benefits? In the long run all these things will disappear, just as the people themselves will disappear because they will not have the necessary mental ability and character.

Should job reservation also be abolished in the mines?

In any case, I believe that the White nation in South Africa should not be molly-coddled; and in any event it does not want to be molly-coddled. It is rather the task of the Government to present the problems of our time realistically to the people. The challenges that our time presents must not be hidden from the people. They must be told that although the Government is prepared to look after the worker, we must not lose sight of the fact that it can be harmful to do too much for the worker.

Since I am discussing this aspect of the care of our people, I think there are two groups in particular who must be well looked after. There are the aged—those who have come to the end of the road and to whom job reservation no longer means anything—and then there are the children of our country who are about to face this struggle. The State must look after those two groups. We have heard to-day about all the prosperity that apparently exists in our country. That is true. But what a pity it is large numbers of our people do not as yet share that prosperity. This morning an old lady came to my office. She was in tears. She could not draw her old-age pension because, not knowing what the result would be, she had let a small room in her flat with the idea of supplementing her income. She told me that she could have been dishonest and could have kept quiet about it and then she would still have received her pension. The point that I want to emphasize is that such an old person who has come to the end of her life should not be placed in such an unenviable position. That is the pity of it all. Hon. members talk about the prosperity in our country and then they allow cases of this kind to arise. I may say that there are hundreds of similar cases in my constituency. A state of affairs of this kind does not redound to the credit of a country like South Africa. We ought to look after our old people better.

On the other hand there are our children. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that a large percentage of people in the lower income group, in spite of the prosperity in our country, are simply not able to give their children any training to prepare them for life? I think the time has come when the Government which is prepared to spend so many thousands of rand so that citizens of other countries can settle here—and quite rightly so too—should say to itself that no South African girl or boy who has the necessary ability should be permitted to leave school or university simply because he or she does not have the money for further study. The State should ensure that they are given the necessary assistance. We hear it said so often—and it is so shocking—that it is the poor people who have many children.

Who said that?

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the shoe fits in some cases!

You should not make sweeping statements.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that that hon. member is becoming quite excited. I did not say that any hon. member had said it and if the hon. member had been awake he would have appreciated what I was saying. I say that this is a general statement that is made and that it is shocking because if there is one thing for which we must be grateful to the parents of South Africa, rich and poor alike, it is for the sons and daughters that they have given our country. We must ensure that those children are properly looked after if the parents are not able to look after them themselves.

We are on the threshold of the Budget once again and I want to make an urgent plea to the hon. the Minister not only to increase family allowances but also to increase the maximum above which no allowance is paid. The hon. the Minister may ask where he is to find the money. This Government has never been short of a cent to carry out its ideological policies and if the children of South Africa need it, we must also find the money for them. No nation can make a better investment than in the future of its youth.

What we are now witnessing, Mr. Speaker, is evidence of the bankruptcy of this Government when it has to face up to the attacks which we, from this side of the House, have launched. We have charged the Government in respect of various fields of its administration. And yet there is not one single member out of a total of 106 sitting on that side of the House, nor a single Cabinet Minister with the ability or courage to get up and try to defend the shambles which they have made of the administration of the country. Only a few so far were prepared to get up and try to do so but they made a miserable attempt at defending the policies of the Cabinet. If that is the way in which members on the other side approach a debate in which this House is asked to vote millions of rand for spending by this Government, if they are not prepared to argue about the spending of that amount, then we have the right to ask that the debate be adjourned.

Debate adjourned.