Where is the Minister of Finance?

I am looking after this Bill.

Would the hon. the Minister in charge of the Bill please explain the meaning of this clause and the exact effects?

It is perfectly obvious if the hon. member reads the Bill. It says here—

For an astute mind it is perfectly clear what that means.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 9 put and negatived.

On Clause 10,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (a) if the purchase price exceeds the fair value, the purchase price; or
2. (b) if the fair value exceeds the purchase price, the fair value or the amount due to the mortgagee under the mortgage bond, whichever is the less’.”

This clause in the Bill deals with the question of values for transfer duty purposes. There is an amendment which provides that, whereas ordinary auction sales fix finally the value for transfer purposes, in the case of sales in execution, the Department is not bound by the price at the sale in execution and the property can be valued. The provisions of the amendment seek to bring about this situation, Sir, that the value for transfer duty purposes will be what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It is obviously incorrect, as has been the case in the past, that where a property worth a great deal is bought at a nominal figure, transfer duty is only paid on that nominal figure. It must be remembered that the sales in execution very often are at the instance of the mortgagee, or in any case there is very often a mortgage over a property sold in execution and the experience is that in the vast majority of cases the mortgagee finds it necessary, particularly in difficult times such as we are passing through at the moment, to buy in the property personally and then to resell it. In the case of various institutions the law provides that they must sell the property as soon as they reasonably can. My amendment is to provide that, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (9), when property is sold in execution and the purchaser is a holder of a mortgage bond over the property, the value on which duty is payable, if the purchase price exceeds the fair value, will be the purchase price; but if the fair value as determined exceeds the purchase price, the duty will be payable on the fair value of the property or the amount due under the mortgage bond, whichever is the less. Sir, very often it is found that, although a value may be put on a property, that is not a value which can be obtained at that time. The mortgagee obviously only wants to protect his mortgage, and it is unfair that he should pay on a figure which is greater than the mortgage which he is protecting. The invariable practice is immediately the amount is reached which covers the mortgage, the mortgagee is no longer interested and a third party is allowed to buy. I think the amendment as put on the Order Paper provides a fair solution and I trust that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to accept it.

In the short time I have had to give consideration to this amendment, my first impression is that I cannot accept it. There are three reasons why I cannot accept it. The first is that it would be introducing another distinction in respect of the same kind of sale, namely in a sale in execution. I can distinguish a sale by public auction from a sale in execution. The one is a forced sale, the other is not. But now, if I adopt this amendment, it means that I have to introduce a further difference in the same type, the sale in execution. The second objection is that at a sale in execution everything is in the interest really of the purchaser, and if you consider that a person who is able to buy property at the value of his mortgage, is really getting a bargain…

No.

Undoubtedly he is getting a bargain. It may be that he does not want the property at that moment, but it is quite obvious that the market value is higher than the mortgage, and the purchaser is getting an advantage, an advantage which is greater when you have a sale in execution. For those three reasons I cannot accept the amendment, but I will say this to the hon. member that if I have had a further opportunity of discussing it, and if I can, I will effect an alteration in the Other Place, but my first impression is that I cannot accept the amendment.

The amendment to the Transfer Duty Act appears to us, to put it in colloquial terms, tickey-snatching. Surely the Minister is going to be in this difficulty when he wishes to arrive at a “fair value”, that he has no criterion. The Commissioner is going to raise an objection when he finds that the value at a sale in execution is, in his opinion, below the fair value. How is he going to determine that fair value? Is he going to determine it on his own opinion, or is he going to get a sworn valuator? If he is going to get a sworn valuator, the sworn valuator’s value would be fixed on a date after the sale, and who is going to say what is the sworn valuation at the date of the sale? You see, Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious to us that, at this time of the Session, the hon. Minister has not had time to consider this matter properly and his Department cannot consider it properly, and now the Minister suggests that he can deal with it in Another Place. No, Mr. Chairman, this is the place to deal with it and now. We are not going to be put off by the suggestion of the hon. the Minister that he will consider it when he takes the Bill to Another Place. We are dealing here with “fair value”, and surely the fair value is the value at the date of the sale. The hon. the Minister knows that in a sale in execution the practice is that there must be notice to the whole world; a sale in execution must be advertised in the Press, so that not only can the bondholder protect himself, but anyone else who wishes to buy can come into the market. And when a bondholder only takes the property over at the value of his bond, then it quite frequently happens that he protects his bond because there is not even a buyer available at the bond’s figure. Surely the hon. the Minister knows that in a sale in execution the last thing the bondholder wants is to have the property on his hands and, quite frequently, when he takes it over at the value of his bond, the market price at that particular time is less than the value of his bond. How can the Commissioner suggest that a fair value is above that figure? The bondholder at that time is more than anxious to get rid of the property. His business is not holding properties; his business is the lending of money and the collection of his interest, and here the bondholder takes over the property at the value of his bond, and now the Minister suggests that the fair market value is a figure higher than the price realized at the sale. Anyone can come to this sale, the property is advertised, and I think this is splitting hairs on the part of the Commissioner. He is trying to get something more than the fair market price, he is trying to suggest that the fair market price is above the execution price. My submission is that in respect of many properties to-day it would be very unreasonable to fix a fair market price above the execution price. The so-called fair price fixed by the Commissioner would be an artificial price, a price based upon the opinion of the Commissioner, unless of course it is based upon the price given to the Commissioner by a sworn valuator, and a sworn valuator’s price must be a price fixed after the date of the sale in execution, and the valuation made after the date of the sale cannot be a fair price, because it is made after the date and not on the date of the sale.

Why not?

Conditions differ. After all if there were a change of Government today values would change overnight. Obviously, if this Government went out and we came in, property values would go up at once.

We are dealing with realistic considerations.

Quite, what I am saying is realistic. I want to show that a fair value given after the date of the sale in execution is artificial. The Minister may devalue the day after the sale, and then what will be the position? No, I think the Minister is running into trouble when he suggests that the Commission of Inland Revenue should have this discretion. It is much better to be realistic and stick to the sale price at the sale in execution, because everyone who is interested in the property has an opportunity to come to the sale and to buy, and if the bondholder unfortunately has to take over the property, then that should be the fair value for the purpose of determining the duty payable.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that it is reasonable that we should accept the amendment. I am going to put certain reasons to him. I have had a great deal of experience of sales in execution. A sale in execution takes places inevitably after the owner of the property has done everything he possibly can to realize at least the amount sufficient to cover the liability in respect of his mortgage bond. It is not as if sales of execution are made when the property is in excellent condition and the owner of the property having kept it in perfect order, could easily sell it for a figure much higher than what is reached at the sale in execution. The invariable experience is that where sales in execution take place, it is not something that happens overnight. A period of notice has to be given, there are legal proceedings, there is the fixing of conditions of sale, which entails a lengthy delay. During that period the owner has a full opportunity of selling that property for the amount of the mortgage or anything in excess thereof which he can get. An owner invariably does everything he possibly can to find a buyer at a figure which can at least clear him of his debt and, if possible, provide him with a surplus. A sale in execution takes place in circumstances where, for various reasons, the owner has found himself quite unable to dispose of the property privately, sometimes because the neighbourhood has deteriorated, sometimes because the property is damaged and cracked. Occasionally there is the operation, for instance, of the Group Areas Act—but I do not want to drag that into this discussion. I want to try and deal with the ordinary case not the extraordinary one. In the ordinary case, my experience has been that when a property is sold in execution in this way, it has usually been allowed to go to rack and ruin; the property has not been properly looked after. In the first place, I say that the mere fact that the sale in execution has become necessary, shows in the large majority of cases that the owner has not been able to dispose of the property at a price sufficient to cover what he owes. The figure should not be above that figure for duty purposes especially in the circumstances I have mentioned. The buyer is not a willing buyer. He is a buyer who is buying the property in order to protect his security.

Sir, the proposal that I have made does not go as far as that put by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). I will concede this that in many cases of sales in execution the prices received are out of all proportion to the true value. I know of cases quite recently where property worth £1,000 has been bought for a nominal figure of £5, and transfer duty has been paid on that figure. That is the situation that the hon. the Minister is attempting to meet. I have conceded that the principle is that an auction sale should determine the value. The hon. the Minister desires to change that position in regard to execution sales. I have therefore accepted that. But that does not alter the fact that we must determine the true value. The views of valuators of property differ enormously in my experience. Very often one finds that a property is being sold because unknown factors have arisen and must be taken into consideration. I mentioned one case of which I have personal experience where it was found that there was a spring under the floor of the property, which appeared in wet seasons—it might be only once in five years. That sort of factor does arise. That property, when inspected in the dry season, was in such condition that not one single penny could be taken off the intrinsic value of the property, on a physical inspection. It is for that reason that I hope the hon. the Minister will agree to deal with this matter in this House. This is the House which should deal with finance. If the hon. the Minister would like a little time, I would suggest that he might let the matter stand down so that he can go into it more fully. The simple fact of the matter is that if the Minister wishes to do justice, taking into account the principle which he is determined upon, namely, that in sales in execution there will be a right of valuation, I ask that an arbitrary figure should not be fixed. My suggestion is that the figure accepted should be either the fair value—because very often the property cannot be realized at the amount owing on the mortgage—or, alternatively, it should not exceed the amount which is owing. The reason I suggest that is that the mortgagee, in my experience, never offers a price above what is owing for the property. He is only too glad to get anybody to take it over once the amount due to him is reached, or a figure close to that. I submit to the hon. the Minister that it is reasonable that he should accept this amendment. If he wants to consider it further, I do ask that instead of saying he will deal with it in the Other Place, he should rather let this matter stand over. If the hon. the Minister were prepared to do that, I would certainly ask this side of the House to agree, if necessary, to give stages later in order to dispose of this Bill.

It seems to me that in our discussion of this clause we are rather missing one another. The amendment of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) which has been supported by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) means that they want to replace one arbitrary value by another arbitrary value. When we come to the arbitrary valuation of properties, then I still say that I would prefer to accept the valuation of a sworn valuator who is an official of the Supreme Court to that of anyone else. The argument of the hon. member for Pinetown regarding bonds which are of a higher value than the inherent value of the property does not hold water.

He is not an official of the Supreme Court.

Well, he is appointed by them and he is responsible to them. I say that argument does not hold water because a bond holder who gives a bond which is worth far more than the value of the property is stupid from a business point of view and he should suffer for it. But I want to say that the amendment the Minister is making has many implications. I can see the problem which the Minister wishes to meet, and I think it is a serious problem. But rather than try to correct this matter in the Other Place—I am not certain whether it can be done there; I do not know the rules of that House, but I understand that they may not decide on financial matters—I want to ask the Minister whether this matter is so urgent that it cannot stand over until the beginning of next year, if something must be done about it, rather than accept the amendment of the hon. member for Springs, because that amendment would rather aggravate the position.

I thought the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) was going to agree with us but the sting was in the tail of his speech. I must admit that, like the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) I personally know of cases where ridiculous prices have been received at a sale in execution. I know of one case where £5 was paid for a property valued at £1,800. The property was not worth £1,800, but it was certainly worth a lot more than £5. I think the position is that this new clause has been introduced just to provide for those cases, and it will bring in fish that have never been thought about. It is going to cause endless argument. In all fairness I have to admit that normally the discussions between the bondholder and the revenue officers are amicable and reasonable, but in this case I think the hon. the Minister has gone too far. Let us look at the practical side of this matter, as the hon. member for Springs has tried to do. One thing that happens is that if there are sales in execution that have been advertised, speculative builders arrive. They will come to the owner and say “How much is your bond?” If he says “It is £2,000”, they say “Oh no, that is too high, I am not prepared to pay that for the property” and away they go. Then the bondholder is forced to buy the property at that figure of £2,000. The mere fact that a man who reckons he knows his business is not prepared to pay the amount of the bond, is surely sufficient warrantage for the Minister to agree with the proposition of the hon. member for Springs. Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is bringing in a clause that is going to cause a lot of unnecessary trouble, and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Springs will give the necessary answer that is looked for by the Department of Revenue, and it will save a lot of trouble. I support the amendment.

This matter is not quite as easy as the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) has suggested. I want to point out that if a bondholder, by private arrangement with the owner, comes to an agreement to take over the property at the value of the mortgage bond, then he will have to pay transfer duty on the fair market value.

Quite right.

If he buys it by public auction at a sale in execution, the hon. member wants the law to say that he need not pay on the fair market value. Then, I say, it introduces a distinction in duty between a sale in execution and at the same price when there is a private arrangement; the transfer duty must differ, although the value of the mortgage bond is the same.

I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) that the usual practice is to accept as the basis of the fair value, the sworn appraisement. It is not a question of the discretion of the commissioner. There is an appeal from the decision of the commissioner. But, as I say, the whole matter bristles with difficulties because you are bound, somewhere or other, to make distinctions which, in fact, are distinctions between the same type of thing. The ordinary rule is that transfer duty is payable on the fair value, and the only difference that has been introduced into the old law is when there is a sale by public auction. Normally at a sale by public auction you have a free seller and a free purchaser. But when you come to a sale in execution, the owner of the property has abandoned his right to bargain for the price. It has to be sold; it is in fact a forced sale.

On the other hand, it is quite true that if that particular property is bonded, to a certain extent the bondholder is also not a free person. He might not have bought that property had it not been for the fact that he was a bondholder and wanted to protect the property.

That is so.

In any case, the bondholder had his choice when he gave the bond. He knew that that was a likelihood, and if he was at all a cautious lender of money he would have seen to it that his bond was not in excess of the fair value and was, in fact, below the fair value—60 per cent or two-thirds or something of that nature. However, as I say, I can see the point of the hon. member. I can also see very much of the other side. All I am prepared to do now, therefore, it so move the deletion of the clause altogether. I will then not introduce these distinctions between transactions which are really not distinguishable. I shall then, at a later stage, consider whether it is necessary to introduce something to catch people who are getting an unnecessary bargain at the expense of the fiscus. I now suggest that this clause be deleted. As I have said, I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendmnent because I do not know where it will take me. It is likely to make the whole Act illogical. I would therefore rather have a continuance of the old position, even if it is anomalous, until I have been put in a position to examine the whole matter carefully.

I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that I appreciate his attitude very much indeed. This is an example which supports our contention that if only we could get these Bills a little earlier in the Session, there would be more time for us all to consider them. I would like, in respect of one point made by the hon. the Minister, to tell him of the circumstance that arises. I will give him one example. He should not say that mortgagees have acted carelessly. As an example I refer to a famous case in Brakpan where the Railways raised the railway line and immense damage was done through the damming up of underground water. About 100 properties became completely unsaleable. These circumstances do arise. However, I am grateful that the hon. the Minister has taken what I think is a very correct and reasonable attitude.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Tucker was withdrawn.

Clause 10 put and negatived.

On Clause 11,

I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some more information with regard to sub-section (b). The hon. the Minister referred to this generally yesterday and indicated that this was a further provision allowing for debentures issued by the Land Bank to be included in the property of the deceased. Could the hon. the Minister please give us some further information on this subsection?

The position in regard to Clause 11 (b) is quite clear. Under the existing law you can deduct from the amount of the estate which is liable for estate duty an amount of R10,000 which you have either in the form of an insurance policy or in the form of Government stock. What we are now doing is that we say that that R10,000 may be made up of either an insurance policy or Government stock or Land Bank stock. That is all we are introducing as an additional item which goes to make up the R10,000.

In Clause 11 (c) it is provided—

1. (i) the value of books, pictures, statuary or other objects of art; or
2. (ii) so much of the value of any shares in a body corporate as is attributable to such body’s ownership of books, pictures, statuary or other objects of art;

Is it the intention that the notarial deed must have provided that the works of art must have been lent to the State during the period of the deceased’s life-time, or what is the position should a testator provide in his will that these works of art be lent to the State after his death for a period of 50 years? One gets the impression from the reading of the clause that the notarial deed must have been executed during the deceased’s life-time, and must continue for a period of at least 50 years. Is there any difference where there is a notarial deed executed for 50 years bust commencing during the life-time of the deceased and continuing for 50 years from the date of the execution of that deed? Or is it necessary that the notarial deed under which the loan to the State is made should come into operation from the date of the deceased’s death for a period of 50 years? It appears to me that this provision is made for one particular trust, that in respect of the Robinson Collection. It would appear that this clause has been framed having regard to that one particular example. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that there may be other examples and provision should be made for a person who has a valuable collection which remains in his possession during his life-time, and not until after his death does it become available to various institutions for a period of 50 years. It can happen that a person in those circumstances may not have provided a notarial deed but may have a provision in his will stating that the property shall remain available to the country for a period of 50 years. One can imagine the case where there is no notarial deed. For example, the hon. the Minister might have a valuable collection and might leave it to the nation for a period of 50 years, where after it goes to members of his family. In those circumstances I submit that would not fall under this subsection, although it has been lent to the State for 50 years, because there is no notarial deed and might have been lent by way of a bequest. Has the hon. the Minister considered that matter?

The position is that this clause is concerned only with a gift of the “bruikleen” of the objects of art made inter vivos during the lifetime of the grantor. That is all that is covered here. He has to make a notarial deed, and there are certain conditions under which he makes his grant of the “bruikleen”, the use for a fixed period of time. If the heir of that property which has now been granted in these circumstances in trust to the State or to a municipality dies, his estate is free, and each successive heir during the period, which should not be less than 50 years, has an unencumbered estate with regard to any duties in respect of the collection. But if there is a definite bequest in a will, then that is not covered by this clause as it stands. If there is an out and out bequest without any time limit, that is not covered at all. However I think it is a suggestion which one could probably consider in order to encourage people to make bequests of valuable possessions; in view of the fact that this year we have taken the first step we can probably go further later on and exempt from taxation any bequest made in a will of the full ownership rights in the collection of pictures or whatever objects of art there may be.

But the present clause, if I may say so, deals only with a certain problem that came up, and I have not gone into the matter much further than that immediate problem. We wanted to encourage people who have these valuable collections to give them on loan to the Government for a fixed period, and we will assist them as far as the payment of estate duty is concerned. But the other point is one that I will consider. However, it is not covered here, this merely has to do with a gift during the lifetime of a person of certain collections of art on loan for a fixed period of time.

I want to get this position quite clear from the hon. the Minister. An out and out bequest to an institution, to the Government or to a local authority, of a collection of art treasures such as is envisaged in this sub-section, are exempted from estate duty now. But on the other hand, if a person were to provide in his will that those art treasures were to be on loan for 50 years and thereafter go to the great grandchildren, there would be no exemption from duty. For the purposes of duty there would be a calculation of the expectancy in 50 years’ time of what that collection was worth, and that duty would be payable. My point is this: there is provision here for a particular class, but there is no provision for the other class I have mentioned. Yet the argument is valid that you are making a law here to provide for a special case, whereas the Minister accepts the general principle. I think that when the Minister said he was prepared to go into the matter in future, he should have borne in mind that this is a case which merits consideration as he has accepted the principle of this clause.

An out and out bequest does not fall into this picture. That is in any case exempted. But if there is a bequest of the loan, then it raises a number of legal difficulties. For instance, the person to whom the loan is made may not be prepared to accept it. When it is inter vivos, then you know. It is only when a loan has been made under certain conditions, and those conditions have been accepted that there is an agreement. Anybody who wants to make such a bequest now, in view of this legislation, need not wait until he is dead. He can make his bequest now. He knows that it can be done during his lifetime, and then he can save the estate duty. And then it will only save his estate if it is accepted. The hon. member will see that it is very difficult to make provision now contemplating all these difficulties. I have never heard of a loan bequeathed in this way, it is usually a gift made by a person while he is living. It may be that the right is given to the heirs, and the heirs can enter into a notarial bond. But it will raise the difficulty of what happens if the loan is not accepted because the conditions are unacceptable. We are therefore confining it to the circumstance that is comprehensible, one that we can see. Here is a person who has a valuable collection; he does not want to leave it out and out to the state or to a municipality, but he is prepared to give it on loan if the other side is prepared to accept it. In that case his estate is exempted from the payment of estate duty on that particular collection of art treasures. I do not think we should go further than that. I think that this will cover all the cases. If there is anyone in the country contemplating a bequest of the loan of art treasures, I would advise them to do so now and make the loan while they are alive and they can still get the kudos for it, rather than wait until they are dead when it will raise all kinds of other problems.

The hon. the Minister treats this matter as if it is something quite unusual, but I want to point out to him that it is not something unusual. There is, for instance, my own experience. I am an executor in an estate where certain valuable pictures have, in terms of the will, been made available to two municipal art galleries. The testator knows very well that his children do not appreciate art at all.

Well, he can do it during his lifetime.

He is of the opinion—and his opinion may be wrong—that those pictures may be very valuable one day. I may say I share his opinion. He has provided that those pictures shall go on loan to two municipal art galleries, and 30 years after his death those pictures can be sold and the proceeds divided amongst his issue. I thought that this was an unusual case, but making inquires at one of the municipal art galleries has shown me that they have several pictures on their walls from various estates. Here we are making provision for a particular case where we have accepted the principle, and I would suggest that the hon. the Minister look into the matter further. He can possibly encourage works of art to remain in this country for the benefit of the country by making the general principle of this section well known to the public. They may not wish to make a specific notarial deed during their lifetime, but could make a provision in their wills which would be exempt from duty, and in that way we would keep art treasures in the country.

I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown that if anyone wishes to bequeath it in his will there is no reason why he should not do it in his lifetime, and he can put it into a notarial bond that it will only come into effect on his death. That would have the same effect. The example given by the hon. member seems as if it was made retrospectively. At any rate, 30 years would not be sufficient to bring it in here. It would have to be for a very long period. But if a person wants to put ft into his will and make use of the collection during his lifetime, he can enter into a notarial bond and make it one of the conditions that it will only pass to the grantees on his death. In the meantime the grant or can have the use of it, and the grantees will have the opportunity to say, during his lifetime, whether they are prepared to accept the conditions. I will look into the matter again, but it seems to me that that is the way in which a person can meet the problem mentioned by the hon. member.

Supposing it were a donatio mortis causa, would that be free of duty? Because if that is so, should not express provision be made in this section?

If it is a donation, it is not liable in any case. If it is a donation and not a loan, that would include a donatio mortis causa.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

This amendment on the face of it should be acceptable, but I raised objections last year with regard to the valuations of the shares of a private company that were not accepted by the Minister. For instance, there is the provision that the provisions of the memorandum and articles of association must not be considered in valuing shares. This clause is supposed to amend some of the difficulties, but I do not quite know what the intention of the amendment is and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us something more about it.

This amendment in Clause 12 (a) removes the distinction which previously existed between companies controlled by the deceased and those not controlled by him. In practice this distinction is difficult, if not impossible, to maintain owing to the difficulties experienced by accountants who have pointed out that in undertaking the valuation of shares in a particular company an accountant cannot be expected to make, in addition, a thorough examination of the shareholdings of all the associated companies of which the deceased may have exercised control. It is as the result of representations made by the accountants that this amendment is introduced and the enactment now makes the valuation of all unquoted shares subject to the same conditions as laid down in Section 5 (1) (f)bis of the principal Act.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

This clause amends the cinematograph films tax. The Act came into operation on 1 July 1960. The effect of this amendment is to ease considerably the burden upon the organizers of many small cinema shows which are given for the benefit of charity. Now the result of this amendment will be of considerable benefit to organizations which give shows for charitable and other purposes, as mentioned in the Act. The Act came into operation on 1 July 1960, and this amendment—I am not quite sure what date it will be of legal effect. This Bill does not indicate the date. If it is to be from 1 July 1960, of course that would be quite simple, but it does not say so. I ask what the operative date of this amendment will be.

This clause is not retrospective. We are giving the concession now as from the date of commencement of this Act. I think it is a considerable concession, but we are only making it operative from the date of commencement of this Act.

Clause put and agreed to.

On the Title,

In view of the amendment I introduced to delete one clause, I move the amendment to the Title—

To omit “the Transfer Duty Act, 1949”.

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments and specially an amendment in the Title.

Amendment in Clause 7, the omission of Clauses 9 and 10, and the amendment in the Title, put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I am opposed to the amendment in line 20. It is linked up with the amendment in Clause 8 which would permit the proprietors of mines and works and other employers to sell liquor to their Native labourers. I shall deal with the matter when Clause 8 is discussed. At this stage I shall content myself with protesting against this amendment and I shall also object later on to Clause 8.

As the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) has said, this amendment must be linked with the amendment in Clause 8, in terms of which the Minister may grant authority to sell for on-or off-consumption to any bona-fide employer, regularly employing Native labourers. Unfortunately this amendment was not fully canvassed during the Committee Stage, and I feel that we require some further information from the Minister as to what he has in view and what may be the consequences if this amendment is accepted. I I understood the Minister when he introduced the amendment to Clause 8 which flows from introducing the term “employer” in this clause, he had in mind the sale of liquor to Natives employed on the mines. I would be glad if the Minister would elaborate that. He suggested that if this provision were not implemented, Natives employed on the mines would be able to obtain liquor from other sources provided by the Bill; there would not be effective control and therefore it might lead to abuse. Conversely, he said that if the employers, presumably the mine owners or those in control of a mine, were able to sell liquor, they would be able to exercise full control and the danger of abuse would be reduced. I am not sure that I am fully aware of the conditions of these Natives who are employed on mines. I am under the impression that most of them are kept in a compound, and that they do not have opportunities of going into the surrounding areas and mingling in those areas. The Minister also, I under stood, suggested that up to now it has been competent for the mine authorities to provide gratis a certain amount of kaffir beer to its employees, but said that, in view of his decision to drop Section 7 of the original Act, it would no longer be competent for such employers to provide kaffir beer gratis. Therefore, said the Minister, we must now give this opportunity for the sale of liquor generally. Now prima facie I would regard that as being potentially dangerous. We are now dealing with a large number of persons who are engaged in potentially perilous work. They go underground. They are for the most part Natives who, many of them, have come from other countries and they are, I understand, of a primitive or semi-primitive nature. I must confess that I have grave doubts about the advisability of opening facilities for the general sale of liquor to such Natives in these compounds, even though it is to be under control. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether he has consulted the Minister of Bantu Administration, and the Minister of Mines, and the Chamber of Mines or those who are responsible? I think before this clause is accepted—what I have to say now obviously will apply to the amendment in Clause 8—I would certainly require greater assurance than I have at present from the Minister that this will not open the door, not merely abuse, but to possible grave dangers affecting the safety of the mining industry.

May I suggest that this clause stand over until Clause 8 has been dealt with?

This amendment to Clause 2 is consequential to the amendment which we are proposing in respect of Section 100bis in Clause 8. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has asked whether the Chamber of Mines has been consulted. The answer is in the affirmative and the Minister of Bantu Administration informs me that he has in fact consulted the Chamber of Mines. This amendment to Clause 8 is cognate to the amendment to Clause 2. The amendment which we propose making to Clause 8 inserts a new paragraph (e). I want to explain that there are employers who have a large number of Native workers as defined by the Native Labour Regulation Act of 1911. These are Natives who are employed in the mines or other industries. Most of the mining companies and other large industries already provide kaffir beer gratis to their works under ministerial authority in terms of Section 127 of the Liquor Act. The reason is that it prevents the workers going to the drinking places outside. It is very essential that these mines and industries should also be able to ask for authority to provide liquor to their workers who are accommodated in compounds. The control there is good. There is no complaint about the way in which the mining companies particularly control their compounds.

But previously it could be given and now it is proposed that it can be sold. Will that not have an effect on their wages?

It may be. It can be arranged, but of course they are forbidden to give the liquor as part of their wages. It is most essential that these mines and industries should be able to ask for authority to provide liquor to their workers. I think we must be very careful here. If the Natives cannot obtain their liquor in the compounds, they will obviously go outside with permission to obtain liquor elsewhere. I would feel far happier, as the Bill now provides, for them to obtain their liquor in the compounds under control, and I think that the Minister of Bantu Administration would also feel happier with the control provided in the compounds. Under the present system they can obtain kaffir beer.

Is there any question of the sale of liquor under the control of the mines being handed over to a concession holder?

It will depend on whether it is decided to make such a compound one of the distribution points. In terms of the authority this could in fact be done, but that is a question which will have to be decided later.

A possible solution would be to allow them to provide liquor gratis to the Natives, but as a result of the withdrawal of Clause 8 that will no longer be possible. They can no longer do so gratis as a result of the withdrawal of Clause 8 which dealt with the tot system. I want to add that the profits made on these liquor sales in the compounds will be dealt with in accordance with sub-section (7) of Section 100bis. In other words, there will have to be consultation with the interested parties and particularly with the Department of Bantu Administration. Thus the amendment proposed to Clause 2 is consequential on the new Clause 8, although it actually precedes Clause 8.

I object to this amendment. I refer particularly to the new paragraph (e) in the proposed new Section 100bis. This amendment will authorize the Minister to grant authority to any mines or works or other place of employment that may be described by him to sell European liquor to any Native labourer of or above the age of 18 years. I say that this procedure lays itself open to all manner of abuse. In order that hon. members may appreciate the extent of the undertakings that will be covered by the Minister’s authority I want to refer them to the definition of “Native labourer” in Act No. 15 of 1911 as amended by Section 1 (f) of Act No. 56 of 1949. It reads—

So here the Minister may grant permission not only to mines and works but to any other class of employer whom he may prescribe. In terms of Section 127 of the Liquor Act the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette authorize any mine or works or other undertaking to brew kaffir beer for consumption in reasonable quantities on the premises to be supplied gratis to their Coloured or Native employees…

The authority only lasts for 12 months.

… and if the Minister finds that there has been any abuse he may withdraw this privilege. I think it is important that I should read this section under which the Minister to-day acts. Sub-section (1) of Section 127 reads—

That concluding paragraph does not apply to the Trannsvaal. Sir, under Section 127 the mines have developed a magnificent system of supplying, gratis, kaffir beer of approved strength on the most hygienic lines to their Native workers for consumption on the premises, and this beer contributes very largely to the good health of the Natives. Most of the Natives come from the reserves. Kaffir beer is their national drink and satisfies all their needs. If permission is granted under this new Section 100bis, employers at any time or works or other occupation approved by the Minister will be entitled to sell European liquor to their Native laborours, both for on-and off-consumption. I do not think hon. members appreciate what is happening here. Here we are supplanting the system of kaffir beer to be consumed gratis on the premises by the sale of European liquor of any class that the Minister may prescribe for on-or off-consumption. That means that they may be permitted to take the liquor away. This system is, if anything, even more pernicious than the tot system, and it will help to encourage the taste for strong drink. It will also make another drain on the hard-earned savings of these Natives which are remitted to their wives and families through the deferred payment system. It is all the more dangerous when one takes into account the immense congregations of Natives housed in the compounds and on the mines. There must be well over 300,000 Natives employed by the Witwatersrand mines alone, and I say that the supply of cheap wines or spirits will not only depress the quality of our labour but it will aggravate the tendency for various tribal groups to indulge in fights and other disorders. I would like to ask the Minister what is to happen to the profits, because these mines are going to make money out of this business if they do undertake it, which I hope they will not, and I would like the Minister to answer that question.

I explained that a few moments ago.

This is just another attempt to procure an additional market for the wine farmers. I do not know to what extent the mines have been consulted; the Minister referred to that just now but I do not care whether they have been consulted or not. I say that it is a shameful business and that the Minister and his Government will live to regret it.

I want to support my colleague who has just sat down. The hon. member has pointed out that this is not only a question of permitting an employer to sell liquor to Natives in mine compounds. There are a very large number of activities which fall under the definition in the relevant Act—quarries for example and other works of that kind—and probably people employed in sugar mills, as distinct from the work in the fields, would be permitted in terms of this provision in the Bill to acquire by purchase from the employer liquor such as may be decreed by the Minister. Sir, I want to look at the 1911 Act for a moment. I remember it very well because once upon a time and for many years I recruited tens of thousands of Natives, so I know that Act. Provision is made in that Act that you cannot even get an agent’s licence for the recruitment of Natives if you are associated in any way with the sale of liquor. The Legislature in the past was so determined to keep liquor and liquor interests away from Natives who are here defined as “Native labourers” that that disqualification was laid on people who even attempted to recruit Natives. But my mind goes back to an interview which I had as a very young man with the late Gen. Hertzog in connection with this particular matter of supplying liquor to Natives and I remember very well a statement which he made on that occasion. He said that nothing could be more demoralizing than to permit hard liquor, European liquor, to be made available to Natives in our mine compounds. Sir, we have to remember that as far as mine compounds are concerned and compounds which in the main are run on the same pattern as mine compounds, you are not dealing with a cross-section of humanity; you are dealing with a class of person who for this purpose consists entirely of male Natives in their hundreds and in some cases in their thousands who are kept together under very strict restrictions as to their movements and so forth. They are not living a normal life; they are not an ordinary cross-section of humanity; they are living a very artificial life, coming as they do mostly from the rural areas, as the hon. member for East London (City) has said. These are people in the main who go and work for, say, nine or ten months in the gold mines and then, having saved their money or remitted it, they go back to their kraals. Their employment from time to time and throughout their lifetime is on the mines. They are not people who are habitually employed elsewhere, and for nine or ten months they are living a very artificial life under extreme conditions of physical strain because they have to work very hard. Sir, here it is proposed to make available hard liquor for sale to people living under those circumstances. I am not concerned for the moment whether it is Bantu people or any other Coloured people. You can imagine what is going to happen if you introduce liquor for sale to a vast group of males living under those circumstances and working under the conditions under which those people work. I want to make this position quite clear, and here again I come to the underlying principle. The principle of this Bill is to sell more liquor. The effect of it is to sell more liquor, and where more profit can be made on the sale of a product, profit will be made. I can only repeat what I was told as a young man by that great South African, the late Gen. Hertzog. I can imagine nothing more demoralizing than the sale of hard liquor in our mine compounds to the Bantu working in those mines.

I think the hon. members for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) and South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) have rather misinterpreted this provision as well as its application. This provision is in fact being inserted to protect the Bantu worker, particularly on the mines. We all know that if there is one place where there is proper supervision and control over Native workers, it is in the mine compounds. The hon. member for East London (City) has said that it will be a tragic day if kaffir beer which is the natural drink of the Native is replaced by the White man’s hard liquor. That is not the intention. Section 127 of the Liquor Act still remains in force so that the hon. the Minister can still grant authority to employers to give their Native workers kaffir beer under certain conditions, and I expect that the hon. the Minister will also do so in the case of Native compounds. They will still be able to receive their natural drink, kaffir beer. But what is the position now that the White man’s drink, hard liquor, will be freely available outside? Then the mining authorities will find themselves in the position that unless it is provided in the compounds,

they will always be having trouble because their workers will go and buy liquor outside the compounds in quantities which will be more than is good for them. The result has been that the employers have approached the Minister and said: Make special provision for us so that we can also provide the White man’s drink to our workers under our own supervision. If the two hon. members will read the provision, they will see that the Minister’s powers are very wide. He can prescribe whether the liquor can be provided for on- or off-consumption. I take it that in the case of the mine compounds he will prescribe that it will only be for on-consumption. He can also prescribe what kind of liquor it should be. I take it that he will use his discretion in consultation with the employers. Furthermore, he can prescribed what is to be done with the profits and I want to take it upon myself to prophesy that the Minister will prescribe that the profits, after deducting the ordinary expenses, must be used for the development of the Native areas. I think that will be proper and right because the workers in the mine compounds come mainly from the reserves and it will therefore be no more than right that any profits which may be made should be made available for the development of the Native areas. That is also the request I want to make to the hon. the Minister.

I also rise to express dissatisfaction with this clause in its present form, but my reasons for being dissatisfied are somewhat different from those of the hon. member for East London (City) and South Coast. The fact that my reasons are different from theirs flows, of course, from the fact that I am in favour of the principle of this Bill and they are not, and since I have already voted in the earlier stages of the Bill for liquor other than kaffir beer to be made available to Africans, whether or not they are labourers, it would be illogical for me to take the line that I want to prevent Africans under certain circumstances from getting that sort of liquor. However, there are two or three matters in connection with this clause about which we have no clarity and in regard to which we are not satisfied with the explanations that have been given. Firstly, we are dealing here with men who live under abnormal circumstances, under the compound system, which in my view is something that we should get away from as far as that is practically possible for all sorts of reasons, of which this would only be one, under circumstances in which they are peculiarly vulnerable not merely to the pharmacological effects of liquor but peculiarly vulnerable to the operations of people who may in an unscrupulous way wish to exploit their taste for liquor. It is in this connection that I want to raise a second point that disturbs me, and that is the question which the hon. the Minister allowed the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) to put in parenthesis when he was speaking on an earlier clause. The hon. member for Musgrave inquired whether under this system it was likely or possible that liquor would in fact be sold by concession storekeepers or similar people who might, in other words, have the right delegated to them by the mines, or whoever the employer may be, to sell liquor and who may be selling on their own account for the purpose of making a profit. I think it is established that that sort of system, necessary as it may be, already lends itself to certain abuses where the material sold is not intoxicating liquor, and if under a concession system liquor is to be sold, then the whole host of possible abuses presents itself which will have to be met and dealt with. It might not be impossible to satisfy us that these will be met and dealt with, but so far we are not satisfied from the explanations we have had. There is un-clarity, I think, as to the relationship between the powers given under this proposed section and the powers which already exist under Section 127 of the principal Act. In the one case kaffir beer is given gratis. I am not clear as to whether, when this clause comes into operation, employers at present giving kaffir beer under Section 127 will cease to do so and will sell kaffir beer in addition to other forms of liquor in terms of this clause. I am not clear whether it may be held to be unprofitable or uneconomic to provide the kaffir beer at present being provided when liquor of other types is available for sale. As the hon. member for Salt River said earlier this morning, it is a pity that in the circumstances there was not much opportunity in the Committee Stage, as there might otherwise have been, to canvass this whole matter and obtain clarity on it, but unless and until we can be satisfied as to these doubts that we have I at any rate do not see my way clear to voting for this particular amendment.

I do not wish to give a silent vote on this matter. I would like to give my reasons which are that the authority which will be granted for the supply of liquor by an employer is still subject to the same conditions which the Minister accepted in regard to the granting of authorities. In other words, that it will be subject to recommendation by the National Liquor Board and that therefore there will be some control in granting the authority. The other reason that I wish to give is an historical one. I have here the book by J. S. Marais “The Fall of Kruger’s Republic”, in which there is a chapter on the concessionaries in which he says the following—

The same problem was therefore experienced before the turn of the century in regard to Natives on the mines. He goes on to say—

The old Republic found itself unable to enforce restrictive liquor legislation, and now under the new Republic we find the Minister extending it. He goes on to say—

He goes on to estimate that figure at anything from 12 per cent to 30 per cent. The point is that 60 to 70 years ago the same problem was encountered, and I feel that it is illogical, if you accept the principle of granting liquor to Natives, to say that these Natives, because they happen to work in the mines where because of their conditions of service they are unable to get the same facilities as other Natives, should be penalized, and therefore I am prepared to support this clause. It appears to me to be the only logical step to take. There is control over the profits, there is control over the granting of an authority and I am satisfied that those controls can prevent abuse. I do not believe that by refusing liquor to Natives who live in compounds, you are going to get a position which differs in any way from the position which obtained in the 1890s, a position where liquor was completely banned, gradually by stages, until ultimately it was completely banned. Both when it was partially banned, when it was half-banned, and when it was banned to mine Natives and not to other Natives, and when it was banned to all Natives, the matter could not be controlled. This chapter goes on to give the reasons; it describes the difficulties of the police, and I believe that we would have exactly the same difficulties to-day. Rather than create those difficulties. I am prepared to vote for this amendment.

While it is quite clear that the principle of the clause which was accepted was that merely on the ground of colour, people should not be denied access to liquor, but it is quite a different matter whether you should not take into account, not the colour or the racial aspects but the conditions and the circumstances under which certain groups of people may live. In respect of the Bantu workers employed in our mines and housed in compounds, there can be no doubt that here is an exclusive group of citizens who live under conditions quite different from the conditions applying to the rest of the free community. It has been pointed out that these people live for large portions of their lives not under the circumstances of normal family life; they live under circumstances of bachelorhood, whether they be married or not. Secondly, there is no doubt, whatever the argument may be for extending facilities for access to liquor to people who have become westernized and who come into contact with the normal western way of life, that these people almost to a man are people with extremely primitive tribal backgrounds. Not because of their colour but because of the circumstances in the areas from which they are recruited they are people who do not conform with the normal cross-section of the community of South Africa. Thirdly, there is no doubt that these people are recruited from areas and amongst groups of people who traditionally have not gone in for the liquor habits of the vast bulk of the rest of the people of South Africa, whether those habits have been legally or illegally enjoyed. These people drink kaffir beer as their staple drink and do not come under the attraction of anything other than this particular form of liquor.

And yet there are many from outside the Republic who in their areas are used to buying liquor.

I would like the hon. the Minister to indicate to me in which territories other than Kenya and Uganda there is free access to hard liquor—I am talking in terms of spirits—for the African community.

Order! The hon. member is going very far now.

Sir, we are dealing with the question as to whether these people have been recruited from areas where by tradition they have access to this type of liquor. Whereas in the Protectorates and the Rhodesias hard liquor is available under permit, all the evidence is that the permit is very scantily granted. These people by and large have not become accustomed to this type of liquor. Anybody who has been to the compounds would realize that kaffir beer has become and is the staple and satisfactory drink as far as these people are concerned.

Who are “these people”?

“These people” are the people referred to by the Minister in terms of his amendment on page 6. Sir, here we have a group who, not because of their racial background, but because of their tradition and the peculiar circumstances under which they live should not be subject to an extension of these liquor facilities. Not only because of this but because this extension could only take place through a virtual monopoly of supply through an employer. I think it is the wrong thing on the one hand…

Order! The principle hasbeen accepted. The hon. member cannot argue against the principle, he must come back to the amendment.

The amendment provides that any bona fide employer regularly employing Natives may be given authority to become a supplier of liquor.

That principle has been accepted.

Sir, this is the amendment. I want to deal with the exact terms of the amendment, and that is whether or not we should approve that in Native compounds the employer of labour should be the source of supply of liquor to the Natives in that compound. I think it is a bad principle. I think it is a bad thing to allow only one person, who is also the controller of labour, to be the sole supplier of liquor which is otherwise freely available to these people. It would tend to create a monopoly of supply. Secondly, there is this question of the employer passing on a concession to someone else in that compound or in that area. In this respect we should like a further explanation from the hon. the Minister whether he is going to make the same conditions, as are applicable to other authorities, applicable also to the profits which accrue from the sale of liquor in these compounds, or whether the profits in respect of liquor sold in the compounds is going to be dealt with as though the liquor was sold by private individuals. In other words, is it going to be free either to the employer or to the person who holds a concession as a result of the employer handing that concession to him to make use of this facility in order to make a profit out of the employees in this area? Without conflicting with the general principle of the Bill, I believe that here we have a case for restricting the supply of liquor to people, not on the ground of their race but on the ground of the background from which these people come and on the ground of the circumstances under which they live.

There is no question of concessions, but one of the conditions on which I shall insist very definitely and one of the regulations which I envisage will provide that kaffir beer can be provided gratis to the Natives in compounds. Although we have withdrawn Clause 8, dealing with the tot system, the Government, nevertheless, has the right under Section 127 to allow them to be given kaffir beer gratis, and it is the intention to make such provision. A great deal has been said about the way in which these Natives will obtain liquor in the compounds, and it has been claimed that the control will perhaps not be adequate. I have received a letter from the President of the Chamber of Mines, Transvaal and Orange Free State, in which certain points relating to the Bill are made. He writes, inter alia, as follows—,

The Gold Producers’ Committee has made these representations to me, and I am merely reading this letter to show that these people are prepared to exercise control—

He now urges that they should have the right to sell it—

I think that, in view of this opinion which has been expressed by the President of the Chamber of Mines, we can say that we are doing the right thing, or rather the right two things. The first is that we will make provision that kaffir beer can be provided gratis and in the second place we must accept the assurance of the Chamber of Mines that very close supervision will be exercised. I want to add a third point, to which I have already referred in an interjection, namely, that there are thousands of Natives from outside South Africa and that there are Native customs regarding liquor which are not the same as ours. For this reason it is essential that proper control must be exercised over these people so that they will not go outside to other places where they can obtain liquor.

As regards the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit), I think the hon. member has overlooked the fact that Section 127, which he has read out and which deals with the brewing of beer and its consumption, the brewing of kaffir beer on certain premises, has since been amended. I formed the impression that the hon. member was still quoting the old Section 127, but this section was amended in 1956 and again by Act No. 58 of 1957. Without reading the section, as amended, I want to refer him to those amendments.

The House divided:

Ayes—70: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H.R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Raw, W. V.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Noes—17: Butcher, R. R.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Eglin, C. W.; Fourie, I. S.; Gay, L. C.; Lawrence, H. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Smit, D. L.; Swart, H. G.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Amendments in sub-sections (7) and (9) of Section 100bis inserted in the principal Act by Clause 9, put and agreed to.

On amendment in sub-section (11) of Section 100bis inserted in the principal Act by Clause 9,

I want to take this opportunity of once again trying to get information from the hon. the Minister. The hon. Minister has accepted the amendment, which now makes it obligatory for him to have a recommendation of the National Liquor Board before he may grant an authority under Section 100bis. But there are a number of questions which immediately arise as to the manner in which the National Liquor Board will carry out its functions. Unfortunately we were not able to traverse that question as fully as we would have liked to yesterday, and therefore I want to take the opportunity of putting a few questions to the hon. the Minister. Now it is quite obvious that the Board will not be able to function properly unless the Minister issues certain necessary regulations dealing with their functions and activities. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he proposes to issue certain regulations. The Bill is an experiment. I would have preferred that the procedure of the Board, the functions of the Board in regard to these matters, should have been written into the Act itself; and it may well be that after the hon. the Minister has made the experiment, when he introduces an amending Bill next year—or when his successor as Minister of Justice under the new Government next year introduces a Bill, a consolidation measure—that as a result of the experience gained by then, it will be possible to write such provisions into the Bill. I want to put a few questions very crisply and pertinently to the hon. the Minister. The first is: In what form must an application for an authority be made?

Surely we have not yet reached that stage.

The Minister may feel that he is not yet able to give an answer to these questions, but it seems to me that if this system is to work properly, regulations will have to be made. At what stage, and how will applications be initiated? In terms of the existing Liquor Law there is an annual meeting of the Licensing Board, and potential applicants know that they have to follow a certain procedure if they wish to obtain a liquor licence. They must submit an application in written form, and other procedures have to be observed. There is nothing whatsoever said about this in the present Bill, and I think it is necessary to lay down some procedure, unless the Minister is going to take the initiative in seeking applicants for this special privilege.

Order! Those points were raised during the Committee Stage. They are points of detail.

I did raise these points, but I did not get a complete answer and with due respect, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the amendment provides that no authority shall be granted under sub-section (1) except on the recommendations of the National Liquor Board. I am putting my questions very briefly because they are of public interest, and, again, with due respect, they arise out of the fact that the hon. Minister, in terms of this amendment, must have a recommendation from the Liquor Board.

The hon. member cannot now raise all these questions in detail.

Mr. Speaker, this House is being asked to confirm this amendment, and I only want to have it on record so that the Minister can apply his mind to these questions. I am not necessarily expecting him to give me a full answer to-day, but I think they should be on record because they are germane to this amendment. My questions are: (1) In what form must applications be made; (2) how will the Board deal with the applications; (3) will an applicant be entitled to appear personally before the Board; (4) if so, will he be entitled to be represented by council and/or attorney?

Order! I think the hon. member is now going into too much detail. This is the Report Stage.

Sir, surely this is consequential upon the amendment? We are asked now to accept an amendment. I am not going to discuss this matter any further, I am merely putting a few questions: Will there be public hearings; will there be an opportunity to lodge objections to be heard by the Board? Will the Board make recommendations in regard to the profits referred to in Section 100bis (7)? Those are my questions. If the hon. the Minister is not in a position to answer at this stage, I hope he will consider them, and maybe he will answer them in Another Place. In any event, I hope he will consider these questions when he comes to drafting the regulations.

I hope the hon. the Minister will not at this stage reply to these questions.

I would have liked to carry a little further the questions posed by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), but in view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will not do so. I do, however, want to make one or two comments on this amendment. I believe that the amendment is an improvement and we are grateful that the hon. Minister saw fit to accept it. However, it remains extremely vague, and that is my objection to it. We are now dealing with very substantial powers given by Clause 100bis. As the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) said, we are dealing with the distribution of liquor to two-thirds of our whole population. Up to now the granting of liquor licences has been hedged in with all kinds of limitations and conditions, but here wide arbitrary powers are given. As the hon. member for Salt River has indicated, in contrast with the kind of application which is prescribed under the existing Act, in the case of an application in terms of this section no details are given at all. In the Liquor Act great detail is given in Section 31, but here we have no details at all. I would like to support what the hon. member for Salt River said, namely that we require much more detail in regard to the procedure for making an application to the National Liquor Board. The second point I want to make is that once the recommendation has been granted by the National Liquor Board, then the hon. Minister will have complete discretion whether to grant or refuse a licence. We are not opposed to that.

Order! These are matters of detail and should have been dealt with in Committee. The hon. member must now refer to the amendment only.

Yes, Sir, I am discussing the amendment. I am expressing the view that the wording of this particular amendment is vague.

That has been settled during the Committee Stage.

The very fact, Sir, that we are able to discuss the amendment, shows that it has not been finally settled. That is why, with all respect, we are discussing this amendment. I shall be very brief, but the point I want to make is this: Once the National Liquor Board has made a recommendation, then it is open to the Minister to decide what conditions he imposes and as the Bill now stands he is subject to no limits in that respect. Once the recommendation has been made by the National Liquor Board, the hon. the Minister has complete discretion as to the conditions which he imposes. I would like to know in what form this recommendation is going to be made? Is it going to be a recommendation which prescribes conditions for instance that a certain person be granted authority to sell liquor at a particular place, within certain hours, or will the recommendation be made in open form leaving the Minister with complete discretion as to the conditions which he thereafter imposes?

I am rather amazed that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) who has had a lot of experience in this matter, is now adopting this attitude. Only at a very late hour last night I accepted an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Salt River that only on the recommendation of the National Liquor Board, can the Minister act. Now it is quarter-past-twelve the next morning, and the hon. member wants me now to tell him what the procedure is going to be and what the conditions are going to be under this amendment which was accepted last night.

But in any case, the hon. member’s observations will receive attention at the right time. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I can say that as a result of this amendment I will have to move in the Other Place, that the Chairman of the National Liquor Board will have a casting vote, because there are six members, and you may easily get a recommendation which is not unanimous. So it is very necessary that such an amendment is adopted in the Other Place.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Section 100bis inserted in the principal Act by Clause 9 put and agreed to.

I move—

This is not the most important sub-section of what is an important clause, but nevertheless because it received very little attention last night, and we received no reply from the hon. the Minister, I put this amendment on the Order Paper, and I would like to advance arguments on it. This proposed Section 100quat makes it an offence for any Native, Asiatic or Coloured person to consume any liquor on private premises, or to be in possession of any liquor on private premises without the consent of the owner or lawful occupier. In my view it goes very far indeed, further than it should go. As far as the possession of liquor is concerned, if a non-White buys liquor in the course of his day’s work to take home, he must, if he does not want to contravene this provision, go straight home; he can do nothing on the way. If for instance he wants to visit someone on the way, he will have to leave his liquor at the gate before going inside.

Or he must have the permission of the owner or occupier.

Yes, but he may have to go on to the premises to get permission. I know this is not a point of very great importance, but what I believe it does do is to create a large number of technical offences. I agree that in 99 cases out of a 100 no prosecution will ever take place. But nevertheless it seems most unsatisfactory to make a law which makes for contravention by a large number of people for use possibly in one outstanding case. There are numerous examples which one could give of how one could contravene this section in the normal course of one’s day. There is the question of going on to premises without in advance getting permission; or one may take a short-cut across someone’s ground on the way home. One would be contravening this section. If one were to go into a shop—I am not certain whether that would be regarded as “private premises” in terms of the Act, but it might well be—one would be contravening this section. We are creating a large number of technical offences.

He would not drink in the shop.

The hon. Minister may be right there, and if he feels that the consumption of liquor under sub-section (a) should remain, I am prepared to suggest that only sub-paragraph (b) should be omitted from this section. But the mischief is sufficiently covered by offences which are already in the Act. In Section 166 one has already, in paragraph (i), the provision that a person is guilty of an offence if he is drunk, violent or disorderly upon any licensed premises, or is drunk on or near a road, street, lane, shop, store, any place of entertainment, etc. That provision is wide, and again in terms of this amending Bill further offences are created by Clause 19 which introduces a new (i)bis making it an offence to consume any liquor in any street, road, lane or other public thoroughfare. I believe that those provisions are quite wide enough and it is unnecessary to add this subsection (b). I leave the question of consumption under paragraph (a) and will argue the point merely on sub-paragraph (b), that is the possession of liquor. I believe that that is much too wide and will create an enormous number of technical offences, quite unnecessarily. Further an offence is created here only when committed by a non-European. The hon. Minister said in introducing this Bill that he wants to get away from discrimination unless there is very strong justification for it, and I agree entirely with him.

A European has off-consumption.

I don’t understand the effect of that interjection. Sir, it is to be an offence if a Native, Asiatic or Coloured person is in possession of any liquor on any private premises without the consent of the owner or lawful occupier. It is not an offence for a European. I can’t see the point of discriminating against the Native, Asiatic or Coloured person in relation to this offence. The hon. the Minister says he wants to get away from discrimination, and here he leaves a clause which is obviously discriminatory. I cannot see the justification for it. If it is undesirable in relation to these people, why is it not undesirable in relation to the Europeans? That, Sir, is an additional reason why I should like to see this clause deleted. I hope the hon. the Minister will consider this matter seriously.

I second.

The hon. member said that he did not want to discuss the consumption, but then he moved his amendment. He has now moved both parts of his amendment. He has said that we are discriminating and making it an offence for the Bantu, because he may not consume his liquor in a White area nor may he be in possession of it on private premises. The Bantu can now buy liquor from the White man’s bottle stores, but he may not drink it there. He can consume it on the premises of any owner who gives him the right to do so. The hon. member must understand that in this case the Native is moving in an area that isnot his own area. This may be a matter of dispute between the hon. member’s party and the National Party. But there it is. The hon. member cannot simply call it discrimination in that sense of the word. The Bantu are being given certain rights in the White areas. The Bantu can buy his liquor, but he may not consume it there. He must take it away with him. The Natives who work in flats or on the premises of individuals, must just obtain the permission of the owner and then they can consume their liquor there. That is all. The hon. member now says: Yes, but if he takes his bottle to that place he will be arrested. He admits himself that in 99 per cent of the cases there will not be arrests. I think that as far as the remaining one per cent is concerned the police will have to use their commonsense if the Bantu says that he was on his way to this or that place to ask Mr. X whether he could consume the liquor on his premises. We must prevent drinking dens. I am sorry; I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. Kaffir beer can be brewed on premises outside urban areas with the permission of the owner. That is the position as far as Kaffir beer, the drink which the hon. member says the Bantu like to consume. In the city there is a prohibition on Kaffir beer, but with the permission of the municipality Kaffir beer can be brewed in such areas.

Amendment put and negatived.

Amendment in Clause 13, the omission of Clause 16 and the amendment in Clause 22, put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

More than two members having objected.

Bill to be read a third time on 24 June.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. P. du P. Basson) who was the last member to speak in this debate is not here at the moment. It seems that he is following the advice of the fox who said that it was sound tactics to run, but one must start in time. While I have risen to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Namib. I actually find it difficult to answer him. If I do not answer him, his voters in South West will criticize us for not replying to him when he makes all these nonsensical statements. If I do reply to him, then it seems as though I am taking notice of him, and that is definitely not so. I think the result of the last election in Namib will already have given the hon. member an indication that not even his voters in that constituency take any notice of him, and why should I do so? But I want to make it clear that while I am going to reply to him, I want to state specifically that I am now going to do so for the last time, and that in future I shall ignore him completely.

The hon. member has made quite a few statements. He has warned the Government that the Afrikaners will be held responsible for its mistakes. This is not the first time that the hon. member has tried to hold the Afrikaners responsible for the mistakes he has made. As a matter of fact this is not the first time that he has tried to incite the Bantu and the non-Whites against the Afrikaners. I have here a report which appeared in the Cape Argus of 4 February 1960. These are comments which one of the Bantu members, Paul Mozaka, made on a speech by the hon. member for Namib. This Bantu is chairman of the African Chamber of Commerce and is a member of the Institute of Race Relations. Inter alia he said the following—

But then he goes on to say—

That is what he has to say about the Afrikaans-speaking Whites. He then continues, and I just want to read his last few words. This extremist Bantu leader who has now called in the hon. member for Namib as an ally, said—

It is quite clear that the hon. member for Namib only wants this partnership between the Afrikaans-speaking people and the Bantu if it is a partnership of “brother to brother”. I want to ask the hon. member whether he wants this “brother to brother” partnership to continue, and in which spheres should it exist—in the social sphere, the political sphere, the economic sphere and in which other spheres?

I also want to read a few extracts to the hon. member for Namib from the latest issue of Drum. This is a Bantu journal. In it they reply to this mutual compliment which they have paid him. The article deals with “What the leaders say Here they give the comments of a whole series of leaders, for example, Walter Sisulu, Nelson Mandela and many others. The newspaper interviewed them as to how they felt about the demonstrations on 31 May. I first want to read a few of the remarks which a few of these so-called leaders made. Walter Sisulu said—

And then there is what Nelson Mandela says—

Various Bantu leaders were interviewed. This is “what the leaders say”. Inter alia I see that they report what the hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) had to say about the demonstrations on 31 May. Now I must give the hon. member for Queenstown, the leader of the Progressive Party, a good mark for at least not encouraging them in their mischief as far as 31 May was concerned. His comments were—

What do you say about that?

I have no comment to make. But now I want to read to the hon. member for Namib what he himself said. In this House I have always thought that the hon. member for Queenstown was the most leftist person in this House. But I want to tell him that the hon. member for Namib has outpaced him by quite a long way. The following is what the hon. member for Namib told this Bantu paper in connection with the demonstrations on 31 May—

In other words, he gave them yet more encouragement to continue with the demonstrations on 31 May. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have been very disappointed at the fact that the demonstrations which he regarded as a natural expression of their feelings by the Bantu were not more successful.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for lunch, I was just showing how the hon. member for Namib in his message to the Bantu journal, Drum encouraged the Bantu to continue with their demonstrations on 31 May. His words in this regard were as follows—

In this way he encouraged the Bantu to continue with their strike on 31 May. I also pointed out that the hon. member has even outpaced the most progressive thoughts of the hon. member for Queenstown. I now want to go on to take the hon. member for Namib to task for one or two of the other statements which he made the day before yesterday. The hon. member said for example: “The country is being governed by a sectional Government in which the English-speaking people have no share.” He should know that the Government has thrown open its doors to the English-speaking people. We do not ask what language a man speaks before he joins us. If people are English-speaking, German-speaking, whatever language they may speak, they are free and welcome to join the National Party as long as they are prepared to subscribe to the principles of the National Party. The hon. member for Namib should know that. As a matter of fact he has said so himself in this House. I read from the Hansard report of 31 March 1955 when the hon. member said the following—

And he was referring to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope).

Those were the comments of the hon. member for Namib. He went on—

Seeing that he knows exactly what the position is, seeing that he knows how welcome the English-speaking people are in the ranks of the National Party, I now ask what right the hon. member had to make these deplorable statements the day before yesterday to the effect that we have closed our doors to the English-speaking people? I wonder whether these statements of his are not just as irresponsible as the one he has made to the effect that Mr. Kobus Louw was one of the Hermanus people. He must have seen in this morning’s Burger that Mr. Kobus Louw has denied that allegation. What right does he have to mention Mr. Kobus Louw’s name in this House at all and what right does he have to claim that he was one of the people who tried to work against the National Party in that way.

In referring to the Coloured problem, he has also said that a party which is prepared to go as far as A should not have any objection to a party which is prepared to go as far as B. That is quite correct. It is precisely for that reason that the National Party is not prepared to say “A”. It is for that reason that the United Party, the Progressive Party and the hon. member for Namib and all Opposition parties are moving step by step through the alphabet. The one has reached C and the other D, but they are all heading towards X, Y and Z. He should know that. Mr. Speaker, it is the principle of the National Party not to allow Bantu representatives in this House for example because we believe that once we allow Bantu representatives in this House, we must automatically go further. Then it will not only be four representatives; it will be the eight representatives which the United Party wants, or the 22 which the hon. member for Queenstown and his party want, or perhaps even more. There will be a whole series of demands which will eventually force one to reach Z. That is why we adopt this attitude. But the hon. member for Namib should know this. He himself has said in this House that there is no such thing as partnership with the Bantu. He cannot adopt the attitude that one can give the Bantu a joint say in the government of the White man. I want to quote what he has said, and I am reading once again from his speech of 31 March 1955. He said the following—

And, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that it was precisely the hon. member for Namib’s main point that the Bantu representatives should not be kept in this Parliament, the very matter which he has advocated over the years. He has contended that we cannot sit with them in this House. I want to read his words to the House—

Seeing that he advocated this policy for years in this House, I ask what right the hon. member for Namib now has to change over and say that he is in favour of the Bantu being represented in this House and that there should not be parallel constitutional development for them.

The hon. member for Namib has criticized the Government because it does not hold consultations in connection with South West. I want to ask him whom the Government mustconsult? Only its legal representatives, the members of Parliament of the National Party of South West, as the Government does, or does the hon. member want to be consulted himself? What right does he have to speak – on behalf of any South Wester and what right does he have to claim that the Government of the country should consult the United Party of South West? He knows himself that the United Party of South West takes up one attitude today and a different attitude to-morrow, just as he does. The United Party of South West has again shown clearly this year that it cannot keep its word. We were prepared to take the international problem relating to South West out of politics altogether and they agreed to do so, and we were to consult with them, but they left us in the lurch and the hon. member for Namib knows it. He has said himself that one cannot consult with the United Party of South West. I want to read to him what he said in his speech of 19 September 1958—

And now we have the important point—

Even he was not anxious to consult with the United Party in South West. Why should we do so?

But the hon. member for Namib has also accused the Government of being dictatorial. He has said that the Government is a strong (kragdadige) Government which challenges the whole world; it consults no one and it simply decides to do something and then it goes ahead. I should like to read what the hon. member for Namib said in respect of this same matter on 6 February 1953 in this House. He said—

That is exactly the reverse of what he says to-day.

In 1953 there was a different government, a different Prime Minister.

It is the same government and the same policy. When he adopts this attitude, if what he says in the morning does not agree with what he says in the evening, can the hon. member for Namib expect the voters to take any notice of him? Does he really expect, if he is not certain about a matter himself and speaks as the wind blows, that he can make an impression on the voters. No, the hon. member for Namib with his turncoat politics is not only rendering a disservice to the few followers he has, but to the whole country. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Education has called him the Elvis Presley of South African politics, but I do want to say this. Elvis Presley stopped his silliness after he went through a course in the army, but it seems to me that the hon. member for Namib will never stop. He has simply closed his ears and has gone on with his rocking and rolling. He is making a fool of the Whites who think that he can offer a solution for our colour problems. and he is creating false hopes among the non-Whites who can utilize their own resources for the upliftment of their own people in their own homelands. Someone has said that the hon. member for Germiston District (Prof. Fourie) has only made an emergency landing in the ranks of the Progressives and that once he has refuelled he will resume his flight, but the hon. member for Namib reminds me of the Russian missile which was fired at Venus and which never made a landing and for all we know will never reach Venus. He is simply in the air and he is flying the devil only knows where to.

I want to conclude. I just want to make one point. I want to issue a warning. We have once again seen that a great deal has been said about South West Africa. I do not want to say anything at all on that subject. because I abide by the sub judice rule. namely while the South West issue is before the World Court. we shall say nothing about it. But I notice that apamphlet by one Ronald Ballinger has appeared under the title “South West Africa, the Case Against the Union I want to tell those who write about South Africa that they must please be careful. If this gentleman had only taken the trouble to consult other books dealing with the same subject, such as those of Henri Rollin, Rouard de Card, Diena, Mondaini, Makowski, Lindley, Baty, Woolf, Goudy and A. H. Keith, all constitutional writers of name and repute—he would have seen that the matter had quite a different side. I want to issue a warning that we must expect various publications dealing with South West to appear in the next few months and year. I do not want to anticipate trouble, but I expect an increasing campaign by cranks and liberals who will try to weaken the strong case which the Union has in respect of South West by means of such articles. It forms part of the organized campaign against the Government’s policy aimed at creating the impression that the Government must sacrifice its colour policy if it wishes to retain South West. Allow me to state that if there are legal grounds why South West should be taken from the Union, the same legal grounds will exist whether we have 100 non-White representatives in Parliament or whether we are prepared to sacrifice South Africa lock, stock and barrel to Communism. To put it in this way, for those inhabitants of South West who would like to retain South West for Western civilization there is only one choice, and that is to strengthen the hands of this Government.

I am extremely interested in the attack of the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe) on the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). All I can say on that score is that the hon. member for Namib must have got right under his skin. It is quite obvious from that outburst that they are afraid of the hon. member for Namib. [Laughter.] I want to assure the hon. member that the hon. member for Namib has behaved himself in an exemplary manner in this House. His observations are eagerly awaited and listened to by everyone in this House, and read with interest outside. I was very interested in one of the remarks of the hon. member for Middelland, that the doors of the Nationalist Party are open for the enlistment of any English-speaking people who want to join, on condition that they must subscribe completely to the policies of the Nationalist Party.

Does that not count for your party, too?

If the English-speaking of South Africa join the Nationalist Party they reach political maturity, but if the Afrikaans-speaking people join the United Party they do not have political maturity. Can the hon. member reconcile that?

I want to deal fairly fully with that particular aspect. It arises out of what the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling). had to say yesterday. In his attempt to talk on the question of co-operation and unity, he made some serious observations which I want to follow up. But first of all may I remind the hon. member that his leader, the Prime Minister, throughout the period before and during the referendum, preached the great desire for unity and every possible attempt at co-operation. The hon. member yesterday by his observation seemingly wants just the reverse. What he wants is greater division. I want to quote to him a remark he made yesterday: “Afrikaners aan die Opposisiekant is aan-hangsels van die Engelssprekendes.” One feels ashamed when one gets remarks like that from an hon. gentleman who should show more responsibility. The hon. the Prime Minister has told us, and it has been echoed in a chorus by members of the Cabinet and other hon. members on that side of the House, that there are thousands of English-speaking people joining the Nationalist Party.

Quite right!

By the same token, are those English-speaking people who joined the Nationalist Party regarded in the same light as in the statement made by the hon. member for Ventersdorp?

No.

Will the hon. member tell me why not?

Because they are good South Africans.

May I pose this question to any of these hon. members. In a newspaper report which appeared quite recently it was stated that new English-speaking recruits to the Nationalist Party must not be absorbed in the Afrikaans branches. It appeared in the Press and it has not been contradicted. They must be encouraged to join the English branches. [Interjections.] May I ask the hon. members whether the John X. Merriman branch of the Nationalist Party…

That story is absolutely untrue. It is a Sunday Times story.

You have the John X. Merriman branch and the Emily Hobhouse branch confined to English-speaking people.

Not confined.

Can any hon. member tell me why they are segregated in English branches? It is because they are regarded in the same spirit as we had from the hon. member for Ventersdorp, that they are hangers-on of the Afrikaans-speaking people.

You should rather speak about agriculture.

I want to tell that hon. member that I am no less a South African than he is, and I have made my contribution. May I say that I as a good South African hope that I never have my mind warped so that I think along those lines of my fellow-South Africans. I think it is a disgrace to think like that of any of our fellow-South Africans.

I want to say this before I go on to another subject: Are my friends over there blind to what is happening? I try to discuss these things with them from time to time and I get the old reply: “Alles sal reg kom.” Let me say that at this stage of our history nothing will come right unless we make a material and spiritual approach towards trying to correct the wrongs in this country and to bring about that mature state of mind which will seek good fellowship and a keen desire to find common ground. Only by searching for common ground amongst each other can we expect to solve the many difficulties with which we are faced. While we remain indoctrinating our little children in hatred against each other… [Interjections.] I am making the speech, and not the hon. member for Aliwal. With these opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, let me assure this House that we are heading for disaster if we continue along the lines we are following at present.

Now I want to come to a point with which I have already dealt in this House and which I think the House should be reminded of again. That is the question of our interests, particularly on this side of the House, in the affairs of the fruit farmers of South Africa. I refer particularly to the Langeberg-Co-operative. Let me preface my remarks by saying that having dealt with the matter before and having become conversant with all the facts, I speak on behalf of thousands of fruit farmers who are members of the Langeberg-Co-op. As time passes on, so have we become more convinced that there is something wrong with Langeberg. May I remind the House that in 1956 I warned this House of the pending disaster unless action was taken. When I came down this Session, as I normally do I inquired into the affairs of Langeberg from the most responsible people I could find. I was told, to my utter surprise that Langeberg was making wonderful headway and that it was paying off £700,000 a year from its debt. Well, that is hardly in conformity with the disclosures that we have found in the Auditor’s reports and the observations that were made in those reports, and the fact that there must be a certain amount of truth in it is indicated by the fact that every possible effort has been made to cover up things since. I had occasion then and perhaps more so to-day to ask for an investigation into this matter, and I have occasion to do so to a greater extent now than then. At that time I had occasion to refer to the gentleman who was involved in bringing about this state of affairs at Langeberg. I referred to him as a slick gentleman and it was objected to on that side of the House. Sir, that gentleman got himself established as joint managing director of Langeberg at a salary higher than that paid to Ministers, to give only one-third of his time to the affairs of Langeberg. He was at that time managing director or a director of 63 other companies. Can you imagine what time he could devote to Langeberg, and is it any wonder that Langeberg has got into the state it has? My contention was then that he would bring about the downfall of Langeberg, and it has progressively happened from 1956, and in 1961 we have Langeberg obliged to pay interest on R16,000,000 per annum before it can make any contribution to paying for its fruit. Is it any wonder that the fruit farmers of South Africa are faced with this position, that in the Auditor’s report they talk in terms of disloyalty? Sir, can you not expect disloyalty when in fact you have private enterprise paying from £6 to £10 more per ton for the same quality fruit as compared with Langeberg? Is it any wonder that you have had resignations and forfeitures which are also referred to in the Auditors’ report! Of course not. Why? Those men cannot afford to, nor can the fruit farmers afford to, carry on as they are, and I to the fruit farmers of South Africa to set think the Minister of Agriculture owes a duty up a commission to investigate the complete story and the administration of that Co-op.

I have done that already.

And is the Minister doing anything about it? The Land Bank is involved to the tune of many millions. Then may I direct my remarks to the hon. the Minister of Finance? The same gentleman to whom I referred to at that time is now involved in another fiasco, and I want to ask the Minister what he is doing about that? Is he causing an investigation into the affairs of Standard Druggists? The same man is involved. I ask this question of the Minister of Finance. I understand, and it may be rumour, that that is the company which was covering the insurance on farm bonds under the Land Bank and that it has withdrawn its guarantee or withdrawn from its obligations, and if so, has any other company taken over to guarantee those bonds? If not, or if so, has the Land Bank lost anything in the process? It is an extremely important matter to the farmers that these matters should be adjusted. Is a judicial inquiry to be made into the affairs of Langeberg?

I did not say a judicial inquiry; it is a committee.

If it is only a committee, I am very sorry, but I think no less than ajudicial commission should be appointed to investigate the affairs of Langeberg. They warrant it.

I want to direct these questions to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture. Agricultural finances are getting into a parlous state in South Africa. Insurance companies have now, I think, completely withdrawn from farm bonds. Financial organizations have withdrawn in a great measure. The temporary accommodation that is so essential for the good conduct of farming is absent, or practically absent. The Minister will know that the banks have clamped down to such an extent that it is impossible to get even a measure of temporary accommodation. In view of those circumstances, and in view of the trying period we expect to pass through as the result of the shortage of money, will the Minister investigate ways and means of seeing that agriculture first of all has its long-term credit and also its temporary accommodation provided as early as possible?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply briefly to certain very distasteful remarks which the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has made. The hon. member has taken it upon himself to try to tell this House what the National Party’s attitude, particularly in the Transvaal, is towards its English-speaking members as organized into branches. [Interjection.] No, I have listened to the hon. member and he must not try to change what he has said. The hon. member has referred particularly to the John X. Merriman Branch of the National Party and to younger branches such as the Emily Hobhouse branch which have been established recently. The hon. member does not even know in which area the John X. Merriman branch operates.

In Johannesburg.

It may interest the hon. member to know that I was one of the founders of the John X. Merriman branch, together with Senator Brink. At that time we were all. including the English-speaking members, members of the Parktown branch and English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking persons belonged to that branch. That was during the late 1940s. That English-speaking branch, the John X. Merriman branch was not established, as the hon. member has incorrectly claimed, to segregate the English-speaking people from the Afrikaans-speaking people. [Interjection.] I shall come to the report as well. This branch was established on the initiative and at the request of the English-speaking Nationalists themselves and here I want to mention someone’s name. If I remember correctly, the first chairman was Mr. Jesse Williams who to-day is a pensioner and lives here on the coast, and his son Paul to-day is one of the leading figures in that branch. In that branch we have a wonderful collection of South Africans, all of foreign descent. There are members of purely English descent; there are members from the European Continent with all sorts of varying descents; there are many members of that branch who are more at home in the English language, who understand it best and for whom it is the most practical medium, and this was the only reason why they asked for that branch. The position is not that we as Afrikaans-speaking people segregated them into that branch. As I have said, I myself was one of the people who assisted at that time and during those initial stages, the Afrikaans-speaking people at their request did a great deal in that English branch to help them get under way and to move forward with the movement. No, the hon. member must not try in this way to incite feelings when he sees that unity is developing in a natural way between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking members of the National Party.

They are not hangers-on of the National Party.

Order! The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has had an opportunity to make his speech.

The hon. member has relied particularly on a report. I shall deal with the report presently; I shall not forget it. When the hon. member discussed the John X. Merriman branch to-day, he insulted many loyal South Africans of un-South African descent, all of whom were born abroad and who have given their hearts to South Africa to-day, to no less an extent than the hon. member for King William’s Town himself—and perhaps to a greater extent. These are the people who are keeping the branch going; these are the people who as loyal South Africans are doing their duty in many national spheres. There is a certain member in that branch whose name I do not want to mention because I do not have his approval, who openly participates in the activities of this branch. I do not think he would object if I mentioned his name. This is a person who held a government post in another country in Europe. To-day he is one of the most active members of that branch which is one of the most enthusiastic branches and which supports the National Party’s policy most wholeheartedly. The hon. member has offered these people who are becoming South Africans in such a fine natural way a great insult by referring to them in this way. And in other branches we find English-speaking people serving with Afrikaans-speaking members. I want to give him examples of a few branches which in practice are exclusively Afrikaans-speakingbecause the members are overwhelmingly Afrikaans-speaking and because their proceedings also take place mainly in Afrikaans. I want to give him the example of an area which I know very well because it formerly formed part of my constituency and is now situated in the constituency of the hon. member for North-West Rand. There are three English-speaking persons whose names I now want to give the hon. member, namely Mr. Buxton, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Seizz, English-speaking people who are office-bearers of the branch to which they belong in North-West Rand. Here Afrikaans- and English-speaking members serve together for one simple reason, namely that these English-speaking members have not yet of their own accord thought of and asked for the establishment of a separate English-speaking branch, while in the case of John X. Merriman branch and other branches this is in fact the position.

On a point of order, the Deputy Minister is now creating a completely incorrect impression.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Much closer to my own constituency, in Florida, we have someone an English-speaking business man of Johannesburg, namely Mr. Dove, who opposed the late Mr. Tighy—a man who can in fact speak Afrikaans but who is more at home in English. I serve with him on various bodies. Mr. Dove was not only a candidate of the National Party but he is the chairman of a branch which for the rest consists almost exclusively of Afrikaans-speaking members. Mr. Dove has not been segregated out of that branch and sent to Johannesburg to join the John X. Merriman branch or to join the Emily Hobhouse branch. Mr. Dove has been accepted by the large majority of Afrikaans-speaking members in that branch to such an extent that he first became chairman of his branch, then member of the divisional executive and eventually a National Party candidate. No, the hon. member for King William’s Town must not try in such a pitiful way, where unity is developing within the National Party between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking peoples, to force them apart by using such deplorable methods.

Stanley Uys’ nonsense.

That interjection brings me back to that report. The hon. member has relied on the supposed facts which he has quoted from a report in the Sunday Times. That is his political Bible. It is the political Bible of by far the most hon. members opposite. I sincerely hope that it is not the only type of Bible which they ever handle. This report of the Sunday Times on which the hon. member relies consists from beginning to end of the most unadulterated falsehoods and lies which one can imagine, but the hon. member and other hon. members lap it up as though it is political gospel. Is their case so weak that they have to accept such obvious lies to raise their own spirits? This allegation which has been made on more than one occasion regarding the chief secretary of the National Party in the Transvaal, namely Mr. Steyl, to the effect that he is furthering this type of segregation of English-speaking members and to which the hon. member has referred, is nonsense. I do not know whether the hon. member is prepared to accept my word as against that of the columnist of the Sunday Times. He will probably not do so but I can assure him that it is nonsense. Just as nonsensical is the other allegation which has been made to the effect that Mr. Steyl is now trying to unseat a large number of National members of Parliament in the Transvaal in order to get them out of politics because they are so well-disposed to the English-speaking people. If that were to be true… I see the hon. member for King William’s Town is laughing. He is laughing because I have explained the position to him but at the time he read it, he believed it and then he thanked the stars for it. Can the person who wrote this newspaper report believe it? If it were to be true that Transvaal members of the National Party are to be executed politically because they co-operate with the English-speaking people and make appeals to them, would the Prime Minister then have made the appeals to the English-speaking people which he has in fact made? If that were to be true, then the Prime Minister should be the first on the list for political execution because the Prime Minister recently expressed his regret at the fact that English-speaking persons had not been appointed to the school boards and the result was that two of them were appointed inter alia, Mr. Paul Williams of the John X Merriman branch. Then the Prime Minister is the first person whom the Transvaal secretary should deal with.

Will the Deputy Minister repudiate the statement which has been made on this side of the House that Afrikaners on this side are hangers-on of the English and, vice versa, that English-speaking people who belong to the National Party are hangers-on of the National Party?

The one is true and the other not.

I know nothing about that remark relating to “hangers-on”. We do not regard English-sneaking people who support the National Party as “hangers-on”. We have English-speakingpeople who support the National Party, who support the National Party fully with all their hearts and minds and who subscribe to the National Party’s policy, and we accept them in the same spirit. But as regards the Afrikaans-speaking persons opposite who belong to the United Party, the Lord only knows why they belong to it. I wonder whether He knows.

I want to conclude with these few words. I want to tell the hon. member for King William’s Town and other hon. members opposite once again that they must promote their cause by positive means and not grasp at such nonsense as this report to the effect that even the Broederbond is one of the organizations wielding the axe. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the other day that he would very much like to have an election this year. Do they really want to enter a general election with such nonsensical policies as this?

That is why they always lose.

Or do they want to enter an election with the type of scare story which the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) tells but which he cannot convert into action? Hon. members can safely learn from the National Party, and if they do not want to learn from the National Party of to-day, they can safely learn from the National Party when it was in opposition. It did not get into power by means of scare stories, it did not get into power by using such nonsensical stories, nor by repeating lies; it came into power by offering the nation a political synthesis and a proper positive political policy of self-preservation and the continued existence of the White man. The people understood this synthesis and accepted this policy and put this party into power. That is how a party comes into power; and if the United Party can devise such a policy, they may come into power, but they cannot and that is why they will not come into power.

I want to avoid any attempt to reply to what I would call the small-change of this debate, which has taken place so far. and that goes for most of the remarks of the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just spoken. But before coming to what I would particularly like to say I would urge the hon. the Minister of Agriculture who has stated across the floor of the House that he has appointed a committee to investigate certain aspects of the activities of Langeberg, that he should take the first opportunity of publicly stating what the position is that he has found. I would have thought, quite frankly, after there had appeared publicly in print the report of the auditor of Langeberg’s affairs, and bearing in mind the vital importance of Langeberg as a market for the products of a very large number of farmers, that the Minister would very quickly have made some public announcement so as to allay the fears which may have engendered in the minds of the people who are dependent on the well-being and financial strength of Langeberg, and that where doubts may have arisen as to whether the farmers are going to be caught at a time like this, with falling prices and so forth, and suddenly find their market either so diminished that it is worthless or entirely taken away from them, that this was a case where the Minister would have come in very quickly indeed to explain the position. I am very sorry that he has not already done so. Surely the position is this—and I think the Minister will agree—that where the well-being of these farmers is concerned, Parliament may have to apply its mind to the problem. I do not see how Parliament can wash its hands and absolve itself from all responsibility in regard to the well-being of the farmers; how badly they are caught and what the precise position is, I do not know. That is why I regret that the Minister has not already made a public statement, either in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs or the Minister of Finance or whatever other department of State may be involved. But I think this is a time when we have to recognize that in South Africa to-day there is a large body of farmers who are filled with anxiety as to what their position is and who will be anxiously waiting for some kind of authoritative statement so that they shall know precisely where they stand and, if it is necessary for some relief measures to be extended to them, to what extent those measures will be made available.

Now I want to move on from that point and deal with a question which has been stressed both my hon. leader and other members on this side of the House and has been referred to from time to time by the Prime Minister, and that is the question of unity in this country. We find ourselves to-day with a de facto Republic in South Africa, a Republic which has been brought about by legal means through parliamentary action in accordance with the powers of Parliament. The legal power of Parliament so to enact legislation is beyond question. That nearly half of the total electorate who voted in the referendum were against what Parliament did, does not matter for the moment. We are concerned with the fact; we are concerned with the fact that the Republic is here notwithstanding all the efforts of those who ere opposed to it and who faught against from beginning to end, so long as a constitutional fight was possible. But to-day the Republic is here and I find myself in this difficulty, a difficulty which was emphasized by the hon. the Deputy Minister who spoke before me: How does an ordinary person in his language discriminate between his love, his respect and his loyalty for his country and his complete abhorrence of the Government and its policies? That is the practical difficulty in which I find myself and in which the bulk of the English-speaking South Africans find themselves in this country. That difficulty, as I say, was emphasized by the Deputy Minister who spoke before me, because he referred to certain good folk who are members of a Nationalist Party branch, which of course they are entitled to be. Heaven knows, Sir, I welcome all the Afrikaans-speaking people who join us from time to time and there are many still coming to join us. If there are English-speaking people who want to join the Nationalist Party of course they are entitled to do so.

Yes, and they are welcome. You are also welcome.

The point made by the Deputy Minister was that people from outside our borders have come to South Africa, and he went on to say that they were born outside South Africa, but that they had truly given their hearts to South Africa. They have become members of a Nationalist Party branch. Sir, it is not necessary for them to become members of a Nationalist Party branch to give their hearts to South Africa Why does the Deputy Minister apply a test like that? There are plenty of us who have given our hearts to South Africa, who regard South Africa as our only homeland but we are not members of a Nationalist Party branch, and we have no intention of ever becoming members of a Nationalist Party branch. We can give our hearts to South Africa without doing that. We proved our love for South Africa differently, in a manner which has been found unacceptable to hon. members opposite in the main.

Don’t quarrel about that.

I am not quarrelling about it; I am emphasizing the difficulty experienced by myself and those who feel as I do. We say that we abhor the Government and its policy but we love South Africa. We are prepared, and we will, indicate our respect for our country. But when hon. members opposite, from the Prime Minister downwards, from time to time speak of unity, we want to know what is this unity? I am tired of hearing the word used repeatedly by hon. members opposite.

Do you think you have a monopoly of it.

Sir, there is something of which that hon. member has a monopoly; I will obey parliamentary procedure and refrain from explaining it in precise words of two syllables.

The position is this: We find ourselves in this position that the word unity is used repeatedly, but nobody from the Prime Minister downwards on the other side ever attempts to define it; they never attempt to give it substance; they never try to give it form; they never attempt to particularize. Indeed when the Prime Minister made a speech here the other day, where the word “unity” was taken in its ordinary meaning, how quickly, Sir, he was repudiated by the hon. Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport repudiated him immediately and he made a speech which categorically said “We are not seeking unity with that side of the House”.

Political unity.

That is not what the Prime Minister was thinking about. The Minister of Transport repudiated the unity of which the Prime Minister had spoken and for which the Prime Minister had appealed.

They are two different things.

It is no good the Minister of Finance trying to exonerate his colleague the Minister of Transport; it is no good trying to excuse him.

You are under a misapprehension; I am trying to correct you.

May I interpolate for a moment and say if the Minister of Finance can correct some of his own mistakes he will be serving S.A. very well. Let him clean his own doorstep before he tries to correct my mistakes. Let him deal with South Africa’s financial position in the world to-day; let him get us out of this mess into which he and his Government have put us, and that will be time enough for him then to speak about correcting other people’s mistakes. Only last year the hon. the Minister was giving us assurances, in fact a written statement, in regard to what was to happen in London and he emphasized it in his usual manner. He is never more emphatic than when he is wrong.

That is autobiographic.

Sir, the signs are well known to this side of the House; as soon as the Minister of Finance makes dogmatic statements in an emphatic manner we know he is wrong; we know that before very long events will prove him wrong; we know that it won’t be very long before he is available with his great natural ingenuity to try to escape the consequences of his own faultiness.

What about the repatriation of foreign capital?

The repatriation of foreign capital is merely one of the cases where the hon. the Minister was wrong. Before this debate is over the Minister of Financewill be proving that it is in the interests of South Africa to have lost all this capital; he will be showing how highly privileged we are to have a Minister with a policy which has drained South Africa of capital.

He has put the plug in; the water is not running out any more.

Sir, I was speaking of unity. I say that the Minister of Transport repudiated the Prime Minister. This word ‘unity’ is simply dead sea fruit in the mouths of the hon. members opposite. It means nothing to them; they give it no form and no substance. I admit that we in this country have to seek unity. I support the appeals which have been made from this side of the House.

Your type of unity.

Certainly not that of the Minister of Transport.

If we accepted that political unity is out, which we must accept because undoubtedly it is out—I remember that some little time before the referendum the hon. the Prime Minister forecast the time when in the Republic the differences between the various political parties would disappear once the Republic came into being. I think that is a fair way of putting it. He foresaw the day when the Nationalist Party would ‘verdwyn’ (disappear) because in the Republic all these difficulties would be cleared up and gradually all these old political differences would disappear; the racial aspect of political differences would disappear and we would come down then to the kind of differences which would be based on conservatism on the one side and liberalism on the other. The Prime Minister went so far as to advise the English-speaking South Africans to form their own conservative party so that he could talk and negotiate with them. Sir, to get true unity was to destroy all the old differences between political parties; to get true unity was to create new political boundaries, the boundary to be the difference between the conservative and the liberal element in South Africa.

Where are you?

I am in Parliament at the present time if the hon. member has no eyes to see. Sir, where in that pretty picture that was painted came the Afrikaans-speaking members of the United Party who sit here with us, those who do not come into that picture at all? May I make this point: It is no good the Prime Minister or anybody else using the word ‘unity’ without giving it form or substance, without being specific, when there is implicit in it and by direct condemnation of hon. members opposite, the association of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the United Party with those who are English-speaking South Africans? Sir, there can be no unity on that basis. Unity in this country has to come on the basis of the unity that already exists in this party between Afrikaans- and English-speaking. That is the only basis, a basis where it is our resolve, where it is a basic principle and where of set intent we avoid references to Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking South Africans because we are all South Africans. We hope that even the use of that language will disappear and as far as this party is concerned we will be only too pleased to see it go. That is the position in which we find ourselves here. What kind of approach, in that respect, do we get from the other side? None whatsoever. What we get from the other side is condemnation of the Afrikaans-speaking people who sit with us. Why are they condemned?

Who condemns them?

Order! I shall be glad if hon. members would give the hon. member an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

Sir, they are blamed for no other reason than that they sit here with us who are English-speaking South Africans. If they would be prepared to sit on the other side amongst Nationalist members and accept the policy of hon. members opposite, then they would be some of the finest people in the world. If the Minister of Transport meant that they did not want unity with us on political gronuds, then what he was saying was again condemnation of the Afrikaans-speaking people on this side of the House. He was saying that so long as those people have their present political outlook they are not welcome as far as the Nationalists are concerned to form part of the South African nation and that, Sir, we repudiate with the greatest emphasis at our command. Where do we go from here? Economically and otherwise, we occupy a dangerous position and here may I pay my little tribute to the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) who so aptly recalled a prophecy which I made a few years ago in regard to the parlous condition that our finances in South Africa have reached under the Nationalist Government. He referred to it with great unctuousness for some reason or other; I do not know why, but this is a time when a prophet would have wished to have been found mistaken. However, there it is. We are in this trouble and we go from bad to worse. Neither the Prime Minister nor anybody on that side makes an honest endeavour to bring the people together. The hon. the Prime Minister has had his opportunities and he has thrown them away for no other reason than that he is a leader of a political party and not a Prime Minister of South Africa. That is the big trouble. He cannot regard himself as the leader of a political party and also PrimeMinister of South Africa, the Prime Minister of all the people in this country whatever their race or their political opinions may be. He sees himself continually as Leader of the Nationalist Party and he is continually hampered and hamstrung by the fact that he is Leader of the Nationalist Party with pressure groups within his own party continually driving him forward. He must forever be exercising his authority, as we have seen exercised recently in the debate on the Liquor Bill. He must continually do that; he cannot sit back and let the wheels of democracy in this Parliament just naturally roll themselves onwards under a democratic system of government. He will be overrun by the juggernaut if he does that. He must be continually exercising his authority; he must continually be holding his own back-benchers in check. I do not think that any of them are really rearing to go to break away from the control that the Prime Minister is exercising. I believe they like it; I believe it suits their outlook, but that is besides the point. The Prime Minister is a party political Leader; he is not a Prime Minister of South Africa, and unhappily we are going into the crisis that is facing us in this position at the present time. Sir, we are out of the Commonwealth. We are out of it because the Prime Minister decided under the circumstances of the time to withdraw our application to remain in. I think it was a fatal error. I think that South Africa ought to do its utmost to get back into the Commonwealth. My hon. Leader has been most clear that the change having been made and South Africa now away from the Crown, that step is probably irretraceable, but so far as the Commonwealth is concerned it is not irretraceable. I find in one of the most responsible Afrikaans newspapers down here that I am criticized when I say that South Africa should try to return to the Commonwealth, and I am beginning to wonder whether indeed it was more by intent than by accident that we find ourselves outside the Commonwealth, in view of this immediate attack that was made upon me when I suggested that we should try to get back to the Commonwealth. Hon. members on the other side keep saying, Sir, that we can only get back to the Commonwealth at a price of “one man one vote That of course is a bogy-man set up by hon. members on the other side. We have not got to concede “one man one vote”, and I want for a moment to deal with one or two aspects of this question. The hon. the Prime Minister pulled out our application to remain in the Commonwealth at a time when the wind of change was not blowing in Africa, but blowing throughout the world, blowing throughout the Commonwealth. We don’t know what is going to happen in Africa. We don’t know what is going to happen in the Commonwealth. If there is a time of change coming in Africa, and undoubtedly not only is the change already here, but vast further changes are coming along and we can already see the portents of many of those changes—it may be hard to evaluate them, it may be extremely difficult to decide precisely in what direction they will go, but I think of this we can be absolutely certain and that is that the present situation in Africa is a shifting situation, a changing situation, an unstable situation politically and economically. It is a thing of pieces to-day. When Africa was carved up by the European powers, the various Metropolitan Powers who acquired their possessions here, people took into account all sorts of reasons for revising the political boundaries that they were going to establish: The Sudan, the French possessions, the Portuguese Possessions, the British possessions, the Belgium possessions, but in not one single instance were those lines drawn because of political affiliations between the aborigines concerned, the Bantu people, and in the north, the Nilotic peoples. Nobody cared what they thought about it: They were a bunch of savages and cannibals, and what they thought about it did not matter. The nations decided amongst themselves just exactly where they were going to draw the line and there they drew the line, with the result that people who have got the closest affinity to one another are found on both sides of two lines, which to-day constitute different peoples. But affinity being what it is, those people will tend to come together in spite of all efforts of mankind, and in the movement to and fro, the whole of the structure of society in Africa, not in Southern Africa, but in Africa, is going to be shaken. It will be changed and the political structure will change with it. And here we are, Sir, at a time like this, with these changes on the Continent of which we form a part, and we stand divided. And in the greater world, the Commonwealth, changes are also taking place. Tributes have been paid in the past by British Prime Ministers, and by the present British Prime Minister to the capacity of the Commonwealth to adapt itself to a changing world, to changing circumstances, and it was recognized, many years ago—I think it was referred to the first time by the late General Smuts, and also by Dr. Malan—that you have got these changing circumstances, this set-up, the basic understanding, the affinity between the various members comprising the Commonwealth pending to change, emphasis laid here now and laid there at another stage, and there grew up in practice what was an inner circle of the Commonwealth and an outer circle. That was established at a time when India became a republic. The position was this that at that time when India became a republic, and undoubtedly because of the pressure of the East, there was the development of an inner ring and an outer ring, but now a new factor comes into it and that is the manifold differences between the outlook of the new African Prime Minister, the Prime Ministers of the new African states who are members of the Commonwealth, and the older members, and I would like to say this, that in my humble opinion, Sir, we are going to find that the affinity of the African for the African is in the last resort a far stronger bond and tiethan the rather tenuous bonds which are binding together various parts of the Commonwealth, one with the other, and if events, such as for instance the possibility of Great Britain joining the Common Market take place, if Great Britain adheres to the Common Market, I think that that will have its repercussions in Commonwealth circles, repercussions which again at the moment we are quite unable to determine. We do not know what the result will be. But that there will be specific results which will flow from such a step, I have no doubt whatever, and if my feeling is right, here in Africa members of the Commonwealth who are at the same time because of their race and the situation in which they find themselves, part and parcel of the African population on the African Continent, we will find a tendency for those bonds here in Africa to grow stronger, notwithstanding the extreme antipathy, between one African country and another, antipathy which may be so strong that they may lead to open warfare between them until such time as there may be a re-approachment hereafter, in the future. But the feeling of the African for the African will be a strong feeling. The feeling of the African for the New Zealander will take very second place, and to my good friends in Malaya I say that it will take a very, very third place indeed. It is inevitable. Where do we stand under these circumstances? Surely there is not only a reasonable but entirely logical and essential step for South Africa to take, and that is to try and see whether we cannot go back to the Commonwealth under circumstances which naturally are going to be of benefit to South Africa, but also of benefit to the other members of the Commonwealth who are in it under those circumstances. But that the Commonwealth as it is to-day, will remain in its present form, I do not believe. I don’t believe that it will continue to exist in its present form for another decade, and South Africa should be willing to get back for the purpose of that community which we have enjoyed so long, ever since the Union of South Africa, for the last half century. We should be prepared to make a definite effort to get back. Sir, we want the community of spirit with our co-white peoples in the Commonwealth in exactly the same way as the Africans will want the community of spirit and affinity with the Africans in the other African countries. Sir, it is a dangerous thing, from the point of view of South Africa, from the point of view of our country, an extremely dangerous thing, that we should be putting not only political values in the way, but that there should be an attempt made by responsible Nationalist leaders to create some kind of, what I would call, spiritual barrier in the way. Sir, that is committing a great evil against the best interests of South Africa. Let us adopt this as our policy that for the purpose of the return to the Commonwealth, we leave the door open. We willingly do nothing whatever which will in any way exacerbate feelings which may have been roused as a result of past happenings, but we try whether agreement cannot be found with Commonwealth countries and to develop that agreement, so that against the day that it is possible for us to find that we can get back, we will achieve that. In that connection I want to say this quite frankly, that one of the points in respect of which we in South Africa will have to view that picture must sooner or later be from the point of view of a true national unity in South Africa, not on the basis of the Nationalist ideologies, or on the basis of the policy of the Nationalist Government. Because that we have tried for 14 years. And I speak now for myself: What have I as an ordinary representative English-speaking South African got out of it. Consultation? Never!

Out of what?

An attempt to meet the wishes of the people I represent? Never! A smack in the face occasionally for luck? Yes, Sir. On more than one occasion. Take for example the question of language. I am not making a point of it, I merely point to it in passing. The hon. Prime Minister says “Yes, two languages, the two sections must stand together”. Look at the hon. Minister of Agriculture’s little Landbounuus. The articles in that number approximately 21 or 22 every week—I think it comes out weekly. And how many do you find in English? Two or three and on occasion one. All the rest of it in Afrikaans. My agriculturalists come to me, the agricultural associations and say: “What is this?”, and every time the thing crops up, it creates further difficulties.

Where do you get Landbounuus?

It is posted to me, probably by the hon. Minister’s Department.

You can get everything in the two languages.

Some of the articles are not only of very great interest, but of very great importance. I think I have got three or four here in my office in the House, and if the Minister would like to have a look at them he is welcome. As I say every edition contains some 20 or 22 articles, and I doubt whether ever more than four have been in English lately. On occasion the overseas news, which they receive in English, is the only article that is in English in that whole publication. It is a minor matter and I touch on it in passing, but I want to come back again to this central theme of unity, and I want to make this point before I sit down:

The Government is the party in power. The Prime Minister is a man who has got the authority in his hands to-day, unquestionablyso far as the Government is concerned. The initiative lies with the Government. As long as the Government goes on to talk about unity and they don’t give form and substance to it and define it, so long as they do not recognize that there is another point of view and they are willing to concur and to discuss and to consult with other people who hold different points of view from themselves, and they go on with their ideas regardless of the cost to South Africa, they cannot expect us to go with them. They cannot expect us to participate in a unity which will have by direct implication an approval of the Government’s apartheid policy and apartheid philosophy. We cannot be associated with any form of unity with a party when by implication we are going to be associated with a policy which is leading South Africa to catastrophe. Part of the policy of the Government, as you may be aware, Mr. Speaker, is to divide up my province in two or more fragments of white areas, build a corridor until small fragments of the white area are left, what I call a policy of fragmentation and dispersement of the White population. I have spoken in this House about it before, and I say again: I speak now as a South African, and I speak as a South African whose province is being carved up by the Government pursuing its stated policy to do so. It is not by accident that it happens. It is a specific policy attested by Ministers under this Government. And, Sir, we won’t stand for it. We are not going to have our province carved up until there is a White corridor left, which can never, never be maintained in the face of Black hostility. If hon. members opposite believe that with their Bantustans they are going to create states which will be friendly disposed towards the White man in South Africa, and who will be prepared to live in peace and harmony with us when once they have acquired not their independence, Sir,—long before they acquire their independence, they will show their hostility. They will show their hostility for no other reason than that they will be demanding their independence quicker than this Government is prepared to give it to them. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development recently in regard to the Transkei said: It will be some few years yet before they get their independence. Is it for the hon. the Minister to determine when they will get their independence? He may think it is. But, Sir, history, the history of the last few years has shown all over the world that it is not the “baas” for the time being who dictates when their independence is to come. When the boss for the time being has said it will be five years or six years hence, and the people concerned say “No, it is going to be this year or next year”, and they turn on the pressure, they have not failed once. Look at history, the history of our own country. It is not for the hon. the Minister to determine when the Transkei will get its independence. The people of the Transkei having been promised it, will go out now for the fulfilment of that promise. To say that they are not economically viable, that they will be a poor, starving little state with no resources, “maak nie saak nie”. That has not been the consideration which has led all the countries in the world when seeking independence. On what was the independence of Ghana based? On cocoa. A resource, Sir, which was particularly liable to attack, and indeed at the time of their independence was being severely attacked because of a disease that was attacking their cocoa trees. But Ghana was seeking independence and got its independence. And the hon. the Minister has gone further and at the opening of the Ngoya University he promised independence to the Zulu people. I don’t know what ground he has to believe that he can control the Pondos. I am not interested in that particularly, Sir, but I can assure the hon. the Minister that when he deals with my Zulus, he is dealing with a different kind of man there. What is more, in the case of Pondoland he is giving them an enclave; he has got White people all around it. But when it comes to Zululand, he has not got an island like in the case of Pondoland. He has got a country that has got its back up against the Usutu River and Portuguese East Africa on the other side of it, and the hon. Minister is perfectly aware of what has been going on in respect of the firearms squad up there. He knows of the Portuguese mausers that have been taken from the hands of the Natives in Zululand. This, Mr. Speaker, is the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. And at a time of financial crisis, at a time when we are meeting these troubles, which were inevitable under this Government and its policies, at a time when these things are blowing up, the Government still persist in going along with its policy of fragmentation of our country, of establishing these independent states, on parallelism now—as if the use of words is going to make any difference. Let us face the facts. The fragmentation of our country and the splitting up of it, Sir, into independent kingdoms of chieftanships or call it what you will, which are held out—there is not a single of these Bantu Authorities, not a single one of these Territorial Bantu Authorities, but it will be under the control of a dictator, call him chief, king or what you like. The moment he can get his people behind him that will happen, because that is the kind of government the Zulu understands. And then will this same Government that brought this into being by its policies, then ask the United Party to assist them in the interest of unity to get out of those troubles, to overcome the difficulties? We have never been appealed to in vain, Mr. Speaker, but the time to appeal to us is now, not by means of words, but by means of deeds and by actions, and at no time was it more necessary than at a time of financial chaos such as we are in at the present time, and such as faces us in the future.

I do not intend to follow the trend of the previous speakers in regard to what appears to me the old story of political fights, without in any way confining themselves to the tragic economic position which we find ourselves in in this country.

What is so tragic?

I intend shortly to deal with the position of the Coloured people and to try to instil into the minds of hon. members opposite the part the Coloured people can play and should play in the economic life of this country. Up to now, Mr. Speaker, we have as White people persisted in what I want to call one of the curses of this country, and that is that as long as a man has not a White skin his economic position does not require the same reward for his services, and as a matter of fact we have placed the Coloured man in a sub-economic position. It was my painful duty a day or two ago to go to Stellenbosch in regard to the Coloured people who were evicted. There was a happy result, and I am happy indeed to say that the Stellenbosch Municipality has put these people back into their homes. But I want to say that anyone who will go and visit that area and see the conditions under which these people are living, will find that the roads are completely neglected…

Order! Roads fall under the provinces.

Yes, Sir, I am merely citing this to show the House that where houses are built, roads, electricity, sanitation, etc. are necessary to enable these people to live in decency. I do not want it to be said that I am not grateful to the Government and the Deputy Minister of the Interior for the work they have attempted to do to try and lessen the burden on the Coloured people. I know that many houses have been built, I know that much has been done in other respects, but I would like to say that having read the newspapers this morning, hon. members will have seen that similar conditions unfortunately exist in the northern areas where an appeal was made in regard to the squatters. We saw interviews with people interested in housing saying that something like 100,000 people still need houses. I maintain that a Coloured man is entitled to sell his services to whomever he likes, and if such a man is properly paid for his services, these Coloured people will be able to pay for their own houses and it will not be necessary to get assistance from the Government. We must try to rid ourselves of this cancer in our political set-up to refuse to pay the Coloured man according to the services he renders. I therefore want to try and show to the Government, and particularly to the Minister of Finance, that there is a scarcity, a great scarcity in the Public Service of suitable applicants, and figures have been supplied which indicate large-scale resignations from the Public Service. I do not think there is any honourable member in this House who can stand up and say that there is one department in the Public Service that has not deteriorated because they cannot get the people to fill the posts. I ask therefore: Why not fill those posts with Coloured people? Why not give the Coloured man the right, which he is entitled to as a South African citizen, to enter the Public Service of the Government in every department? Why do you keep him back? Why don’t you make use of this great reservoir of outstanding men and women who can serve this country as well as anybody else in the Public Service? What is the position? That the Government in order to get suitable applicants for the Public Service actually had to have what was called a special recruiting staff. They had to advertise, they had to give lectures, they had to go right through the country in order to get people to join the Public Service, and yet, in spite of the fact that they got recruits, more and more people are resigning, more and more people are resigning from the Public Service. Why, I do not know. But what is the effect? I can tell from personal experience in the Master’s Office, in the Deeds Office, in other departments that there is a backlog of work. There are complaints that they cannot get the people to do the work. And yet, Coloured boys, matriculated, and who have high degrees of education, as the hon. Minister of Education must know, are walking the streets of Cape Town unemployed or doing certain work for which they are not suited. We give education to the Coloured man and yet we do not make use of the services which he can render to his country. We deliberately refuse to recognize his work for the economic uplift of our country.

Where do you get that? It is not a correct statement you are making.

I do not say that they cannot find employment in certain departments up to a stage. But how many Coloured men can become the Postmaster-General of Cape Town? [Laughter.] Why not? How many Coloured men are in the Public Service in the various departments?

There is no Postmaster-General in Cape Town, only a postmaster.

Can he become a postmaster of Cape Town?

Can you become Postmaster-General?

I do not want to be postmaster, neither do I want to become a general in the Ossewa-Brandwag like the hon. member. I want to be a servant of the people whom I serve in this House and to try and inculcateinto the minds of the Government that the Coloured man is a full South African citizen entitled to all the rights and privileges. He should have the same rights as the hon. member, and that hon. member was even prepared to sabotage during the war…

That is a lie.

Alright then I withdraw that.

Order! The hon. member for Marica (Mr. Grobler) should also withdraw the words: “That is a lie.”

I withdraw.

I have indicated from the reports of the Public Service Commission the dearth of suitable applicants and the number of resignations in the Civil Service, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance why the Government still persist in refusing to acknowledge the rights of the Coloureds and to accept them in the Public Service.

Where do you get that? You are making incorrect statements.

I am prepared to sit down and answer any question the hon. the Minister wants to put to me. “Where do you get that?” I will tell the hon. Deputy Minister. They won’t even allow a Coloured man to be a parking meter attendant. Now where did I get that from? From the Government’s own actions. We know that a few months ago the City Council of Cape Town wanted to employ people to read the parking meters and they advertised and Coloured men applied. And then the Government stepped in. “No Coloured man shall read the meters; that is reserved for Europeans only.”They do not come into contact with the drivers of the cars, they do not come into contact with persons, all they have got to do is to walk along the streets and see if a man has overstepped the mark in regard to his time, and to take the number of his car and put a ticket on his windscreen. But the Government says: “No, a Coloured man shall not do that work.”

That is a completely distorted presentation of the position.

No. I do take strong exception to the hon. the Deputy Minister telling me that I have given a wrong impression. I say, and I emphasize, that the City Council of Cape Town wanted to employ certain Coloured men to be parking meter readers, and for no other purpose, but the hon. the Minister of Labour stepped in and said: “You shall not employ them.”

Why does not the Deputy Minister of Coloured Affairs know about this?

I do not want to have a row with the hon the Deputy Minister. I think he is as upset as I am about it.

Well let him tell us.

It would not help to tell you anything, you would not understand.

I repeat, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is as upset as I am about it.

But what is he doing about it?

He can do nothing about it. He can do nothing about it because the hon. the Minister of Labour said they shall not be employed, and they are not employed.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also asked me where I get the information from, that Coloured men are not allowed to enter the Public Service. I am very pleased to hear from him that they can enter the Public Service. I hope we will soon see them in the Revenue Office accepting money from people, becoming Chief Clerks in the Revenue Office. I would also like to see them soon in the Master’s Office attending to estates, and perhaps becoming Assistant Masters of the Supreme Court. I would like to see them in the Post Office, going higher and higher in the Public Service.

You would like to see them in Parliament too.

Yes of course I would.

Well why do you not say so?

I do say so, and they would be a lot better than some of the members of Parliament anyway. [Interjections.]

Order, order!

Mr. Speaker, I have said and I will repeat for the benefit of my good friend here that I would like to see a Coloured man sit in this Parliament. And I would like to say that he should sit here not as a Coloured man but as a citizen of this country, because he is entitled to sit here as a South African. I have said so before and I will repeat it. But the Government will not recognize the fact that these people are valuable to us except for the Minister of Transport who suddenly made an admission which was very significant. He suddenly realized the worth of the Coloured man in our economic sphere, and this is what he said a little while ago. He was dealing withthe question of the threatened demonstrations on May the 31st. He took the United Party and the other Opposition parties to task for the temerity, as he called it, of encouraging these demonstrations. He was annoyed about it, because he said this:

This Minister of Transport admitted in his speech in Hansard on the 8th of June, column 7592 that if the Coloured people had demonstrated for three days they would have paralysed the economy of our country. Why do we not recognize in every phase of our communal life, in every phase of our economic life in South Africa, the work of the Coloured man? Why do we restrict him? In every phase of life, and in his work the Coloured man is restricted. In pensions the Coloured man must get less than the white man whether he is blind, maimed or otherwise, it makes no difference, he must get less. If he is an old person he must get less because he has a brown skin. The teachers in the Coloured schools—although this has nothing to do with Parliament I bring it forward as an example of the same unfortunate attitude of the people of South Africa. A Coloured teacher who has many more pupils to teach, who works as hard and who has to have the same responsibility and the same education, who has to live up to a certain standard must, because of his brown skin, get less than the white man. Mr. Speaker, until we realize—as indeed the hon. the Minister of Transport has realized—the value of the Coloured man to our economy, we will continue to go backwards as we have done over the last thirteen years.

Thirteen years ago no one would have believed that we could reach a stage in our economy where the Minister of Finance would be forced to get up in Parliament and say “I will not permit foreign capital to leave South Africa”. The hon. the Minister tried to soften the blow by quoting what happened in England and in other countries. He said it had happened in England, that they had to bring in the same controls. But England suffered very severely in the last War. It took them many, many years to recover the billions of pounds that it cost them to wage that War. South Africa did not suffer that reverse because after the War, whilst England was struggling and had to take every possible step to protect their finances, we were in a financial position which was better than we had ever been in in the past.

We lent England £80 million.

In 1948 when the Nationalist Government took over, South Africa did not require money. Our coffers were overflowing. But what has happened over the past thirteen years? What has happened that after thirteen years we have reached this position? Quite apart from other considerations and other reasons, this is due to the fact that this Government will not let us make use of the people who could help us to build up our country. They restrict them in every direction.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister will soon come here and sit with me because he feels the same way as I do about this.

You are competing with the Progressive Party for your seat.

My seat is as safe as that of the hon. the Deputy Minister, at any time. There is only one thing in which I will compete with the hon. the Deputy Minister and that is for his seat in the Cabinet—but that too will come one day.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make use of this opportunity to stress very sincerely and with all the emphasis at my command that unless and until the White man of this country realizes the worth of the Coloured man in every phase of our activities, until he realizes that job reservation must go, that the public Service in every phase must be opened up to the Coloured man—until we realize that we will never prosper. We are deteriorating in every branch of our national economy. I want to make an urgent appeal to this Government to make use of the Coloured people, to open the door to them. The educated Coloured men who are walking around the streets must be accepted on the basis of non-discrimination in the service of the country. I am sure that if that is done many of our economic evils will disappear.

I should very much like to take this opportunity to say a few words to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). He is the leader of the United Party in Natal. He is one of the hon. members who is a fighter par excellence in this House. We admire this characteristic of his. We have a particular regard and respect for him. When we say a few words to him, it is not to belittle him because of the speech he has made. On the contrary, there is a great deal in the speech he has made this afternoon. He has asked us: “What is this unity?” I know that he did not ask this question in order to undermine unity in this country. I admit that it is his sincere desire, just as it is the desire of every honest, well-meaning South African, that weshould achieve national unity here in South Africa.

Yes.

The hon. member, and even other hon. members opposite, and we on this side of the House long to achieve White unity or national unity in order by so doing to solve the common and difficult problems facing our fatherland. The hon. member has now dealt with this matter as seen from his point of view. By so doing he did not intend to sow suspicion. He often gives the impression that he is perhaps a little embittered, but we know that he is emotional, just as I myself am on occasion. But now I am quite calm, perhaps for the very reason that on occasion I am emotional. I now want to tell him this frankly. We want to leave all bitterness behind us; we do not want to have hatred in the country in order to try to solve matters by those means, because hatred will destroy us. That is why I am following the fine example of the hon. member and hon. members can see how calm I am to-day and how sincere I am when I give the hon. member the answer to the question which he has put…

[Inaudible.]

Krusch… Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reply to that hon. member. I want to reply in all calmness to the question of the hon. member for South Coast: “What is this unity?” I want to tell him that it is quite correct; I too do not see this unity in the fact that one population group speaks Afrikaans or in the fact that the one group speaks English. I do not think that unity is to be found in the language, or merely in one’s history or merely in one’s fatherland. I consider that unity goes deeper than that; it is rooted in the essence of the nation. It is their common emotional experience of the same love for their fatherland of both the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans in this country. I therefore want to tell the hon. member: I agree with him entirely. He must not reproach us for perhaps advocating a nationalism which is exclusive. That is not so. He has said here that he invites Afrikaans-speaking people to join his party, and he does not regard them as hangers-on but he regards the nationalism which he advocates as a common sentiment for both good English-speaking South Africans and good Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. So do we. To make speeches which are embittered—and the hon. member has not done so this afternoon—to arouse English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people against one another at this difficult time, is a political crime in our country. It represents out of date politics. We are in a new era. We consider that nationalism should not be something exclusive. It should be our common sentiment. But now the hon. member who is quite clearheaded in his political approach, must not be a little malicious and tell me that he cannot differentiate between party unity and political unity and national unity. When we established the Republic, we said that we regarded this as the essential constitutional basis on which we must achieve national unity, or White unity. But we certainly did not intend that we would only have one party in our Parliamentary system. Then we would be heading for a dictatorship and that would be too dull. We would never be able to differ from one another and we would not be in this House. There will always be political differences in order to achieve objectivity in our approach to a great problem and to reach the truth. That is why we do not hold it against one another when we criticize one another and put our different points of view. But the hon. member is making a great mistake when he thinks the Prime Minister said that. Not only the present Prime Minister, but successive National Party Ministers have made a political confession of faith to the effect that they want a White nation in this country, that they advocate a nationalism which does not exclude the English-speaking people of this country. I want the hon. member to accept this, and here it is that we have common ground to-day, is that not so? But let us be reasonable. We must distinguish between political unity and national unity. Does the hon. member think that the Progressive Party for example and we could belong to the same political party? People who advocate a “multiracial state” advocate a policy which is unacceptable to us and irreconcilable with our policy which stands for the preservation of our race and the preservation of the Whites. Hon. members over there know that they do not stand for racial self-preservation. They advocate a racial solution in a “multi-racial state”. These are the two conflicting, irreconcilable, political schools of thought in South Africa. If the hon. member for South Coast wants us to come together in one party, then it is impossible. If he wants that, then we must have the division to which he has referred, namely, conservative against liberal. But then let him be reasonable. On this side of the House we have political conservatism. I am glad that the hon. member still associates himself with the conservatives in this country…

Do you not mean political extremism?

What does conservatism mean? It does not mean extremism, as the hon. member has just said. I am sorry the hon. member has made that remark. I thought that here we had common ground; but that hon. member will not distract me. I want to say that what we want in this country is that the hon. members should admit that they are conservative, and I hope they are all conservative. I hope that the hon. members for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and Constantia (Mr. Waterson) are as conservative as the hon. member for South Coast. But even if a groupof people are all conservative, they will not accept a political party unless that party guarantees the security of the White race in this country. That is the common ground—the preservation of the Christian White race on the southern tip of Africa. There we have the common ground for both the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking sections. For that reason I am glad that the hon. member’s speech shows how they too long for White unity and national unity so that together we can solve our baffling problems in South Africa. I do not want to be hurtful. I want to be quite objective and if we continue in this spirit, the House will probably adjourn to-morrow night…

No.

If hon. members do not even want to co-operate with me, how are we going to solve these greater problems! But I do want to make the point which I am discussing. I say that political unity is unthinkable, and that is why I am glad the gulf appears to be becoming ever greater between the Progressive Party and the United Party. Because I want to tell the House that we can only achieve White unity on certain bases and principles, namely, the preservation and the safeguarding of the Christian White civilization on the southern tip of Africa; the preservation of our White race and the safeguarding of our continued existence. If the hon. member says he is conservative and he upholds the principles I have just set out, well, then we can achieve national unity. As far as the English- and Afrikaans-speaking peoples are concerned, I have always said that racial hatred is of the devil. It is something which must disappear from our political vocabulary. The English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking peoples are not two separate races. Our differences are not racial in origin. There is a certain measure of cultural difference, but that does not trouble me. Every new nation which is established, can have these cultural differences. Hon. members can speak the English language and we can speak the Afrikaans-language. The best is that we should respect and speak both those languages. These are the things which bring unity: Our flag, our national anthem, our fatherland, and these two languages. But we can only achieve this deeper unity through our love for South Africa and the White race, and our concern for the continued existence of Christian White civilization on this southern tip of Africa. If I read the signs correctly and when I listen to the speech of the hon. member—no matter how angrily he may speak on occasion; we both do so and it seems as though we are angry, but both of us have hearts that beat warmly for our nation—then I say let us end the strife between the English- and Afrikaans-Speaking peoples. I say that this strife is a crime. Do not say that we do not want national unity. We must be absolutely clear as to our definitions of people, nation and population. We must distinguish between population groups and a true nation. The White nation which is different to the other nation, namely, the non-White nation, is here, and we shall have to evolve a policy which will not result in conflict, because it is precisely in the “multiracial society” which hon. members talk about that we shall find the cause for conflicts in a multi-racial state. It is the breeding ground of racial conflict in South Africa.

So we come to adopt what was described in the old days as segregation. Sometimes hon. members also spoke of segregation and said that apartheid was also their policy. As far as our approach is concerned, we all uphold the traditional policy that there are great inherent differences in civilization and also differences in development between Black and White. When the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) spoke this morning on the Liquor Bill, he said that it was not a question of a difference in colour which represented the great difference between the races. He said that there were also great differences as regards traditions. That is what we must also understand when we speak of national unity. It does not mean a “multi-racial unity”; that is what the Progressive Party stands for. The hon. member for South Coast wants national unity, a common national sentiment for both Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking peoples—we want that for all White South Africans. And this White nation, as the Christian guardian, must bring to an end the conflict between the two components of that nation as soon as possible in order by so doing to form one White nation which can speak with one voice to the Black man, with a policy which has a common foundation, and then in our common wisdom we can also end the conflict between Black and White in our fatherland. If we do that, there is hope for South Africa.

I was surprised at the honeyed words with which the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) commenced his speech. He wooed the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Mitchell) to cross the floor to join him. He particularly emphasized how calm he was. He wanted us to notice particularly that he was not excited. Slowly but surely as he carried on, he worked himself up to a pitch of emotion until his speech became an outburst of ecstacy.

Are you speaking as a medical expert?

I recognize the symptoms. He hypnotized himself into believing what he said.

You are giving the wrong diagnosis.

The hon. member talks of unity, but always of unity on terms of the Nationalist Party…

No, no.

Always on the terms that they must tread upon the culture of the English-speaking people of this country.

Do not talk such nonsense.

We know, we have had this before.

I did not say that. You misunderstood me.

I hope I did. Let us refer to the hon. the Minister of Transport for a moment. On 8 June 1961, in Hansard column 7594, the hon. the Minister of Transport is reported as putting it this way,—

A real unity speech.

We do not want unity with the Opposition. Heaven preserve us from that!

doubt Afrikaner domination.

That has given the game away.

And note this, Sir—

That was said by the hon. the Minister of Transport. Sir, unity is unity. We went into Union in 1910 and we did not make any reservations. We did not say we were going to do this or we were going to do that afterwards, we entered it freely and we intended to go into a partnership. But what have we got out of it? As the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) has said: No consultation, no request for help, no offers of help. At the best we have been able to get a couple of our ears boxed now and then. That is the best we could get out of it.

We on this side of the House welcome the Afrikaner with us. We regard the Afrikaners as ourselves. But the hon. the Deputy Minister reminds me of the old saying that there is more rejoicing in Heaven over one sinner saved than over all the saints” and that solid phalanx of Nationalists rejoice—and I do not blame them for rejoicing—because they have told us to-day they have converted one Englishman…

No, three.

My hon. friend says three—well, they can have five. But there is great excitement about it.

You are just a silly old man, that is what you are.

That hon. gentleman always descends to abuse.

However, Mr. Speaker, this hardly fits into a debate on the Appropriation, and in order to get back to that subject I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance to a form of export for which he is getting no return; money that is leaving the country and is lost forever. And I refer to this terrible export of educated young brains which are leaving this country at the moment. That is something which we will never get back; something which is such a loss that you cannot count in terms of cash. In the last three years the University of Cape Town has lost 26 of its senior staff. The University of the Witwatersrand have lost 62 of its senior staff.

Why did they leave?

This happens to include, also, general turn-over, so it may be a little exaggerated. The University of Natal has lost 50 of its senior staff. In Natal,… [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I appeal to you to keep the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) quiet and give the hon. member an opportunity of making his speech.

Order, order! The hon. member may continue.

Seven professors, 21 senior lecturers and 22 lecturers, a total of 50 resigned to seek employment elsewhere. In Johannesburg eight professors, 22 senior lecturers, 27 lecturers, and three research officers have resigned. And these figures include the normal turn-over of staff. [Interjections.]

Order, order!

And it is not only the English speaking who are going. Then there is the C.S.I.R. In their 15th annual report they say—

And note, Mr. Speaker, that the highest proportion is not the professors. Those are older men. The highest proportion is among the junior lecturers. Those are the ones we can least afford to lose because they are the future leaders. That is the effect of the policy of this Government. This Government has, I believe, deliberately set out to destroy the educational basis of the non-White people. I believe that they think they can keep these people forever as hewers of wood and drawers ofwater. What did they take over? They took over a service which was providing a certain number of educated non-Whites. The university institutions of this country have produced 2,080 non-White graduates. Of these, 1,200 were contributed by Fort Hare and 437 by the University of Natal. What has happened to that source of supply at Fort Hare, and what will replace that source of supply? What happened to the non-White section of the University of Natal? A survey by Dr. Malherbe—he went round the continent—showed that there were roughly 6.000 university graduates, non-Whites, in the whole of Africa, and most of them had come from this country. That included teachers with diplomas, not necessarily graduates. He found that the leaders in the emergent countries were nearly all university graduates. He found, also, that there was no enlightened proletariat. In other words, the leaders in these states were unique. They were almost irreplaceable. The only ones who could replace them were the odd rivals who could push them down and climb on their shoulders. But the leadership of Africa is in the hands of the universities. It can only come from non-White graduates of the universities, and this country was supplying them. It was supplying the civil servants for the rest of the continent, and what has happened to-day? The supply has been cut off at its source. These people had goodwill towards this country. Some of these Black graduates who graduated overseas were unable in their own country to find women of their own class to marry and the great bulk of them came down here and married Black women of our country and took them away. In other words, they took with them goodwill towards this country, but what has happened to that now? It is almost impossible for any of these people to get into this country, and those Black graduates that we have in our country, where can they live? They live in the Bantu urban areas. With whom can they associate? With nobody. They are banned from every meeting. They are banned from every possible hope of improving their minds, and what happens? They are very soon labelled as agitators. No, this country is losing too many of its friends and it is failing to produce any more. Dr. Malherbe found from a survey made in Natal by the university that the supply of non-White matriculants was falling away, that since the introduction of the so-called ethnic colleges the supply of matriculants suitable for university education was falling away, and I believe that it is done deliberately. I believe that it is being made more and more difficult for non-White teachers to be trained. Where can they be taught? It is becoming impossible to find teachers, and so the whole educational set-up of the non-Whites is being destroyed.

I want to draw attention to something which I think should be a bitter reproach to the hon. members opposite, because I am thinking of Scotland. Scotland has one strong resemblance to the hon. members opposite, and that is that it is Calvinistic, and the great characteristic of Calvin and his followers was that they were very keen on education. It is the backbone of Calvinism that they shall educate their people, but what does this party do? It is making no effort whatever to educate the people for whom it is responsible. I hope that you will permit me, Sir, to read portion of that great speech of Lord Macaulay on Scotland, speaking of education in Scotland.

Are you a Scot?

No, I am a South African. Lord Macaulay says—

What followed, Sir? The Parliament in Edinburgh passed an Education Act, and with what result?—

Among the objections to this education was the question of costs and I think that is very interesting to hear the answer of Macaulay. He says—

[Interjections.] If the hon. member would listen, he would learn a little more.

Order! The hon. members must ask question in the ordinary way or else keep quiet.

He goes on to say—

Sir, here you have a lesson of what has happened to other countries, because there is a curious belief amongst the White people that they have always been civilized. Of course it is the most absurd nonsense to think firstly that civilization began with the Whites, and secondly that the Whites were always civilized. They, too, came down from the trees, and some of them have not been down long. Civilization can be included into people and it can be lost, and the only salvation for this country is to devote every possible penny to educating its people and to bring them to a state of civilization so that they appreciate what civilization is and what law and order really mean.

I think it a very sad commentary on this Parliament that in these very abnormal times in South Africa this debate should have run such a terribly normal course. These are extremely difficult times in this country, but with few exceptions throughout this debate the pattern has been the same as before. We have had the same sort of arguments advanced by hon. members on the Government side and we have had the same sort of excuses offered, and one would have thought that everything in South Africa was running in a fine and prosperous way and that there were no difficulties confronting the country whatever. This afternoon we had the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) who intervened in the debate to have a private discussion with the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) on the subject of national unity. Of course all right-minded people in South Africa believe generally in the idea of national unity. It is a fine ideal, but once again, one must ask before one talks about national unity—and of course it must take into consideration party-political differences—what the basis of that unity is going to be. It is no good simply using the word “unity” as an empty word unless one is convinced that that unity must be unity around something in which people believe. We had the hon. member for Brits talking about this unity. He also suggested in regard to the Progressive Party that we could not be part of any unity—not that we would want to—because we believe in a multi-racial state. Of course I think it is high time the hon. member faced up to the situation that South Africa is a multi-racial state and it is totally unrealistic for a senior member on the Government benches to make a speech such as he made to-day on the subject of the Progressive Party wanting a multi-racial state. I think it is high time that we in South Africa accept the fact that we are a multi-racial state. Then for the hon. member simply to look for some sort of unity on the basis, as he said, of White unity, we believe is totally unrealistic. That is in no way going to assist South Africa.

Do you regard the State and the nation as one?

It depends on what state you are in. I am talking about a multiracial society. We will not argue about words, but let us say that the fact is that we in South Africa are a multi-racial society, in that there are various racial groups comprising the population. As far as we are concerned it is no good pleading for unity if that is to be an exclusively White unity, and if one implies by pleading for that unity that it will be a ganging up by one section of the population against another section. I think it is high time that we realized that the issue in this country today is not so much the question of whether we can reconcile the points of two conservative White groups, but whether we can reconcile the point of view of the reasonable and responsible White person with that of the reasonable and responsible non-White. That is what we should be endeavouring to do at this time of our history. As I said, the debate has run along the normal pattern. If anything, there has been one common factor, perhaps reluctantly as far as Government members are concerned, but I think it is true to say that there has been general agreement that South Africa is in difficulties at present and that our economic difficulties are far more serious than they have been for many years. But there have been differences as to the degree and the cause of the difficulties and differences as to the remedy for our economic difficulties.

As to the degree. Government members have by and large been at pains to explain that really things are not quite so bad. On the first day of the debate we had the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), who, when one listened to him. one might have believed that in fact South Africa was passing through a period of prosperity and that the measures announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance last Friday were in fact unnecessary; the hon. member painted a fairly rosy picture and said that in fact things were not really so serious and that he felt that there should be complete confidence as to the future. Needless to say that that attitude of confidence on his part was not evinced by the Minister himself when he introduced this Bill, and one has always thought that the was an undercurrent of lack of confidence on the part of many Government members.

As to the cause for our economic plight. one might also have thought that there might have been general agreement on the two vital factors which stand out for all to see, the one being the fact that we find ourselves externally in a state of isolation, and the other being that there is a considerable amount of internal insecurity. But the Government’s defence did not take any notice of these two vital factors. Instead of that, we had excuses offered and the Government blamed these people and those. They blamed the commercial banks and the Press and the Opposition for the general economic situation internationally. They blamed everyone except themselves. Surely that is totally unrealistic and one might have hoped that this Government at this stage of our history might have done some heart-searching in regard to their own policy.

They went even further. They attacked individuals in South Africa who had dared to suggest that there is in fact something wrong in regard to the internal political situation in the country and that that was having an adverse effect on our economic situation. We had the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) and the hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) and the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. Marais) attacking Mr. Oppenheimer and Sir George Albu, because in their speeches to their shareholders they had dared to suggest… [Interjections.] We had the situation that these gentlemen, the heads of large financial groups in South Africa, reported to their shareholders and suggested that our economic plight was largely due to the political situation in this country, and then we had these hon. members, presumably speaking on behalf of the Government, attacking those gentlemen for the statements they made. The hon. member for Mayfair went so far as to warn Mr. Oppenheimer and Sir George Albu not to sow suspicion and no confidence in South Africa. What did the hon. member for Mayfair mean by that warning, and what sanctions had he in mind if that warning is not heeded? I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance owes an explanation to the House when he replies to the debate as to whether he agrees with the attitude adopted by these hon. members. I believe the Minister of Finance should tell us whether he supports the warnings given to these gentlemen not to sow suspicion and no confidence in South Africa. I can conceive of nothing which can do South Africa more harm overseas than this sort of attack coming from our Parliament. I hope the Minister of Finance will tell us what his attitude is in regard to statements of this kind. These, I believe, were important matters and I think that no credit was done to the Government case by warnings or threats like this being thrown across the floor of the House. I said it should be clear that the basic cause of our economic difficulties is the internal policy being pursued here. We have the situation where one-fifth of the population is denying rights and opportunities to four-fifths of the population. It is always dangerous to oversimplify matters, but I believe that in that fact lies the root cause of the difficulties with which we are confronted on the economic front and on other fronts as well. This is the root cause of the present criticism which comes to South Africa from outside and it is the root cause of the internal insecurity within our borders. Either the Government cannot see this, in which case I think they are guilty of considerable negligence, or they can see it but will do nothing about it, in which case they are guilty of the utmost recklessness in regard to our future. But I believe that the Government can see it. I believe that certainly the Prime Minister can see it, and I am sure the Minister of Finance can see it. because despite the attempts of hon. members opposite to make other excuses and to blame other people, it is clear that the Prime Minister realizes that the root cause of our difficulty in South Africa is that we practise racial discrimination, which cannot be justified either in our own country or outside our borders. We know that the Prime Minister has on numerous occasions said that he believed that no policy based on racial discrimination can succeed in this country. Only a month ago the Prime Minister told us that it was the policy of his party to endeavour to move away from discrimination as the basis of his approach to the racial affairs of South Africa. Of course we agree with that entirely, but we say that it is sheer hypocrisy to suggest that the policy of separate development as enunciated by the Government can mean a policy of non-discrimination. Therefore one believes that the Nationalist Party becomes even more culpable when one realizes the difficulties with which South Africa is faced at present.

Of course the question of discrimination was the cause of the Prime Minister’s failure at the London Conference. It was quite clear that if we were going to send to the conference an advocate for our policy of separate development, we should have chosen no more able an advocate than the Prime Minister, but despitehis ability the Prime Minister was unable to convince his fellow-Prime Ministers at the Conference that what was being done in South Africa did not amount to racial discrimination. I think it is important at this stage to make the point again that it was not only the Afro-Asian countries at the conference who were opposed to the policies being pursued here. All ten Prime Ministers expressed their disapproval of that policy of racial discrimination and they made it perfectly clear that it was impossible to justify racial discrimination. I think it is necessary to repeat that it was not only the Afro-Asian Prime Ministers who took up that attitude. Is it any wonder that the Prime Minister was unable to justify the policy of separate development, and that we in South Africa at present are unable to justify it? When one looks at what is being done even on the basis of the Government’s declared policy, and when one looks at what is being done to give practical effect to the very extravagant claims made from time to time by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration, it is little wonder that it has been found very difficult to convince people that the Government are even serious about the policy of separate development and that they can indicate it as a policy which moves away from racial discrimination. We maintain, of course, that no policy of separate development, unless it is absolute, can mean non-discrimination, and we have stated our point of view on many occasions, but even on the basis of the Government’s plan there is very little tangible evidence of their earnestness in regard to their policy of developing the African areas and consequently one must be left in serious doubt about the ability of the Government in any way to alleviate our problems on the basis of this policy. Six years ago we had the report of the Tomlinson Commission. At that stage there were certain vital factors which one had to bear in mind in considering the recommendations of the Commission. Firstly they suggested that there was considerable urgency about implementing their proposals. Secondly, they presupposed that the Protectorates would be incorporated in the Union before their proposals could be implemented, and they took a fairly long-term view, and much of what they proposed was based on a period of 45 years. But those factors are no longer present. One now has to test what the Government has done in six years, since the time of the report, in order to see whether they are really serious in regard to their policy of separate development. The Commission. e.g., suggested a total capital expenditure of £10,000,000 a year for ten years, and it also suggested a substantial increase in the administrative expenditure in regard to development in the Native areas. So far, according to the Minister of Bantu Administration, the Government has spent over the past five years some £20,000,000, and even that figure does not square with the figures that have come from the Department of Bantu Administration in recent years, although obviously the figure given by the Minister of £20,000,000 in five years must, I presume, include administrative costs and also the cost of purchasing additional land. I am dealing in pounds because the Tomlinson Commission of course dealt in pounds. But that figure falls very far short of the recommendations made by that Commission. In regard to urban development the Tomlinson Commission suggested that it would be necessary to spend £12,000,000 in ten years. What do we find? Over the past five years only £250,000 has been spent on urban development in the Native areas of South Africa. In regard to secondary and tertiary development in the Native areas, we find that the Tomlinson Commission recommended the expenditure of some £30,000,000 in 10 years. and we find that after five years only £110,000 has been spent by the Government. Is it any wonder then that the Government finds it difficult to convince anybody that they are serious in presenting this programme of separate development as a solution to our problems?

We have had previous speeches in this House dealing with the question of the consolidation of the Native areas, and it has been shown conclusively that until there is a great deal in regard to consolidating the various Native areas in S.A., it is nonsense to talk about creating separate homelands and consequently separate Native areas. In fact the Minister of Bantu Administration admitted that in the Senate during this Session when he said that unless one could embark upon a policy of consolidation of the various Native areas. separate development would not be a practical proposition, and yet we find that there has been no consolidation on any sort of scale of the Native areas over the past 5 or 6 years. We find in the province of Natal, for example, in regard to the question of the removal of black spots, that whereas in 1954 there were 211 black spots, to-day there are 210.—not a very impressive record in that regard.

There will be a good many more under the Liquor Bill.

That might well be. If one examines the record of this Government in regard to the implementation of their policy in the Native areas, it is clear that the policy of separate development cannot be regarded as a serious attempt to meet the situation and cannot in any way be an answer to the accusations which are made that we are following a policy of racial discrimination, and it is no good of the Prime Minister or any other member opposite standing up and saying that by this policy South Africa can move away from racial discrimination because it is quite manifest from the figures I have given here this afternoon that it is impossible for the Government to implement its policy in such a way as to remove discrimination. But of course, the Government is adept at using the non-White question for a variety of purposes. They have done it at great cost to this country. Theyhave perhaps attained fairly considerable advantages for the Nationalist Party. They have been able to use their attitude in regard to the non-White groups to bring short-term political advantages to the Nationalist Party, and we know that the psychology of the Government is to try to use the fears and the prejudices which exist in the minds of very many people in regard to the colour issue, to exploit those fears and prejudices for the advantage of the Nationalist Party, and we find that when the Prime Minister returned from London he was able to say to the people of South Africa that he had no alternative, that he had to get out of the Commonwealth because of the peril of the Afro-Asian bloc. Those have been the tactics of the Nationalist Party as we have seen since then in the debates in this House, that the Prime Minister did what he could to save White South Africa. The Government, when they talk about unity in this country, as we heard the hon. member for Brits talking here about White unity this afternoon mean unity against the other racial groups. Their entire appeal to English-speaking South Africans is an appeal to prejudice and to fear and they hope that on the basis of that appeal they might get support from English-sneaking people in South Africa. It is clear therefore that this Government—desperate and committed to an impractical policy—is going to proceed on this basis and is going to bring us to our knees. It is our duty and the duty of responsible and right-minded people to warn the people as to the dangers unless this Government is halted, unless South Africa can produce a change of heart in our attitude to other racial groups in this country. We believe that it is vitally necessary for us to discard racial discrimination as the basis of our approach to the colour question. We believe it is necessary from the point of view of our internal position; we believe it is necessary from the point of view of our prestige outside this country, and let me say too that we believe it is vital, if there is going to be any chance of South Africa’s being re-admitted to the Commonwealth that we should have a policy which is not based on racial discrimination. Those are the remedies both in regard to the economic situation and also in regard to the general situation in South Africa to-day The Government, as I have said, evidently are committed to a policy which cannot be acceptable to any civilized people. They are committed to a policy which may bring short-term political advantage to the Nationalist Party but a policy which can only bring disaster to South Africa. One would hope that on the part of the Opposition parties there would be a much clearer realization of the dangers with which this country is confronted. The other day, during this debate the hon. the leader of the Opposition, in dealing with the policy of the Government and that of his own party, turned to the Progressive Party, and he disagreed with us because we believe in a policy which does not recognize racial discrimination, and he then said, “No matter what the standard of education of the Black man is, it does not make him any less a Black nationalist”. I believe that that was an appalling statement, because surely inherent in that statement is an admission of failure, an admission that it is going to be impossible in a multi-racial South Africa to have harmony between the various racial groups comprising the population. Surely one is entitled to wonder what the future of South Africa will be if that is going to be the sort of dictum that we are going to follow in our public life. We are a multi-racial country and we have to recognize that while there may be loyalties as between groups, what we have to try to do here is to create a common patriotism, a patriotism which can be subscribed to by every South African, whether he is a White man, an African, an Indian or a Coloured man. That is the real issue confronting us at the present time. Unless we are prepared to face up to that issue, it follows that South Africa must find itself in a situation where it is going to be impossible to reconcile the points of view of the various population groups. We say therefore that what is needed in South Africa is that a sincere effort should be made by all the inhabitants of this country to develop a common loyalty to a common fatherland. That is the basis of the policy of the Progressive Party. We believe that unless we are going to base our approach to the problems of South Africa on the basis of recognizing people on their merit as civilized human beings, on the basis of a rejection of racial discrimination, then it is going to be impossible for us to foresee a peaceful future for South Africa. On the basis of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition the other day, I want to see how that fits in with the speech made by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) just now, who in a curious way suggested that the door should be left open for South Africa to return to the Commonwealth. Surely it should be plain that if that statement that no Black man, however educated, can ever be less of a Black nationalist, is going to be the basis of the thinking of my hon. friends on my right, surely there can be no hope of South Africa regaining Commonwealth membership, and surely on that basis there can be no hope of South Africa re-gaining the prestige of the Western world in general. I believe that we have to be realistic and realize that events are changing; we have to realize that certainly since the end of the last war, the ordinary bounds of national sovereignty have been transcended to a very large extent by virtue of the fact that people believe that human beings have to be recognized on the basis of their individual merit. We have to realize that both from the internal point of view in South Africa and also from the external point of view, it is absolutely necessary, if we are going to be worthy of being called a Western country, a country which practices Western civilization, if we are going to be worthy of being part of the Westernworld, then we have to adhere to the standards and principles demanded by civilized people throughout the world.

Before I proceed to say what little I have to say, I would like to remark upon the attitude adopted by Government members in this particular debate. We have spoken here to an empty House. Opposition speakers have followed one after the other and we have had little or no attention paid to this debate by either Ministers or Deputy Ministers. One or two have given their attention to this debate and to them I am grateful. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has spent quite a lot of time here and so has the Deputy Minister of the Interior, but apart from that little attention has been given to this debate by Ministers. Their lack of interest has been emphasised by their absence.

I do not intend to criticize the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. R. A. F. Swart) who has already left. I do not believe that this is the time or the place for us to put forward our particular party policies. I think that what we are here to do is to talk on the Appropriation Bill where I think the Government policy is under consideration more than the individual policies of the other parties. I want to do that with a particular approach, although I am not a financier, to the opinions which have been expressed in this debate by people who obviously know quite a lot about finance and included in those is the hon. the Minister of Finance himself. During this last week the Minister has had to take steps which are an indication to us that the finances of the country are not as good as they ought to be. We live in a country which is blessed with natural riches, and we all hope and look forward to a higher standard of living for all, derived largely from this natural source of wealth of ours. Here we are taking panic measures to stop capital leaving the country; we seem to be failing to attract it any more; and listening to the experts debating this aspect of our problem, it becomes apparent that they attribute the flight of capital from South Africa largely to the policies of this Government. What are the main policies affecting that? The main policy that affects that is obviously the colour policy of the Government, and here we are being asked to vote money largely for the implementation of those policies which have caused us to become so unpopular. Although I am no financial expert, I find it very difficult to understand the vicious circle into which we have got whereby we create policies that destroy our financial position and yet vote more money for the implementation of those policies. Sir, when you look at it from that angle you start to look more broadly at the policies. The first one I want to look at is the policy of separate residential areas for each section of the population. As far as the Bantu is concerned, we have dealt with that matter at length. We have some idea of what it will cost the country because we have the Tomlinson Commission report which gives us estimates of what money should be spent. I do not intend to go into that at greater length. But when we come to the group areas, largely in relation to the Indians and the other non-White groups in the urban areas, I am somewhat at a loss to know what it will cost us. I have not seen or been given or been able to find any authentic estimate of what we can expect to have to pay for the implementation of the group area policy of this Government. I can get certain leads which are frightening. For example, in Durban I have seen an estimate which has been given by a reliable authority that to move one section of the population which is probably the smallest, namely, the Indian group and to re-settle them in the areas in which the Government has decided that they must live, will cost the city of Durban some R100,000,000. That is an awful lot of money for a city of the size of Durban. In addition to the Indian population, the other Coloured groups will have to be provided for in Durban. Assuming that the cost of moving them will be something in that vicinity, hon. members can build up for themselves some idea of the fantastic costs of the implementation of this policy in one city alone, and we must assume that it will be just as costly in other places. What is the ultimate cost of this scheme going to be throughout South Africa. It is going to be fantastic. Can we afford this luxury at a time like this. I very much doubt whether we can because we cannot implement it to that stage which will make a success of it from the Government’s point of view. We cannot find those sums of money in the time which we have available to be able to say to the world or to South Africa that our policy of group areas is complete and that it works, and until we reach that stage we do not know whether it is going to work. The indications are that it is not going to work. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Finance when he wonders where he is going to find the money to implement these various Government policies must have some very big headaches. I know that the responsibility for finding this money is to some extent palmed off on to the local authorities, wherever the Government can do it, but they cannot afford these fantastic costs, and even where they do have to pay them, it is all incorporated in the finances of the country; it is still the nation as a whole that has to pay. Sir, in a debate a little while ago I was told,” Why should the rest of the country bear the cost of re-housing the Indians in Durban; why should Paarl contribute to that? They have no Indian problem Of course it is a national problem and I wish the Government would realize that. If they are going to implement a policy such as this, then, of course, they have to pay for it, not the individual areas which happen to have this problem in the biggest degree. If they doimplement that policy what are they going to gain by it? Nobody is against providing better housing for all groups of the community, but to do it under the system that is being imposed under the Group Areas Act is something which is just stupid and that will achieve nothing. As far as the Indians are concerned, they are going to move them into areas far removed from other groups of the population. In Johannesburg and other big cities these people have been moved to areas quite apart from the places where they normally earn their living. We know that the Indian group cannot live off Indians alone. They are part of our economy; they are integrated in our economy, and to remove them in such a manner is just absurd. The hon. the Minister, in introducing a Bill this Session, said that as a concession he would allow these people to trade where he approved in the business Demises which they now occupy. On what basis can we build up a stable economy for these people if they are allowed to trade during the pleasure of a Minister or Deputy Minister in the premises which they at present occupy?

I want to come now to another aspect which is costing this country dearly not necessarily in money but in people and souls. I think it is tied up largely with what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said, and that is the question of the population register. Here, Sir, is a thing—I call it a “thing” for want of a better name: I do not think it deserves a better name—which has caused so much misery and so much hatred of our country amongst the people to whom it has been applied and people outside, that I think it is time the Government really took steps to improve the administration if they intend to stick to the Act. Here is a thing which has cost us. according to an answer I got the other day, R3.460.402 up to date for its administration. What has it achieved? It has reached this stage of development—and I hold in my hand a roneoed sheet which in official language I would imagine is called Form V.R. The one I have here is addressed to a man and his wife and this is what it says—

Sir, this is a cheap-looking document. I should imagine that they send out hundreds of these. There seems to be a big drive on the go at the moment. In addition to this I have one which was addressed to this man’s son. Sir, let me give the background to this, and tell you who these people are. This gentleman to whom it was addressed is a man who has been in the Civil Service for 30 years and who holds a high post. I personally have inspected both his birth certificate and his wife’s, their marriage certificate and the marriage certificates of their parents on each side and in each case there is no indication that they are other than White. This man was good enough to have been chosen for his country as an Empire Games trialist not so many years ago and yet this is what has happened to him. His son is an officer who has signed on and has taken an oath to serve his country in one of the country’s best regiments. He. too, is cast in doubt. What I want to find out from the hon. the Minister is on what ground such people can get a thing like this sent to them. On what basis is it sent to them?

Disgraceful.

That is the way you make unity.

On what possible grounds can this man’s colour be in doubt? Why should he be picked out in this particular way? Is it because he lived in a street where there were one or two Coloured families? Is the reason that everybody in this street has been sent one of these things? I also want to make this point: By the time you have got these affidavits to furnish proof that you are White you might as well move out of the district anyway, because you have to go to all your friends in the district and ask if they accept you as White, and the affect of that, whether your classification remains White or not, is as good as re-classifying you as Coloured or some other race, because you can no longer move among those friends. It works on the old principle that where there is smoke there is fire. When once people have received a thing of this nature, that is virtually the end of them in their little community. What is the affect on people? Here is a man who was fortunate enough to know somebody to whom he could go for help and he got it. I give the Department that attends to us here in Parliament full marks; they attend to these things wonderfully, but more often than not the damage has already been done by the time it comes to them. Here is a little letter of thanks that I got for having handled this matter and I just want to read out two short extracts from it, just to give you the reaction of these people. He says “Myfamily and I wish to thank you for your valuable assistance to us in our recent sad and unforgettable experience. We do not know, how it came about, but if it has been through mean spite, it still has left us with a sadness which I am afraid we will never forget.” And Sir, they never will forget it. Through the rest of his life this man will have this fear hanging over him of receiving another document such as this. It is all very well for certain people to laugh about it; it is no joking matter at all. I would like to remind every member of this House that they might easily get one of these forms to-morrow, because in the particular case which I have mentioned there is probably less reason for having such a letter addressed to him than there is in the case of many members of this House. Sir, I could produce many like this, but I would like to mention just one more. This is the case of a man and his wife who have become divorced and who now sent their little girl to a boarding school for European girls. They have now received a form of this kind. They have one big fear to-day. They are living in different parts of the country and their one fear is that their daughter at school will get one of these too. Fortunately the Department has given me the undertaking that they will not have one of these things sent to this little girl. Just imagine the effect upon that child in the school if it is sent to her. I do not know if it is the policy to send it or not. I do not know on what grounds people get these things. The policy of the Department and the administration of the Act should be gone into thoroughly and investigated and overhauled so that everybody in this country will not have the threat of this hanging over their heads.

Then I just want to mention a letter dated 19 June just to show you what we are reducing people to. This letter is from a person who received one of these letters during the last few days. It was addressed to her and her husband. She says she hopes she is not being presumptuous in asking for my help. She is a member of my constituency whom I have known for many years, and she says that she needs my help badly. She goes on to say—

Now, Sir, I come to the point: Apart from the fact that they have lived in a house for 11 years—and they are White people—this is the point I want to make—

This is not the only case that I have had to do with. I had a little child that I used to see around my business in Durban and I used to ask him why he was not at school, and then the sad story came out. His grandmother had been classified as a Coloured, his mother had been classified as a European. For two years that child could not get admission to a school, because the European school put him out and said”There is some doubt about your colour”. The parents said “Alright, we must accept it, but the child must be educated”. So they took him to the Coloured school, and the Coloured school said “No we are not satisfied he is a Coloured, we can’t accept him”. For two years that child was not able to receive any education. And I can go on giving you examples of this where families are classified, where within one family the members of the family are classified differently. And when people think they are fixed up as far as the colour aspect is concerned, all of a sudden find that their case is being re-investigated and they have not been fixed up at all. So I make this plea to the Government that if they have to stick to these policies they have enunciated, for goodness sake find means of administering these laws in such a way that you do not cause all the bitterness that they are causing at the moment. It is not doing us any good. It is not doing anybody any good. It is obviously the basic cause of the vicious circle that we have got into now, and I do not know how we are going to get out of it, unless there is a complete and utter change either of Government, or on the part of this Government.

Allow me to dispose of a matter which I should have liked to dispose of in my maiden speech in this House, but which had to stand over as a result of the time limit, before I deal with the matter I actually want to discuss. The drought is over and our farmers in the stricken areas owe a great debt of thanks to the State. I must start with the hon. the Minister of Transport who made tremendous sacrifices and who worked under tremendous pressure, together with his staff, to make a gigantic contribution to the favourable course of events. Our sincere thanks! Then we thank the Minister of Defence who on various occasions had to use the Mobile Watch to help the farmers overcome a critical position. He made a great constructive contribution. Our sincere thanks! Then the twin departments namely the Departments of Agricultural Technical Services and Agricultural Economics and Marketing. They have always had to act as the buffer when farmers have been in difficulties, and we can say, and I do so on behalf of my constituency, that they have never let us down, that they have always treated us very sympathetically during these most difficult years. And then ofcourse there is the hon. the Minister of Finance who is always very sympathetic. And then the Cabinet as a whole, with whom the final responsibility rests. We can give them the assurance that the sympathetic approachability which we received from the Government made no small contribution to the high morale which the farmers in the stricken areas were able to maintain. Then I cannot omit to thank the Cape agricultural organization for the leading role it played and its emergency scheme which offered private persons the opportunity to make private contributions as well. I also want to convey our thanks to the farmers of Namaqualand, South West Africa, the Northern Cape, the Eastern Cape, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal who made grazing available on very reasonable terms and who not only made this grazing available, but who also received our farmers in a most friendly spirit throughout. We say to them: “Thank you very much.” And now that the dead-like chill with which each morning broke in the drought-stricken areas for four long years has been replaced by the blue and soft mistiness with which each new day breaks in these areas and now that awakening nature has already appeared in her full glory, and now that the grass is once again waving on the veld, a thankful farming population also bow in deep humility before their Creator,

I now come to the matter I actually want to discuss. I may take a long time, but I have listened to many speeches about goodwill in this House and I believe that there is great goodwill because everyone cries: “Peace, peace”. But alas! It seems to me that peace does not want to come. I want to discuss a matter which has become of actual importance in recent times. It is being discussed everywhere, and I have sat here in this House while people have been discussing this matter in which I have a direct interest and in which my voters have a direct interest. I have been instructed by my voters to put their point of view in respect of this matter. It will not surprise me if their attitude is not also the attitude of the entire North-West. I am thinking of the occasion when the waters of the Orange River were under discussion, when people walked into what must really be regarded as our pantry and shared out our supplies and said—one hon. member was so kind as to say: “Then there will still be enough left for you.” It was very kind of him, but to a certain extent we object to the kindness which is being shown us, and I want to discuss the utilization of the waters of the Orange River to-day. I want to base my argument on three reasons. The first is the climate of the area through which the river flows; then the economic contribution which the waters of the Orange River can make to our national economy and thirdly the basis which the waters of the Orange River should or will form, when they can be utilized, for supporting and strengthening our racial policy. I shall deal with my final point at the end of my speech in order to link up with what has been repeatedly emphasized here today and ever since I entered this House.

To turn to the Orange River, I just want to say a few words about the Orange River itself before we go any further into the matter. The first point is that we must remember that the Orange River obtains 90 per cent of its water from the confluence of the Caledon River and Orange River itself, and the remaining 10 per cent is caught up over the thousand-mile course which the river runs before it flows into the Atlantic Ocean. We must examine the climate of the area, and we then find that as far as the eastern side is concerned, as far as one can ascertain, the temperature varies from 77 degrees in the vicinity of Kimberley—it is very difficult to obtain this information because there are no statistics, and then one comes to Upington where it is 86 degrees and eventually one reaches Goodhouse which is more to the west, where it rises to 89 degrees. I do not mention the extreme temperatures rising up to 118 degrees in the vicinity of Goodhouse and 105 degrees in the vicinity of Upington. Together with this, we must say that the rainfall also gradually declines as we move westwards. Seeing that we are dealing with the utilization of irrigation water, we must necessarily have a dry climate to achieve maximum success. The rainfall at the confluence is approximately 15 inches, while at Upington itself it is only 6.1 inches and at Goodhouse only approximately 1.53 inches, while a little nearer the coast, south of the mouth of the Orange River, it is 2½ inches, taken over an extended period. We must take as a basis in discussing this matter that water is and will be the limiting factor in our country as far as our industrial development is concerned. The Orange River is a national asset, bearing in mind also the long way it flows right across our country, and the situation of the area through which it flows which is, as the rainfall indicates, a semi-desert and desert area.

This brings us to the utilization of water which is a limiting factor in the country’s development. Many points of view have been put forward in the past. One point of view which has been put forward is that the water of the Orange River should be diverted outside the catchment area of the Orange River. When we are dealing with the utilization of water, it is necessary that we should know what we have available, what water can be diverted to another part of the country outside the catchment area because we shall always have to bear in mind that in utilizing the water of such a river within its catchment area there are economic factors which must be taken into account.

What is the average flow? The flow during one dry year is 500,000 morgen feet; the average flow over two dry years is 1,000,000 morgen feet; the average flow over three dry years is 2,000,000 morgen feet, and the maximum flow during one year has been 7,500,000morgen feet. The average flow over many years has been in the vicinity of 2.9 million morgen feet. Now it appears to be a fact that we have irrigation land everywhere in the country, but it is just as much a fact that we do not everywhere have a climate which is equally favourable for irrigation. This does not mean that if we have wonderful irrigation soil in one part of the country that we must take the water to it, particularly when we are dealing with a country where water is a limiting factor. One must reserve the water for those parts of the country where one can irrigate on the most economic basis, in other words, where one can achieve the greatest production per morgen with the water and the greatest success. If we divert the water from the Orange River catchment area, it is self-evident that in the areas where one irrigates, one will build up communities and towns, and when one builds up large communities, one develops industries. No one in this House can say what the end will be because the population and development lead one from one stage to the next.

I submit that the waters of the Orange River are not so plentiful that one can irrigate to an unlimited extent. We must irrigate in that part of the country where one can achieve the maximum results. If we do not have sufficient water for utilization throughout the country, then it is surely economic and profitable that we should use the water in that area where we have the most land available. Otherwise we shall be creating two costs in respect of the same productive capacity of the same water. Let us utilize the water where we have land available for the water; then we shall surely make the maximum progress. When we turn to the economic aspect, there are certain things which one must take into account, namely: What the country requires and what the land produces per morgen per morgen foot of water when one uses it on that land. At the present time, we are importing certain articles into this country. For example we are importing cotton. I think the domestic consumption is 90,000 bales of 500 lb. each, and we only produce 23,000 bales of cotton. The quality which we produce in the north-west is of the very best. I want to read to the House the remarks of the cotton-grader of our country dealing with the quality of the cotton which we produce in the north-west in the catchment of the Orange River. He writes as follows—

The man who drew up this report is an immigrant whom we have brought from England to do this work for us.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the subject he is now discussing has already been discussed during this Session, that speeches have been made on it and that a resolution has been taken. I shall be glad if the hon. member will not make unnecessary use at this late stage of his right to discuss any subject, seeing that this is a matter which has already been disposed of.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing one of the most important Bills, namely the Appropriation Bill, and as far as I know it is customary to allow a very wide discussion which in effect covers the whole field of public affairs, or national affairs. Any infringement on this right would be an infringement on the rights of Members of Parliament.

A wide discussion is in order, but not on subjects regarding which a decision has been taken during the Session.

Mr. Speaker, I shall accept your suggestion immediately and turn immediately to the crux of the matter. I want to emphasize that with the desert climate we have there, we can cultivate crops which are eminently suitable for the world market and which we also require in this country. I have referred to cotton. I can add crops such as lucerne, sultanas and wheat. Seeing that we have a long summer season, such as one finds in any irrigation area, it is obvious that our production rate is higher than in other parts of the country. It is sometimes said that the Orange River flows into the desert at Upington, but when I examine the position throughout the world I find that the greatest irrigation schemes of the world are in fact situated in dry areas. There is Tigris-Euphrates area in the Near East and the Indus River plain inthe East. The Colorado dam was also built in a dry area. What about the Nile River of Egypt where a whole nation with a very long history has been built on the irrigation works which are dependent on the waters of the Nile. Consequently, when we discuss the utilization of the waters of the Orange River as a long-term matter and as a national matter, we must regard it in that light, seeing that we find that the Egyptians as a nation for example…

Order! The hon. member has been asked not to cover such a wide field.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall come to the point at once. Hon. members has also urged that we should invest millions in the areas where the Natives live on the eastern border of our country. We are investing in education, we are investing in hospital services, and we are investing in agriculture. There is hardly any sphere in which we are not investing millions, but I have not yet heard one hon. member say that we should invest millions in the northwest. I shall therefore tell the House why I make this submission. I say that the waters of the Orange River should be utilized to further our racial policy. We know what the racial composition of the population of the Cape is, I shall give the House the figures showing the number of children attending school in the Cape to-day. There are approximately 201,000 White children, and approximately 616,000 non-White children. The Whites therefore only represent one-third of that total. It is quite clear that the sphere of influence of the White people and the Coloured people and the centre of those populations is on the western side of the country. But we find that the eastern side is continuously being emphasized. It is urged that millions should be invested in development. Has it not become time that we should invest millions in the Western side of our country so that the Western side can develop seeing that this is where the Whites and the Coloureds have their origins? Have we ever thought of the fact that by the year 2000 there will be just as many Coloureds as Whites? They are established in the western part of the country. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is always concerned about the fact that we have placed the Coloureds in the desert. I do not know whether she has ever been there. I can just tell her that the Whites have the poorest areas in the North-west. After the Coloureds had picked their areas, the Whites had to make do with what was left. I therefore hope that the hon. member for Houghton will support me in this regard.

Let us just consider the population growth since the establishment of the Union of South Africa. From 1910 to 1951 the percentages represented by the various population groups remained more or less constant. There were approximately 21 per cent Whites, 8 per cent Coloureds, 2 per cent Asiatics and 67 per cent Natives. But from 1951 to 1960 there came the change: 19.2 per cent Whites, 9.4 per cent Coloureds, 3 per cent Asiatics and 68.2 per cent Bantu. But it is estimated that by the year 2000 the Whites will only represent 14.1 per cent, the Coloureds 11.6 per cent and the Asiatics 4 per cent, while the Bantu by that time will be 69.8 per cent. In other words, by that time the Coloureds together with the Asiatics will outnumber the Whites. We now come to the point: If we must carry a greater population on the eastern side of the country for which provision has to be made, then we shall naturally also have a denser population on the western side of our country. But what I find strange is that no one ever refers to the western side of our country. We have a limited area of arable land on the western side of our country with the high percentage of arable land on the eastern side. What do we intend doing with the Whites and the Coloureds on the western side? What are our aims for them? As I see the position there are only two things which can be done to consolidate and to safeguard the position of the White man on the western side of the country, in order to retain the balance between the west and the east, namely the utilization of the only significant natural resources on the western side of the country, particularly in the north-west, in order to strengthen the population groups on the Western side of the country, i.e. the waters of the Orange River and the mineral wealth of the north-western areas. To the extent that we gradually take water for other purposes to the eastern side of the country, to that extent we are gradually throttling the development of the north-west and the western side of our country which is so essential for the strengthening of the population groups on the western side of the country, until we shall reach the stage where we shall be faced with a dense population on the western side of the country for which there will be no future. It may be racially conscious, but economically it will be in a weak position because we shall have deprived them of and we shall have utilized that which was their own, that which nature gave them, and we shall have given it to a part of the country which was well endowed by nature. We have a reasonable average rainfall towards the east, and a reasonably independent population to the east. But the further west we move the poorer the people, both White and non-White, become.

What must we do in the far-distant future? What natural resources must be utilized to balance this position? In the east we have railway lines; to the east we have tarred roads; there are diesel engines, doubled railway lines, electricity. Millions and millions of rand have been invested. During the past ten years more than £40,000,000 have been derived from the two mines on the west which have gone to those areas. The north-west has never been petty about it. You have never heard us complaining about it. We do not begrudge the development of the country one penny that we can contribute. But with a view to the acute racial problem in our country we can expect that something will also be done to stimulate the development of the north-west which will bring us industries, which will bring electricity, which will bring us roads and which will bring us means of communication, so that our economic position will balance that of the eastern part of the country. Would that be unsound? Would that be a bad national policy? I ask for the support of hon. members. We have all had our say in this House. I want to test this matter. Taking into account the intensified economic policy which the hon. the Prime Minister has announced, is it not time that the waters of the Orange River are utilized for the development of the western side of the country in order to safeguard our future livelihood? Not that we begrudge the Bantu races their livelihood, but I make the plea that we should safeguard ours together with theirs.

I am sure the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow on the theme developed by him. I do so not because I think he was out of bounds, but because I feel quite sure that he has dealt very well with the local problems and the local needs of the area which he represents. I think he has dealt adequately with the resources, especially soil and water, which nature in this country has provided for the agriculturalist. I will come back again to the needs of the agriculturalists and their difficulties. But let me first indicate that we are witnessing fast moving changes in every direction in South Africa, whether you like it or not. Moreover, whether we like it or not, it is now abundantly clear that things are likely to look as different a year hence as they did a year ago. Sir, we certainly have reached the roaring 1960’s, and unless we can keep abreast of the changes that are taking place around us—political, racial and economic—then inevitably they must overtake us. I wish to concentrate my remarks on the economic sphere and I wish to support those hon. members who from this side of the House pointed out the rate at which the economy of the country is slowing down. On 15 March 1961—South Africa’s fateful Ides of March—the hon. Minister of Finance commenced his Budget statement with some fine words. I know these words have already been quoted but I think they bear repetition, because this is what he said—

Now, three months later, we are told that the country is in a serious state of economic uncertainty, with a grave shortage of liquid funds and a graver shortage of investment capital. All this uncertainty is due to the Government’s mishandling of the country’s political and economic problems. So serious is the position being regarded in financial circles, that it has been described as leading to nothing short of economic disaster. That was the position before last Friday, Sir, which was South Africa’s new Black Friday, when the hon. Minister announced his desperate steps in an endeavour to stop capital outflow from the country. Sir the Leader of this party has indicated that these steps amounted to dishonouring an obligation and that they were a breach of an undertaking given to foreign investors. Whether those steps are going to serve adequately the purpose for which they are designed, remains to be seen, but there can be no doubt about it at all that those steps have shattered confidence in South Africa. The country now finds itself in what has been very aptly described as “a state of economic siege”. There has been the sudden drying up of money in the hands of the banks and of the building societies. Financial reports indicate that the building societies, over the past few weeks, have had to sell, generally at a loss, some R8,000,000 of gilt-edged securities. Mortgage lending by building societies has virtually dried up. The Land Bank, which is a wholly owned Government institution, has also run dry and has had to turn off its lending tap. It is quite evident now that the failure of the recent loan issue by the Treasury, is as much the reason for the hon. Minister’s desperate control measures as the tumbling of our gold and foreign reserves. Recent reports are that during the week ended 16 June they tumbled a further R4.7 million and then stood at something like R142,000,000. Sir, the more rigid the control, the weaker becomes world confidence in South Africa. The financial world judges economic strength and stability not by how well or how rigidly enterprise is controlled in the country, but by how freely enterprise is permitted to operate in the country. Even before the new rigidity in currency control was announced, the mining industry had already been cut off from its normal sources of supply of capital from abroad. That industry remains the kingpin of our economy and will now, for the first time in its long history, have to rely on its own monetary resources to finance its capital developments and to finance further exploitation of the country’s mineral resources. This will, of course, bring about a chain reaction, because there will be a corresponding drying up of medium and short-term investment by mining companies through banks, the National Finance Corporation and other financial institutions.

I said once before during this Session, and I say again, that the disturbing consequence of the country’s difficulty, following upon its getting into an economic tight corner, will be the large-scale unemployment which is likely to arise in our urban areas. There are ominous signs already that this is beginning to happen.

And as unemployment grows, so will the level of retail trade drop and there will follow grave economic deterioration as the wheels of commerce and industry start to turn slower.

Admittedly there are theorists who claim that South Africa can live on its own economic fat and that there is no need for the further importation of capital from abroad. I do not want to go into this because it has already been dealt with, but if we reason along those lines, then, as someone has suggested, we can make a case also for stopping the importation of mechanical propelled vehicles on the score that South Africa can breed its own ox-power. But what will eventually happen in that case is, of course, that we will return to the pace of the ox.

I want to return however to the hon. Minister’s fine words expressed on 15 March when he assumed the role of a bio-economic diagnoser of the fiscal and monetary health of the country’s body economic. Sir, when I criticize the hon. Minister in this regard, I want to make it clear that there is nothing personal about it. But if a Minister chooses to guess aloud, and then guesses wrongly, he must obviously expect criticism for what he has said. Now this patient of his, on which he carried out his diagnosis, what did he get for his pains? The hon. Minister said firstly—

I pause here to say that what he quite obviously was referring to was our gold and foreign exchange reserves. Then he found—

Here I assume that he was dealing with the country’s liquid resources. Lastly he found—

Here he was referring to agriculture and secondary industry. I have time only to comment upon the hon. Minister’s diagnosis of the liver, and possibly of the kidneys. Most certainly, the hon. Minister should have been more cautious about the condition of the liver. Let us see what a specialist on that organ of the body has to say. I am referring to the Land Bank as a source of supply of capital for agricultural development. The Board of the Land Bank, in announcing in 1961 a new and sterner lending policy to farmers, had this to say in its most recent report—that is for 1960—

Then it sets out to outline its sterner lending policy for the future and says—

This report is dated 7 February 1961 and must obviously, therefore, have been in the hands of the hon. Minister of Finance before he made his budget statement, and in which he described the condition of the liver as “in fine shape”,

That is, however, only one part of the story. I mentioned earlier that the Land Bank has had to turn off its lending tap. An examination of the financial statements of the Bank for 1959 and 1960 shows rather disturbing results. The main capital source of the Bank is no longer loan moneys appropriated by Parliament. Instead the Bank was given authority in 1958 to borrow on the open money market under Government guarantee. One result of this is that long-term borrowing has now very largely been replaced by short-term borrowing. The obvious reason for that is the inability of the Bank to raise sufficient long-term money in the local money market to meet the needs of the industry. Nevertheless, the sums advanced by the Bank on farm mortgage jumped from R10.2 million in 1958 to R63.1 million in 1959. A lending spree of that order could not continue. It had to come to an end out of sheer exhaustion in the shape of lack of funds. And that is precisely what has happened, because the tap has had to be turned off. That may be a convenient thing to do in order to get out of the financial difficulties, but it is certainly not good business, nor is it a healthy economic symptom for the industry itself, or for the country as a whole.

The second disturbing aspect of farm mortgage lending is equally serious and unsatisfactory. An analysis of the Bank’s operationfor 1959 and 1960 reflects the following results: Long-term lending to farmers exceeded long-term borrowing from the public by R26.2 million in 1959 and by R48 million in 1960. That in practice means that over two years the Bank was borrowing short and lending long to the extent of R74.2 million. That I regard, Sir, as a most unhealthy state of affairs. The Financial Mail comments as follows on this kind of financing to meet the needs of the farming community. Under the heading “Bad Practice”, it said—

The report then goes on to deal with some of the shorter term borrowings and ends by saying—

I think the position disclosed is positively alarming. It is positively misleading to describe this financial state of affairs of the agricultural industry as being “in fine shape”, to use the term which the hon. Minister has used. This House, and the country, are entitled to know what the truth is in regard to the capital financing of the agricultural industry.

This brings me to the matter which was raised by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) earlier, namely the serious financial position in which the Langeberg Co-operative Society finds itself. There is a dearth of Ministers in the House at this moment. I would have liked particularly the hon. Minister for Agricultural Economics and Marketing to be here because I think, in view of the facts which have been disclosed in this House in regard to this Co-operative Society, the House is entitled to an explanation of how the Government views this matter. Langeberg Co-operative Society has been described as an important exporter of canned fruit and as an earner of foreign currency for South Africa. Its weakness is now a matter of public concern and its present financial difficulties cannot be slurred over. There is therefore a very good reason why there should be an independent enquiry into the state of affairs of this cooperative society. That is why I wished that the hon. Minister for Agricultural Economy and Marketing had been here because my remarks should more appropriately have been directed to him so that he could give this House an indication of how the Government views this development, and why there should not be this enquiry by some competent and independent body to examine the position.

I come now, Sir, to the kidneys, that is, secondary industry. Most businessmen know that the hon. Minister was equally remiss in describing secondary industry as being “in fine economic shape”. No wonder that the hon. Prime Minister felt obliged to take a hand in the matter to try and formulate plans to bolster up a wilting industrial growth. In order to stimulate a stagnating economy, the hon. Prime Minister proposes to inject into it over a period of 12 years a capital sum of some R2,000,000,000. This, as hon. members know, was announced on his behalf to both Houses of Parliament by the State President on 5 June this year. What is in contemplation in some form of planned capital spending by certain Government-controlled undertakings, such as Iscor, Escom, Sasol and I assume also the S.A.B.C., now called Radio South Africa. In this regard, we are told that the envisaged capital projects will be financed “mainly from the funds possessed by these undertakings themselves”. Here, again, I am sorry that the hon. Minister for Economic Affairs is not present, because it is quite clear that my remarks should be directed to him. The hon. Minister of Finance indicated earlier on in the debate that he was not quite sure whether it was R1,000,000,000 or R2,000,000,000. It seems to me to be quite a mistake and a case of guessing again and guessing wrongly. It is for that reason that I would have liked to have addressed my remarks in this connection to the hon. Minister for Economic Affairs. What is being contemplated is not something which is entirely new. A similar sort of announcement was made last year, but after the establishment of the Republic, there was rethinking about the matter and the total capital spending has gone up from R1,000,000,000 to R2,000,000,000 which the hon. Minister of Finance overlooked. On paper this scheme is commendable and everybody would like to see it get under way. Blueprints of that kind are, however, easilyprepared. What this House, and I am sure also the country, would like to know, is where the money is to come from. The envisaged programme would demand an annual capital outlay of R166,000,000 over a period of 12 years. If the money is to come mainly from funds possessed by the undertakings themselves, then the immediate cash resources of these undertakings must be sufficient not only to start the projects, but also to finance them for the first few years at least. Let us see what the position is in this regard and let us start with Sasol which has been in operation for 10 years. Sasol with a share capital outlay of £48,000,000, showed in 1960 for the first time a profit of £381,000. (I quote £ because the accounts are drawn up in £.) It is quite obvious, therefore, that no reserves have been built up and that this undertaking still has to operate on a hand-to-mouth basis. It is also obvious, therefore, that no capital contribution from this source can be expected now or in the immediate future. I come next to Escom which is a very well-administered undertaking but one which is prohibited by law from making profits. Escom happens, however, to be a taker and not a supplier of capital funds. Less than two months ago it raised a loan of R16,000,000 to finance its capital needs. It admittedly has a redemption fund and also a betterment fund but it has no spending reserves. In the nature of this undertaking it cannot have such reserves because both the betterment fund and the redemption fund are provided for specific purposes and must be so employed.

I come next to the S.A.B.C. This undertaking is also a borrower and not a lender. It can, therefore, make no capital contribution to this scheme. Parliament during this Session granted an appropriation of R1.7 million to this body as a loan in order to enable it to finance its immediate capital requirements. As everyone knows, Parliament has also recently given this body the power to raise funds by way of debenture stock. Only yesterday provision was made for exemption of this body from stamp duties in regard to these debentures. That leaves Iscor, which has been in operation for 31 years and which, admittedly, is in good financial standing. It made a net profit of £11.5 million in 1959-60 against a net profit of £8,000,000 in the previous year. Its general reserve account stood at £44.8 million at 30 June 1960. On paper that is a very substantial reserve, but the bulk of that sum is being used and has to be used as working capital—it has to be used for stocks and for work in progress. The cash resources at 30 June were therefore below £16,000,000. There was actually a drop in cash resources last year as compared with the previous year because at the end of June 1959, this figure stood at £24,000,000. It is obvious that during last year some £8,000,000 of Iscor’s capital resources were used for capital expenditure to meet its own recent development programme. This £15/16,000,000 admittedly can go some way, but only a short way, in financing an annual outlay of R166,000,000. Admittedly too profits will continue to increase with Iscor over the 12 years, but if Iscor is to be the main source of capital supply, then the rate at which its annual profits will have to be stepped up to meet the capital requirements of the scheme, is completely outside the bounds of possibility. The rate of progress will have to be such as to provide a net profit of £150,000,000 in 12 years’ time. That is so obvious a case of wishful planning. I say therefore, the country should not be bluffed in this way in regard to this R2,000,000,000 million scheme over 12 years. Unless these undertakings have hidden reserves on which to draw, where are the funds to come from? If they have hidden reserves, then the hon. Minister should disclose that to the House; if not, then all I can say is that the country is being fooled. If my analysis of the present financial state is incorrect, and if I am wrong, then I invite the hon. Minister to correct me. But if I am not wrong. Sir, then the whole scheme is a colossal mirage. It is a complete phantasy to say R2,000,000.000 will come “mainly from funds possessed by the undertakings themselves”. I underline the word “possessed”. I specially underline the word “possessed”, which, if it has any meaning means held now in some tangible and liquid form.

Either that or the Minister is possessed.

Well, I think not only the Minister but possibly the Government is possessed—possessed with an obsession, and we know what the obsession is. I shall come back to it. But “possessed” certainly does not mean this airy-fairy accumulation at some time to come.

Sir, this is a serious matter. Not only has there been an official statement sometime during the last year, but there was a very formal statement made to both Houses of Parliament as recently as 5 June 1961, when this scheme of R1,000,000.000 was stepped up to R2,000,000,000. That is a serious matter and I think the country is entitled to more information. The hon. the Minister might have the answers, and that is precisely why I am asking him the question. I think he should give us the answers because they are certainly not disclosed in the financial statement of the undertakings themselves, nor have I ever seen anybody associated with these undertakings make any announcement to confirm the Government’s statement.

I said at the beginning of my speech that the current serious economic position has to be laid at the door of this Government’s racial policy. The Government’s apartheid policy, to my mind, is like the Dodo. Modern history will record about it exactly what one, William Cuppy recorded about the Dodo when he wrote this—

When one listens to the prosperity stones which various hon. members opposite, and particularly the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, have told us, and particularly when one listens to the attacks made on anyone who dares to say anything to the contrary, one wonders what will be the final fate particularly of the farmers in our country. Especially when one has heard the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) in which he has just outlined the position of the Land Bank and the speech of the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) dealing with the Langeberg Koöperasie, then one wonders what the final fate of the farmers of this country will be.

Mr. Speaker, the farmers of South Africa are exceeding one record after the other. They are reaching one new achievement after the other. We are given the most striking statistics, and when we take into account the individual efforts made by the farmers, the energy with which they care for their farming interests, one can come to only one conclusion, and that is that the farmers as such, man for man are doing better than they have ever done before. Having said that, one would expect that they would be economically prosperous. But despite what I have said, namely, that the farmers man for man are doing better and better, it is nevertheless a fact that it is quite impossible for the farmers to make ends meet.

The production statistics tell a story of wonderful achievements. I have already said so, and when one reads the annual report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing—the latest one available to us is for 1959-60—one finds that the physical volume of agricultural production has been steadily increasing. Thus we find that, between 1952-3 and 1959-60, the index figure for agricultural production as a whole rose from 149 to 185. This is indeed a remarkable rise. The gross value of agricultural production has also increased tremendously, that is to say, by R18.3 million in one year, so that by 1959-60 it stood at R384,000,000—when one takes all this into account, then one would expect the farmers to be prosperous. But when one investigates the position a little further and one studies the prices received by the producers of agricultural products, one finds a different picture. In the year 1952-3 the index figure for mealies, for example, was 316. By 1959-60 it had fallen to 307. In the case of ground nuts it stood at 371 in 1953 and by 1960 it was 343. As regards the index figure for wool it was 624 in 1953 and has fallen to 433. In the case of poultry and poultry products it has fallen from 231 to 229. That is not such a great fall.

During this same period one finds that the implements, spare parts, fuel, etc., and lorries which the farmer requires have all risen in price so that in 1953 the index figure for ordinary implements was 271, and it has risen to 302. In the case of spare parts it has shot up from 284 to to 315. In the case of lorries the position is still worse—it has risen from 338 to 391. In the case of tractors it has risen from 250 to 269, and in the case of fuel from 190 to 206. When we take these figures into account we begin to see that the picture which has been described here is really not all that correct, and that most farmers, as I have said, are finding it difficult to make ends meet.

Mr. Speaker, the simple fact of the matter is that the financial position of the farmers at the moment is disquieting and I am sorry that, although farming interests have been discussed during the past hour, not one of the responsible Ministers has been present. They have been absent all day, and it seems to me that they are not taking the slightest interest in this debate.

They are busy with farmers.

The hon. member says they are busy with farmers. I can believe that they are perhaps busy with farmers. Perhaps they are persuading those farmers to vote for them at the next election. Perhaps the difficulties of the farmers are so great that they have to pay attention to individual farmers and that then do not have time to give their attention to matters of greater national importance. The truth is that the farmers owe millions of pounds to the State and private persons, and that they have incurred these debts during a period of rising incomes, and that these debts now have to be repaid during a period of declining net income. That is the truth. The farmer must be a superman to-day to make a living. He has to be a works manager, a factory manager, a technologist, an economist, a mechanic, and, then above all, he must have the superhuman ability, while he is producing more and more, to manage with less and less. I have said that during this period of rising expenditure the farmer has to be satisfied with a falling entrepreneur’s wage, and my hon. friend opposite, who is so ready to make interjections, knows better than anyone else in what difficult circumstances the farmers find themselves. I shall not be surprised if he is not in the same difficulties himself. Nor will it surprise me if he feels very concerned about the co-operative society in he is interested.

It is a good co-operative society.

In 1959 the State advanced to the farmers the largestamount it has ever made available in one year. During that one year the Land Bank lent £32,500,000 to the farmers, the farmers Assistance Board £4,750,000 and the Emergency Loan Board £250,000. Of this gigantic amount of £43,500,000, £31,000,000 was used to redeem debts. Only £12,500,000 represented new capital. Mr. Speaker, when one takes into account the fact that during the preceding year the Land Bank granted loans totalling £22,000,000 to farmers, one sees that during this period of 18 months, as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has said, the gigantic amount of £63,50.0,000 had to be used to keep the farmers on their farms.

A good Government.

When I say that, I can add that the figures which I have just given, do not reflect the correct position. There are factors effecting the economic prosperity of the farmers which should receive serious attention. I want to mention one or two of the difficulties facing the farmers. I want to discuss the citrus industry which last year experienced a disastrous collapse of its export market. Last year the Citrus Board exported 9,878,000,000 boxes of citrus, but despite that fact the citrus farmers found themselves in an unprecedented economic position. The fact of the matter is that oranges to-day are the cheapest fruit which one can buy in our country. Not one of these farmers knows what the future will bring for the citrus industry and what the position on the export market will be in the near future. This year we find oranges being sold on the local market which are in excellent condition and one can only come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the export market, that serious difficulties are once again facing the citrus industry.

The poor meat farmers do not know whether they are coming or going.

How can you say that?

We have had the abolition of the permit system, and as a result the stock farmers are right back where they were before the first meat board was established. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom knows nothing about it and as far as I know he has sold his farm and I do not know whether he has already bought another one. Then I come to the mealie industry. We must definitely expect a world record mealie crop. There is a record production in the United States and a record production in the Soviet Union. It is expected that the mealie crop this year will be 44 per cent higher than the average for the period 1950-4. It is estimated at 128,000,000 tons. That is 3,000,000 tons more than last year.

A good Government.

That poor hon. member did not even hear me refer to the United States and the Soviet Union. He says it is a good Government. Perhaps I agree with him that the United States has a good Government. I am not quite sure about the Soviet Union; perhaps the hon. member knows more about them than I do. In South Africa a crop of 46,000,000 bags is expected, while last year it was 41,000,000 bags. But the difficulty in this regard is that the consumption of mealies has remained constant since 1955. Seeing that we had a surplus last year, we shall have 5,000,000 bags more this year which we will have to dispose of.

At the outset I said that the farmer was producing more and more. One can only say that he is doing his best to an ever-increasing extent, but in this instance he has had to be satisfied for years past with an entrepreneur’s wage of 9s. 2d. per bag. It has definitely remained the same, although the costs of production have risen. However, the cost of production figures which the department takes into account have remained unchanged. In the meantime the cost of living is continually rising. When one considers the position of the producers of fresh fruit, the position in the dairy industry, the position of the wattle bark farmers, of the pineapple producers, of the sugar farmers, of the poultry farmers and of the onion producers, one asks oneself what attention the Government is giving to the difficulties of all these farmers. Mr. Speaker, I want to state clearly that the only reaction which one has had from hon. members opposite in the past is that they have said that hon. members on this side are crying over the unfortunate position in which the farmers find themselves. We have now been pointing out to the Government for the past three or four years that the farmers’ financial position requires attention, and the only reaction we have had has been to make loans available to farmers in order to keep them on their farms. I want to say quite clearly that the £63,500,000 which the Government has spent has not been spent to improve the position of the farmers but simply to keep them on their farms. When one takes into account the fact that in the past commissions have been appointed and have submitted reports, and that it is already some years since a report was laid on the Table dealing with the depopulation of the platteland, one wonders why the Government is doing so little in respect of these matters. This report points out that prior to the last difficulties, the platteland was becoming denuded of Whites. While there were 163,000 White farmers in 1921 there were 137,000 in 1951. This commission quite clearly indicates the reasons. It states quite clearly—

The commission goes on to say—

And why are the land prices still rising?

That hon. member is living in a dream world. Land prices have not risen but have fallen in the Union during the past two years. A farmer can hardly sell his farm to-day. The fact of the matter is that land is hardly changing hands to-day. Farms are remaining in the hands of present owners, except in those cases where farmers are bought out. A farmer who wants to sell and who wants to get a decent price for his farm cannot do so.

I have asked what the Government are doing about this matter. What are they doing about this commission’s report dealing with the depopulation of the platteland? What is the Government doing to attract more farmers to the platteland? The Commission says clearly that depopulation of the platteland is a threat to White civilization, and hon. members opposite are always telling us that they are the guardians of White civilization. What is the Government doing about the provision of credit to the farmers? What is the Government doing to assist the farmers? In 1949 777 farmers applied for assistance to be able to buy land; 228 were assisted. In 1949-50 there were 4,644 applications of which only 150 were placed on land. In 1957-8 when this Government had been in power for ten years, there were 1,755 applications, of which exactly 87 were placed. I want to compare those figures with the position in 1947 when 313 were placed. That is more than have been assisted at any time during the National Party’s regime. During the 11 years of the regime of the National Party there have been 23,586 application for assistance in acquiring land, and those applications have been rejected. There were 23,500 people who wanted to go to the platteland and who could not do so because this Government did not have the money to help them obtain land.

I have asked what the Government is doing about the provision of credit. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has pointed out that even the Land Bank is drying up. The farmers are finding that industry represents a more attractive investment field for any private person than the agricultural industry. One wonders where the money is to be found for agricultural development. We are always being told that the farmers must farm scientifically. When I say that, I want to refer particularly to the various motions which the House has considered during this Session. During the years that I have been in this House, I have never seen so many motions dealing with farming interests before the House than during this year, which is surely a clear indication that no matter how hon. members opposite may try to conceal it, they are nevertheless concerned about the farmers. It is said that the farmers must farm more scientifically. To do so money is needed. To do so implements are required. The farmer’s labour is expensive and scarce. To be able to farm more scientifically, he must be able to mechanise to a greater extent. I have asked what the Government intends doing about providing funds to the farmers. A report dealing with the provision of credit to the agricultural industry has been submitted. Not one Minister has even referred to that report. They have simply maintained a deathly silence. I simply want to say here that the National Party is spreading a false story of prosperity, and I want it on record. Mr. Speaker, I say here that the Government is sacrificing the prosperity of the farmers on the altar of its ideologies, that there is a period of stagnation in the economy, and that this economic retrogression will effect the farmers first.

Give us the figures.

The hon. member has been hearing the figures all afternoon. Mr. Speaker would call to order for tedious repetition if I were to go through them again. I have already said that when one discusses the difficulties of the farmers, the Nationalists say that this is a boring sob story. When we discuss coming difficulties, it is said that we are sabotaging South Africa. We find that during this debate hon. members opposite have even issued threats. Thus we find the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) for example saying that the chairman of the great financial houses who use their annual meetings to express criticisms, will have to be silenced. In the same way the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) has referred to a cold war which is being waged against South Africa when people say that we are experiencing economic difficulties. The same member threatened the commercial banks by saying that a certain control should be taken from them. On 15 March, the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to a robust and sparkling economy, but at that time he did not tell us that the position was deteriorating. He then referred to new investment capital which South Africa was attracting.

I said the most dangerous aspect was the outflow of capital.

At that time you did not refer to an outflow and a danger.You then referred to a robust and sparkling economy. The hon. the Minister says so many things that he can no longer remember what he said on what date.

And you only read half of it.

On 15 March he referred to a robust and sparkling economy, and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has already dealt with that in the greatest detail when he showed how the hon. the Minister referred to a lively and robust economy, and compared it to a human patient. The hon. member has shown in the greatest detail how that patient is no longer lively, robust and sparkling, but sickly. Last Friday we heard a different story from the Minister of Finance. Then it was a question of far-reaching restrictions. In January it was a good thing to buy South African shares abroad. Now it is an offence. The fact is that overdrawn accounts and loans are unobtainable today in the private sector. If they are unobtainable to the ordinary man, then I ask what the position of the farmer is going to be, the farmer who to such a large extent is already tied to the Land Bank. I have mentioned the funds of the Land Bank. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister will tell us in detail what the future plans of the Land Bank are and what hope the farmer has of obtaining any financial assistance from it. I have said that difficulty is being experienced as regards the repayment of loans which are falling due. The farmers are faced with falling incomes and also declining markets. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this Government is sacrificing the financial position of the farmers for the sake of ideological plans and aims which it has for this country. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis) has said this afternoon that they are sending out thousands of forms to people in which doubt is expressed as to whether they are Whites. This Government has time to deal with such petty matters and to cause heartbreak in this country and to allow matters to reach a stage where the Land Bank has to lend £63,500,000 to farmers in a period of 18 months. But this Government does not have time to seek new markets and to tell us where we can sell our products. During this period of falling incomes and difficulties, the farmer will be the first to feel the pinch, because we shall have difficulty in selling our products. I want to take this opportunity to tell the Government once again that it is time they gave more attention to the farmer and his needs and less to ideology.

If I remember my history correctly, the first farmer in South Africa was a woman, one of the sturdy mothers of our nation, Antjie Somers. While we listened to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) I wondered what the attitude of Antjie Somers was when her first holding was allotted to her so that she could farm and whether it was similar to that of the hon. member for Drakensberg. I do not think so. I do not think that she indulged in complaints and jeremiads. Her task was to show the D.E.I.C. that farming was a profitable industry provided one took off one’s coat and did one’s work. But I shall come back to the hon. member for Drakensberg a little later in my speech.

I am glad the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) is here. I want to refer to his speech. I do not like praising any member, but in considering his speech, one must examine the hon. member’s background for a moment. The hon. member is one of the persons whom I am sure is just as little filled with racial hatred as I or any member on this side of the House. As a matter of fact, in King William’s Town itself where I know the Nationalists and the Afrikaners well, he is someone who stands in the highest regard. I know that it is even difficult for a Nationalist to stand against the hon. member for election because he is held in such high regard. But it was a painful experience for me to hear even that hon. member dragging a racial matter into this debate. I am sorry that the hon. member has allowed himself to be so influenced by certain groups of people as to make himself guilty of this crime of which many of his party colleagues are guilty. One just wonders whether the hon. member did not have to do so in order to prove his loyalty to certain elements within that party because there may be an election this year and because he thought that there might be others who could play the racial drums louder than he has done in the past.

At this time, after the establishment of the Republic, when we are all inspired with the great ideal of building a nation in South Africa with its two languages, cultures and traditions, but with one single loyalty to South Africa alone, it is painful to hear racial hatred being aroused. I was in the hon. member’s constituency during the referendum last year. I addressed a few meetings there. I thought that I had rendered a service even to the English-speaking people of that area. I was disappointed by certain things which happened there. We had a republican agent, a very good friend and relation of mine, namely Mr. Hendrik Coetzer, a very fine young man. As we all did, Mr. Coetzer also circulated the personal letter which the Prime Minister addressed to the voters, but his difficulty was, as it was mine, that as a result of printing troubles our Afrikaans copies of that letter arrived before the English copies were available. Consequently, as I did, he posted Afrikaans letters to English-speaking persons. I am not quoting this example because I want to engender racial hatred or because I want to do anything harmful to my English-speaking friends, but I want to quote this example to show the hon. member for King William’s Town how great his task and my task in South Africa still is if we are to achieve this aim of national unity. Mr.Coetzer also posted such a letter to someone in Stutterheim and if the hon. member asks me for the name and address of the person, I shall give it to him. I am even prepared to do so in the House, but I do not think it would be fair to do so. This is, however, someone the hon. member knows very well. This is the answer Mr. Coetzer received. It was posted in Stutterheim on 22 September 1960—

And all of us can understand that this was a typing error, seeing that he meant from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.—

I shall not read the name. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is asking why I am raising these matters. It is because I simply cannot express myself strongly against the incitement of racial feelings in South Africa.

Seeing that that gentleman has been attacked, may I make a very brief statement on the matter?

I thought the hon. member wanted to ask a question, but I do not think it is fair to interrupt me now. [Interjections.]

The hon. member may continue.

I am mentioning this because one again I want to make an appeal to the English-speaking people in heaven’s name to stop this type of racial hatred which is being aroused in South Africa for political gain. [Interjections.]

Is the hon. member aware of the fact that that person was courteous enough to apologize to him for all the things he said in that letter?

No, I am not aware of the fact that this person apologized for his deplorable behaviour.

And I agree with you.

I am glad to hear the hon. member agrees that these are not the methods we should use, and if he will use all his resources, I shall also use all mine to eradicate this kind of hatred.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for Drakensberg.

Why are you wasting our time?

The hon. member asks why I am wasting time. Is it not of importance that we should eradicate this sort of thing root and branch if we want to build a nation.

For every one case you can give, I can give far more on the other side.

Order! The hon. member for Salt River must stop making interjections.

I shall not say any more on this point, but I also want to tell the hon. member for Salt River that he too must devote all his energies to this task, and I am prepared to do the same in order to eradicate this type of thing.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for Drakensberg. What does she want to do and what does the United Party want to do with the farmer of South Africa? We have seen these methods which she has used ever since the first day of the Session when they gave notice of a motion of no confidence in the Government, i.e. of putting forward a whole lot of complaints and saying how terribly badly the farmers are faring. The hon. member for Drakensberg has taken it upon herself to give figures showing how prosperous the farmers were during the period 1952-4 and later. Does she not realize that even at that time a National Party Government was in power? But now she wants to compare the position which prevailed at that time with the position in 1960 and 1961. She then gave the figures reflecting our income from wool, what the price of wool was at that time and what it is to-day, and she claims that it is the National Party Government’s fault that the market has fallen. Is the hon. member living in a fool’s paradise when she tells me that it is the Government’s fault that the wool market shot up during the period from 1952 to 1955 and has now fallen to 36d. during the past season? That is the fault of the world market and not of the Government. She has asked what the Government is doing. Does she not know what is being done by the Wool Board which the Government supports, and which is in the first place the organization which is responsible for seeking better markets for our wool? Does she not know of the international conferences which have been held to discusshow the use of wool can be promoted? Is she not aware of the publicity which is being made for wool so that wool does not need to bow before the tremendous competition from synthetic fibres? Does she not know of the research which is being undertaken in this regard and the attempts being made to establish an international organization which will lay down a minimum price for wool which will be an economic price? We in South Africa have already laid down a minimum price and when that price is not reached, the Wool Commission through powers given it by legislation of this Parliament buys in wool. The necessary co-operation has been achieved with New Zealand which has a similar scheme. Is it this Government’s fault that it has not yet been possible to persuade Australia to participate in a similar scheme? No, the hon. member has simply made a lot of cheap remarks. This is the same party which through the hon. member for Drakensberg has had so much to say because the two Ministers of Agriculture have not been present, but how many members sitting over there are people who earn one single cent from farming? At the moment there are only three members of the United Party and four Progressives, but not one of them is a farmer.

Where is the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture? It is ridiculous.

Order!

That is the party which takes such a great interest in the troubles of the farmers, but it has only three representatives listening to agricultural debates, and they started this debate, not us. [Interjections.] The hon. member has had a great deal to say about the citrus industry. I represent a constituency which is one of the greatest citrus producing areas in South Africa and some of the best citrus is produced in that area. After listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Drakensberg, we can only make one inference, namely that she knows nothing about the citrus industry; otherwise she would not say that the citrus market has collapsed and that this Government has done nothing about it. Everyone who knows anything about citrus knows that the industry is based on the foreign market and is dependent on world prices. Last year the position was such for various reasons which I have given in a previous debate that the citrus market collapsed, but is it this Government’s fault that Britain last year did not pay the same price for citrus as before and that surplus citrus from other countries was dumped on the London market? But then she asks what the Government is doing to seek other markets for the products of our farmers. Are the Opposition Rip van Winkels? Do they not know about the trade missions which have been sent abroad to seek new markets? Do they not know of our ambassadors throughout the world who are seeking new markets for us? But because they expect that there may be an election this year and because they know that the farmers have experienced a drought and that we are living in a period when there is a falling tendency in the prices of primary products throughout the world, they want to see whether there are not a few dissatisfied farmers who will vote for the United Party. Mr. Speaker, I know the farmer. The farmer knows his job. He knows what his obligations and his problems are. But there is one political party which he knows as well as he knows his difficulties, and that is the United Party. He knows what the attitude of the United Party Governments towards him has been over the years. He knows how his meat was requisitioned and how no attempt was made to find new markets for him. They can forget about getting support from the farmers. My time is nearly up and I just want to refer to one other point.

The hon. member for Drakensberg who is so concerned about what is happening under this Government says in the same breath that the mealie crop this year is 46,000,000 bags as compared with 41,000,000 bags last year, and then she complains in the same breath that the entrepreneur’s wage is still practically the same as last year. But she also says that our domestic consumption is remaining constant. That is not correct, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that she is correct. If she is concerned about the domestic consumption, I assume that she wants it to be increased, and how does she intend increasing it if she wants the entrepreneur’s wage to be raised because then the price would after all rise automatically since the surplus must be exported at a loss in order to keep the domestic market constant. How does she reconcile these two aspects? No, she is merely revealing her ignorance to the farmers by using this type of argument to the effect that the entrepreneur’s wage must be raised but the domestic consumption must also be increased because we have no control over the foreign market and that is where we must sell our surplus. The mere fact that she mentions the 46,000,000 bags as compared with the 41,000,000 bags of last year and then says that we are not ensuring that the farmer is prosperous destroys her whole argument.

I want to conclude. There are factors which are making matters difficult for the farmers, for example climatic conditions, foreign markets and international repercussions, but the farmer is not prepared to sell his birthright for a mesh of pottage, and he is not prepared to accept the United Party with its disastrous policy which must eventually result in the White man losing his control over South Africa in order perhaps to earn a few extra cents. The farmer would like to make an honest and honourable living but he also has another ideal. He wants to keep South Africa White and he appreciates that this can only be done bymaking this National Party Government ever stronger and that is why he has been consistently doing so at every opportunity he has had since 1948 up to 1961 and if we do hold an election, he will prove this clearly once again. I hope I shall have the opportunity to come confirm this next year.

One would have imagined that the desire of the Government side of the House to make an appeal for unity might have resounded through the nation with one voice, instead of which we have heard very many voices presenting this appeal for unity in very many ways and some very peculiar ways. When one compares the viewpoint of the last speaker and his apparently earnest appeal with that of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) and one or two other speakers on that side, what sense of unity is one to assume they wish to present to the country? What is the purpose of the appeal when in that appeal there is so much bitterness and unpleasantness and criticism always of the conduct of this side of the House and of the English-speaking people? Sir, there is a desire for unity in this country, greater even than the appeals on the Government side indicate, and I think one can say categorically that if there is failure to achieve unity it is due to the policies of the Government side and their constant provoking of conflicts of opinion between the two White sections of the country in order particularly to present red herrings to the public to keep them in power. As soon as there is the possibility of discussions on a high level, you constantly get the granite stand which has become the pattern for every level of discussion. There has never been at any time a greater desire to do something for the benefit of South Africa and for all sections of the community, but whenever such an effort is made that effort is immediately spurned. I remember yesterday or the day before the manner in which the business people of the country were severely taken to task because they had the impertinence to introduce in their annual reports some comment on the state of the country.

That is tedious repetition.

I just want to draw attention to one or two of the comments made with regard to the desire of people to do something for the benefit of the country. I read from one report which says this—

Then this further statement—

That is one businessman who commands some £50,000,000 to £60,000,000 of capital invested in this country. Then you get another speaker who says this—

In other words the business people in this country have one objective and that is the goodwill and the future prosperity of our country. Another businessman says this—

The first speaker was the chairman of the African Life Assurance Society Ltd., the second was the chairman of the General Mining Finance Corporation Ltd. and the third the chairman of the Anglo American Corporation of S.A. Ltd. These three companies probably represent hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds, in fact I would go so far as to say there must be £2,000,000,000 of capital tied up in these companies, companies which give employment on a large scale to people of this country. They play a very big part in the development of South Africa and they have enabled South Africa to reach the financial standing that they have to-day. These people who preach goodwill in the interests of their own investors and in the interest of the country, who preach that there should be a greater measure of goodwill and co-operation find that their views are spurned by that side of the House. Other views expressed on this side of the House in the interests of unity are spurned and criticized as we have heard over the last few days. As soon as there is any suggestion of a measure of compromise which, after all, is the art of good government, it is immediately spurned by that side of the House. Sir, we have just heard the hon. member for Somerset West (Mr. Vosloo) challenge an English-speaking member on this side of the House and challenge the community generally that we should show a change of heart and build our Republic on the basis of love and affection and respect for our language and culture and tradition, and that we should do everythingin our power to build up a united nation. But, Sir, just listen to the various comments and interjections when anyone tries to analyse these appeals for unity. One is met with jeers from that side of the House. That is the response to valuable suggestions put forward from this side.

Tell us about the good things in life.

There is no question that the Government side of the House is prepared to remain in power even at the expense of unity. If they wish to make an appeal for unity they have to realize that the opinions of all people in the country must be taken into account. You cannot have unity on the terms of one section only; you cannot have compromise on the terms of one section only. You have to take into account the viewpoint of all the people who helped to build up the country and who play an important part not only in the material but also in the spiritual and cultural life of the country and the community. These businessmen to whom I have referred have all played their part, not only in making certain suggestions as to how the country’s affairs should be run but have actually endeavoured to play an important part. Some years ago when the hon. the Minister of Labour was challenged with regard to the minimum wage for unskilled labour in this country, he said that it was no concern of the Minister of Labour or of the Government, that it was a matter that concerned only the commercial and industrial entrepreneur, that the Government could give no lead; in fact, that the Government was not concerned with it because it was not prepared to advise businessmen how to run their affairs. A couple of years later when the matter became of greater moment, when the Government became somewhat more conscious or was obliged to become conscious of the problems facing the country, the Minister of Economic Affairs said that he felt that it was right that minimum wages should be improved and brought to a very much higher level to meet the demands in the country. But he said that he was not prepared to suggest that the Government itself should give a lead; that the lead should be taken by industrialists and the commercial people of the country. But he said that the Government supported the idea, that the Government believed that it was right that that should take place. The extraordinary thing is this that in other countries such as a sister Republic, the United States of America, the question of minimum wages for the unskilled worker is a very important factor. In fact, in the initial message of the new President to Congress, he advocated an improvement in unskilled wages by 25 per cent. A Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives and thereafter into the Senate to give effect to that. Speakers there said that it would take anything up to four years to bring about the overall improvement to the many millions who would benefit by it, but the President said that he had no fear and the American Parliament passed the Bill. He said that he had no fear of inflation, which was one of the fears expressed by Government speakers when the motion of unskilled wages was debated in this House. He said he had no fear with regard to inflation, with regard to unemployment and with regard to the destruction of the economy of the country; that in any sound economy can absorb an increase in cost because it would bring with it tremendous additional spending power internally, which would improve the consumers’ market in the country and give a much healthier and better citizen. As has been quoted in another context, that increase of a rand or two in cost would bring in its wake immeasurable benefits that would far outweigh the greater expenditure now facing the country because of the inability of this huge mass of unskilled workers to live decently and to maintain a good standard of health and to give the production which the country requires. In this sense these great industrialists to whom I have referred have made a big contribution to the welfare of the country. They have of their own accord in the last 18 months infused a further £30,000,000 into the improvement of wages in order to try to reach the ultimate figure of £70,000,000 to £80,000,000 per annum. That £30,000,000 per annum is not only going into the pockets of the worker but it is going from the pockets of the worker into the spending power of the country, into general circulation. It is bringing about better production and an improvement in the living standards of the workers. Sir, I would like to say this with regard to this question of production. The hon. member who earlier in the Session introduced this motion on the question of unskilled wages referred to an organization known as the Bantu Wages and Productivity Association. This association is composed of persons who all represent big and important industries in this country. They are spending money on publicity and public relations to educate the industrialist and the commercial man on the methods to be used to improve productivity and to make better use of labour. That is something which the Government itself should be doing. Here we are facing a financial situation which can only be improved if we improve the productivity of the workers. We are imposing import controls which means that the South African will be called upon to buy his own country’s production, so it is essential to improve the productivity of the worker; it is essential to improve his standards and to bring a greater number of people into the productive life of the country. Instead of a private body of men undertaking this important task it should be the duty of the Government to give a lead in this direction; to set up some organization for this purpose; to encourage the imposition of a minimum wage at a level which would be nearer a civilized standard of living. Sir, Australiahas an economy which is very similar to ours; agriculturally it produces the same types of goods as we do; she also produces minerals, and if a country like Australia can give a lead through its Government in the matter of a minimum wage for the unskilled worker, why are we afraid to do it.

Thirteen pounds a week.

In American the minimum wage is $1.25 per hour for the unskilled worker. In Australia if a man sweeps the floor of a shop he has to get a minimum of £13 per week. Such an increased minimum wage would enable us to get an increased production; it would improve the whole economy of South Africa and we would not have to live in fear as to what is going to happen under the financial restrictions imposed by the Minister of Finance; we would not have to live in fear as to what is going to happen with regard to the other problems with which he is wrestling at the moment and from which it seems he cannot rescue himself.

You will have to go into that matter again.

Sir, we cannot run away from these facts. It is all very well for the hon. member over there to interject. The facts are there and we cannot run away from them. We look forward with interest to hearing from the Minister of Finance how he is going to make up these various shortages without imposing additional taxation. We know that South Africa is a country which has had a great deal of prosperity in the past, and I am sure that very shortly—certainly in the next Budget—some serious changes in taxation for the man in the street are going to take place. That is the only way in which this policy of reaping your capital requirements from current revenue can continue, as there is no capital coming into the country.

What is the productivity of the unskilled labourer in Australia in comparison with that of the unskilled labourer in South Africa?

The question is why.

I have no actual facts at my disposal but I would say that because they are maintaining a civilized standard of living their standard of living, their standard of production must be much higher. I want to tell that hon. member something else and that is that you would only be able to regard something as your own and enjoy the fruits and benefits of it if you work yourself, and if you want others to work for you they must work with you and contribute to that production and share in the benefits. That is the simple answer to the whole thing without going into the whole field of the Government’s racial policy.

You have never worked yourself.

The Government and Government members have realized that unless they are prepared to take into account the whole of the manpower of our country, we are facing very serious times. I want to say this too: The industrialist, the mining magnate, the financier is very concerned not only about the outflow of capital from this country but he is also very concerned about the loss of technical manpower that this country is suffering. That is a very serious factor in the whole of our economy. The hon. member made an interjection earlier which was quite in keeping with his appeal for unity when someone said that it was not only the English-speaking technician who was leaving the country but that it was probably mostly the Jews who were leaving. I assume that he said that in order to create some rancour. But if he takes the trouble to read the newspapers or to get the information he will find that the departures from this country in the technical field include members of all sections of the community of varying faiths. They are all South Africans. I would regard them as only South Africans, but, of course, expert racialists on the other side of the House would divide them into Jews, Catholics, Calvinists, Seventh Day Adventists, Whites, Blacks, Coloureds, Protestants, Apostolics.

Everyone has to be labelled.

All these people have to be technically grouped and categorized in their proper little niches so that we can place the blame for anything on specific shoulders. Whether there is a purpose in that for the future, I do not know but it is extraordinary. These financiers are concerned with the loss of this manpower. We are losing some of our finest men in the medical and technical fields, men in the field of nuclear physics. These men are going to other countries and giving those countries the benefit not only of all their knowledge but of all the thousands of pounds which we have spent on their training. Those countries, in the shape of these men, are receiving what is just as good as foreign capital. If you get 100 technicians, fully trained, coming into this country, that is probably worth £250,000 to you in training. All that money is now flowing into other countries. I say that it is a very serious situation that we are facing and something must be done about it. One of the other disadvantages—and I think we should get an answer to this—is that our teaching standard in the universities is dropping. Here I have an extract from the Medical Journal of 6 May 1961 in which it says this—

This is a symptom of what is taking place in all professions. It is a well known fact that in the engineering profession—and these figures were given some years back—the shortfall in the Union by 1965 will be in the region of 6,000 to 8,000 engineers. The shortage is constantly increasing, and that is the position in a country where we still have enormous areas of land to develop such as the eight Bantustans which have to be developed technically, agriculturally and in the civic sense and which have to have medical men, hygiene officers, agricultural experts. We require a tremendous amount of manpower and yet our country has done everything in its power to chase that manpower away. Why? Because the Government spurns the advice of the businessman. Because the businessman supposedly has no right to interfere in the life of South Africa; his job is only to be productive and to create more and more wealth but he has no right to advise the Government on matters which are of great importance in the interests of South Africa. He is spurned; he is regarded as a liberal, as a racialist, as a friend of Nkrumah. Sir, how can you expect these people not to be critical when you find for instance that a company like General Mining has lost 40 per cent of the market value of its investments in 18 months—R24,000,000. Take the loss of Anglo American. There too there has been a considerable drop in the market value. Everyone knows the figures very well indeed. The market value of their investments fell by 23 per cent from R260,000,000 to just under R200,000,000, a loss of just over R60,000,000 in a short period of 12 months. How long is the financier or the entrepreneur going to retain the courage, the initiative and the enthusiasm to continue to put everything he has into this country and into its future?

Of course he cannot if he listens to you.

He will not bother about what I say but he will take a great deal of notice of what the Government is doing. Industrialists are not concerned with what I have to say; they are concerned with what the Government is doing, and this is what they say…

Mr. Oppenheimer.

I do not need to talk of Harry Oppenheimer. I can tell of at least 20 different industrialists and financiers who would tell you the same story. He says this—

This was said by the chairman of African Life Assurance Society, Limited. He is concerned with what the Government is saying and doing. We are trying in some modest way to draw attention to what is taking place outside the confines of this House where members sit back in comfort and ease, and to let them realize that certain things are taking place outside this country and that notice must be taken of what these people say.

I just want to deal finally with this question of an improvement in wages. I know that a great deal was said here by the Government member who specifically introduced this motion on unskilled wages. He said that the Government should be encouraged to continue its efforts but pointed out all the dangers of moving too fast. We have heard a discussion in this House for some days now on this question of people earning money too fast. Our difficulty is going to be that if we are going to spend years and years before a man can qualify to live decently because his colour is different, then I am afraid that we are not going to spend years and years in the comfort that we enjoy to-day. The cause of all the problems will be the insistence of the Government on maintaining the rigid attitude which it has been maintaining over these many years. I want to go further and say this: We have in this Session come to certain conclusions with regard to the attitude of the Government. The attitude of the Government is obviously one of fear; it is afraid of the financier being critical of the Government; it is afraid of the Press being critical of the Government. It is afraid of so-called intellectuals or thinking people criticizing the Government. It is afraid of the Churches changing their way of thinking.

And you are afraid of the election.

It is afraid of a multi-racial convention which would enable people to discuss their various problems. Why do we come to the conclusion that it is so afraid? Because right throughout this Session there have been threats from one Government member after another against the various institutions to which I have referred. Just recently a statement appeared in the Press to this effect—

Speakers on the other side, like the hon. members for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) and Bellville (Mr. Haak), and others who are regarded as the principal speakers on that side on financial matters have been severely critical of financiers and industrialists who make any comment or proffer any advice. A year ago the Chambers of Commerce and Industry led a deputation to the Prime Minister in order to give him their point of view and they were politely told that the Cabinet was not interested in their point of view. These people are threatened and warned to keep their noses out of the political life of the country; they are told that they should give their attention purely to the business side. It almost reminds one of the little South American Republics, where nobody plays any part in politics; everybody is busy looking after the material side and a handful of politicians shoot it out between them and have fun and games and changes of Government. That is not the sort of thing that we want in South Africa. Sir, then we come to the Press. At every turn the Press is blamed. Everyone on that side criticizes the Press, from the meanest backbencher to the Prime Minister himself. If this Government thinks that the Press is destroying national unity in this country and that the Press is destroying the “volk” of South Africa why don’t they do something about it? No, they have a Press commission which has been sitting for ten or 12 years. They will probably have a new type of commission which will deal perhaps with the so-called unscrupulous liars in the Press. Sir, my hon. friends should read newspapers from abroad, newspapers of the highest integrity which have the greatest affection for the South African and which warn the country to try to see the light of day sooner in order that they may preserve this standard of Western civilization in South Africa. Then we had this very interesting experience where the Churches of South Africa attended a world council meeting which took place here and which passed certain resolutions. What happened? All the party organisers got busy; all the laymen who were elected to the synods were taken to task and in no time the Church came to heel.

Better leave the Church alone.

I have the utmost regard for the Church. I wish that hon. member would have the same regard for the Church and refrain from making the Church toe the line and comply with Government policies; then we would have a much saner outlook in this country than we can have when we make the Church the lackey of a party Government.

And that coming from a former mayor of Johannesburg!

I know what I am saying. I have nothing to be ashamed of when I criticize the Government for having the impertinence to force the hand of the Church. What has been the result? It has destroyed the spiritual life of our community.

Then we come to the question of consultation. The Government has been saying for months now “Of course, we have consultation”. The Minister of Bantu Affairs says “Of course we have consultation”. But nobody can consult except with the Government. That is the extraordinary situation in this country. We have been warned by the Prime Minister that he regards in a very serious light this getting together of people to hold what is called a multi-racial conference where White and non-White can discuss things around a table because the Government has appointed itself as the only avenue of consultation in this country. In fact, if any private individual should be found discussing anything at all with a non-White he immediately becomes suspect under the Suppression of Communism Act. That is the state to which the country has come with regard to consultation. And then finally the warning to business people not to interfere in the affairs of the country! A country, Sir, which is not prepared to take into its confidence those who are playing a yeoman part in the development of the country, such government is acting inimically to the interests of its citizens. So the conclusion we come to is this that the Government is a government of fear because it is a government that lives only on threats. Any movement by the people of this country, whether it be on the highest plane of seeking unity, whether it be with the object of engendering goodwill between the various sections of our community, whether it is to improve racial relations between White and non-White, whether it be the efforts of the churches of the country to play some part in the life of the country to the benefit of the country, whether it be the interest of the thinkers of the country in the affairs of the country, all that is being threatened by various members of the Government as an interference with the political life of the country, and they are being warned that they must restrain themselves and not make any comment on the affairs of the country. Is that the sort of life to which the Government is bringing this country? The hon. Deputy Minister of Education gave us a very interesting diatribe the other day of the so-called intellectuals. He wanted to tear to pieces all these people who had the impertinence to say something about their country. I feel sad to think that he, who is after all a member of the Cabinet of my country, decries the intellectual, the thinker, or any person who wishes to make some contribution to the life of this country, of which he should take note and which he should consider and weigh. I don’t want to make loose references to other régimes of this nature. They had the same problem, the problem of not wanting to listen to anyone, always knowing everything, the know-alls of the country, the know-alls of all our problems. We South Africans want to live in peace and harmony in this country. We South Africans want to build a future in this country. We South Africans want to feel that we have a chance to build a future in this country. All of us who love our country want to feel that we have a chance of building this country, not for ourselves only, but for the future. And that is deliberately being destroyed by people who refuse to listen and who use the façade of so-called democracy, refusing to allow anyone, hundreds of thousands of South African citizens, to make any contributions to the thinking of South Africa or to the improvements of its problems. And when you begin to decry, not only your churches, but your universities, your teachers, your thinkers, then you can realize that your country is on the downgrade. I want to tell this Government that the country is not going to slip so easily downgrade as they think. The time will come when the electorate of South Africa will make a stand against this Government. They may laugh at the fact that elections have been lost, but a change will come among people in this country who think. Gradually it is coming. If it were not so, why should the hon. the Deputy Minister try to destroy by jeering the efforts which are being made amongst his own people? It is no good to say that they are “Sappe”. That is nonsense! Greater dynasties have fallen away. It is when the intellectuals in the country awaken to the problems of the country, then you may be sure that there is going to be a change in the political life of the country. If you take the history of France, you will find it was the intellectual who eventually led the people out of the morass and out of chaos into light and into a new and enlightened form of democracy. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down has again referred to the intellectuals. He was not referring to himself. But one would really think that there are no intellectuals on this side of the House. One would have thought that a man like the hon. the Prime Minister, a man with the degrees he has and many others who also hold degrees are not also intellectuals. Mr. Speaker, one can count the so-called intellectuals who are opposing the policy of the National Party on the fingers of one hand, or perhaps two hands. But the overwhelming majority of the intellectuals in South Africa support the National Party and other thinking persons are members of the National Party. People who cannot think can only belong to the United Party.

I found it strange to listen during this debate to the Jeremiads which we have heard from members opposite. And do you know, they are so false that the Opposition members themselves who have had the opportunity to speak all day because we have given them the opportunity, have killed the debate completely. They do not even have a quorum to listen to them. We on this side have had to help maintain a quorum for them. Their own people have simply not been here. Their prophets of doom have talked them out of Parliament.

You know, Langenhoven said that a handkerchief was a very useful thing when tears were coming, but also when tears did not want to come. The hon. members who are now speaking as if South Africa is on the way to destruction unfortunately do not have a handkerchief. They could not conceal the fact that the tears would not come. They have actually proved to us that they rejoice in the fact that South Africa, according to them, is on the way to its destruction. Their main theme, apart from the fact that South Africa is on the way to economic destruction, has been “national unity”. We know that this is one word which the Opposition has always peddled with over the years. To them it has become an article of trade. They have never told us why they want national unity. National unity is after all not an object in itself. It is a means to an end, but they have never told us what they want to do with that national unity. What point is there in getting a group of people together if one does not give them a task to carry out. They have never told us what the object of their national unity is. But we on the other hand actually say that we want national unity. We say we want national unity in order to preserve White civilization here in South Africa. We say that we want co-operation for that reason. We do not talk of political unity either. We have never spoken about coalition. That is all the Minister of Transport meant when he said that we did not want to co-operate with the Opposition. He was referring to the fact that he was not seeking political unity, that he was not seeking coalition, but national unity, as are all of us who sit on this side of the House. We believe that this national unity will come. We believe that the Republic will bring it for us. We believe that the Republic breathes the spirit of South Africa, the spirit of South Africa first, the spirit of South Africa only, the spirit of South Africa our one and only country, and just as this spirit has transformed those of us who were first Dutchmen, Germans and Frenchmen into sons and daughters of South Africa, so will this spirit transform those English-speaking people who are not yet sons and daughters of South Africa in their hearts and minds, into sons and daughters of South Africa. The hon. member for South Coast has also discussed national unity once again to-day. I would say that the first thing a man should do if he really wants national unity is at least to learnthe language of those with whom he wants to co-operate. The hon. member for South Coast appeared before an Afrikaans audience the other day and he had to address that audience in English. He has not done the least that can be expected of him, that is expected of a man who wants national unity.

Why do you not speak English?

It is not necessary for me to speak English here in the House, because hon. members should be able to understand and speak both languages. I speak Afrikaans here, but when I appear before an audience consisting of English-speaking people or an audience which includes English-speaking people, I speak to them in their own language. In any case, I can speak their language, but there are hon. members who cannot speak my language and they are the people who have so much to say about unity and cooperation.

In the second place, when one speaks of national unity, one would at least expect that when a person decides to support a political party other than one’s own, he will not be vilified. If he happens to be an English-speaking person and he decides to support the National Party, then if the Opposition really want national unity, they would not do as they have done in the past, namely, criticize those people continually and as it were ostracize them from their community. I am thinking of the case of a very prominent English-speaking person in the Transvaal who openly associated himself with the Republic, who openly propagated the Republic, who was even a referendum agent. And how has he not been insulted and vilified! How often has he not been threatened over the telephone. They have even threatened him with death. They have threatened his children and said that their father was going to die; and the next day they arrived with a hearse and said that they had come to fetch the body of Mr. So and So; they understood that he had been murdered the night before. These tactics have been used against people who genuinely want to co-operate. Co-operate in this case with a political party other than their own. Such people are even threatened with death. Whether these are psychological tactics or not, the fact remains that these people have been threatened with death. They are the people who have so much to say about national unity. In practice one sees very little signs of such national unity in their ranks, because it is precisely because the Afrikaner does not feel at home in the United Party that the Afrikaners have left it in the past. Precisely because that is the position in the United Party, the Blaar Coetzees and the Abraham Jonkers and thousands of others like them have left the United Party, because they found that there was no place for the Afrikaner in the United Party. One must be prepared to sell and to barter one’s soul if one wants to be a member of that party.

And now I come to a matter which I find very painful. It has perhaps happened before in this House that an Afrikaner has risen here and attacked the English-speaking section of the population. We say that such behaviour is deplorable. And it has perhaps happened before that an English-speaking person has risen here and attacked the Afrikaner people by name. And we say that such behaviour is deplorable. But what has certainly never happened before is that an English-speaking person has risen here and attacked the English people, the English population group, in this House. And it has certainly never happened before that a Jew has risen here and attacked the Jews by name. But what we have experienced here has been that an Afrikaans-speaking person rose the other day and attacked the Afrikaans section by name before other population groups, in public, and he did not only attack them but he vilified them and he accused them of being a nation which wanted to practise slavery. I am referring to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie).

I just want to say that what the hon. member is saying is completely untrue.

The hon. member can read his Hansard report and see how he attacked the Afrikaner nation by name and how he accused us by name of having to be forcibly compelled to abandon slavery in this country.

That is true.

He has attacked the Afrikaner people here in public, before other population groups.

Read your history.

I must say the hon. member always gives me the impression that he is ashamed of being an Afrikaner, and I just want to tell him that we are also ashamed of the fact that he is an Afrikaner.

Quite possibly!

I have heard about many race haters in my life. I have heard of Afrikaners who hate the English-speaking people; and I have heard of Afrikaans-speaking people who English-speaking people hate, but I have met a rare person in the hon. member for Germiston (District). He is the first race hater whom I have met in my life who give signs of hating his own race

You are talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense. In the presence of those friends with whom he is now sitting the hon. member has attacked his fellow Afrikaners in this House, and it was quite clear to me why this attack was made. He has got cold feet in the face of world opinion. He wants to dance to the tune of foreign opinion. We must sacrifice everything for the sake of foreign opinion; we must sacrifice our racial policy in South Africa. But we refuse to do so. The hon. member has said that we talk big, but I want to say this: We would rather make ourselves guilty of talking big than make ourselves guilty of the vilification of our own nation. We shall continue without those people. We shall not ask what world opinion says. We shall ask what is right and we shall do it, no matter what world opinion says. We are following the road of justice and we leave it to someone higher than us ourselves to decide what will happen and what the result will be.

If I had not known that the previous speaker was the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk), I would have said that he must have been the hon. member for Bitterfontein, for the simple reason that the speech which the hon. member has just made has given us the very best proof of how little progress South Africa has really made on the road towards true South Africanism. Because you see, Mr. Speaker, we in South Africa, so it seems to me, can simply not get away from thinking about the past, from thinking in terms of those who are Afrikaners and those who are not Afrikaners. Has the time not come for the magic wand to be waved over South Africa, and particularly over this House, so that members who rise and make the type of speech that the hon. member for Boksburg has made, can see South Africa in the light of true South Africanism and not in terms of sectional nationalism? South Africa cannot make any progress along these lines. We shall never become a united nation in this way. For this reason I am glad to a certain extent that the hair of the hon. member for Boksburg is going grey at the sides, so that we still have hope for the future when we think of the young men who are growing up and who do not think along those lines…

What lines?

The lines of narrow nationalism which is only aimed at furthering that which is one’s own. That should not be our aim in South Africa, and I think the hon. member who has just sat down should rather take to heart the words of his Prime Minister in which he has repeatedly asked us in this House and during this Session to make South Africa a greater country and a united nation.

I support that entirely.

I hope that that is the last speech of this type which the hon. member for Boksburg will make in this House. We know him outside as a pleasant person and a friendly man, and also a man who, I believe, would not hate his fellow man. Why must the hon. member make this type of speech?

I shall make it again.

If the hon. member does not understand himself what type of speech he has made, then I deplore it.

Since the introduction of this Budget, the mills of time which can grind so mercilessly have not stood still at all. The hon. the Minister of Finance introduced his Budget at a time when there was still a little optimism as regards the financial and economic future of South Africa. Although we feared that we could lose our membership of the Commonwealth, there was always in the subconscious mind of our people a growing feeling of hope that such a disaster would not strike us. But the disaster has struck us and now the consequences of the disaster are beginning to follow us like a troublesome conscience. Only three and a half months ago the Minister of Finance told us that leaving the Commonwealth would not have any detrimental consequences. But now, after three and a half months, he has had to take drastic steps to save our balance of payments from ruination. And now the hon. the Minister tells us that he does not want to say anything more about South Africa’s economic position. No, he says we must now wait until the tortoise sticks out its head. I assume that the hon. the Minister was referring to our economic position as a tortoise and in passing, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister could not have taken a better example, because it seems to me that our economy is going to move ahead at the same pace as that of a tortoise. The hon. the Minister is waiting in vain for the tortoise to stick out its head because facing that tortoise is the odour of unemployment, of restricted credit facilities, of falling turnovers and a complete lack of confidence. The Minister is now waiting for the tortoise to stick out its head after the Minister himself has created the dragon which has caused the tortoise to withdraw its head. During the past few days I have had the opportunity to go around in Port Elizabeth and on no previous occasion have I heard so such concern being expressed about the economic position of South Africa during the 13 year regime of this Government. Everyone wants to know where it will end. Everyone realizes that unemployment is increasing. Important factories in the Eastern Province have already paid off hundreds of people.

Such as for example?

It is estimated that since January this year between 600 and 700 people have been dismissed in the motor assembly plants and related industries. Labour officials are visiting the factories to inquire after vacant posts which the unemployed can fill. One finds a general feeling of depression and a feeling of great pessimism amongst many businessmen as a result of the steps taken by the hon. the Minister. So far Port Elizabeth, one of our great industrial areas, has been the worst hit by these restrictive measures, and we find in addition that the purchasing power of the public is declining. And whether one talks to hotel-keepers, shop-keepers, property agents, industrialists or taxi drivers the optimism of all regarding the future of South Africa has been dampened as a result of the policies of this Government. Although the restriction is still localized to a certain extent, everyone expects that the snowball effect will strike far more people later on. I spoke for example to a prominent sportsman in Port Elizabeth during the past few days. He is a property agent, and he told me that to get property bonds is just as hopeless as looking for a needle in a haystack. There are some people who say, and I think this is also correct, that stricter import control may promote our industrial development. But it is immediately conceded that even the increased demand and the increased production of certain articles can be completely overshadowed by a decline in the purchasing power of the people who require those articles. We already find for example that whereas a man ordered 50 articles in the past, that number has now been reduced to 25. One must bear in mind that the fact that industries which are detrimentally affected by these restrictive measures or by the economic retrogression, such as the motor assembly plants, will produce less, will also have a detrimental effect on other industries which are dependent on these large industries. The effect of these restrictions on industry can therefore be transferred to others. When production is curtailed for example and workers are dismissed, one finds that credit is also restricted in order to ensure a regular flow of working capital. It is therefore transferred from the one to the other—from the factory to the wholesaler and from the wholesaler to the retailer, and then to the consumer. Before one knows where one is, the consumer is required to pay. This is what a large number of people who have studied these developments have said. That is what they fear. If the position elsewhere in our country is similar to that which prevails in Port Elizabeth to-day, and which we have observed in the past week, then the future of South Africa as a whole is very sombre. And the hon. the Minister in the meantime is waiting for the tortoise to stick out its head. No wonder the Burger hid his speech below a cartoon. The hon. the Minister will have to do something to make this tortoise move. There are certain things which one should not do to a tortoise. What one should do is to scratch its back, one should tickle it. That is what the people expect of the hon. the Minister, namely that he should “tickle” our economic and financial position. It must be encouraged.

You are a tortoise expert!

Something that this Government apparently has not yet realized is that a sound economic policy will facilitate the solution of so many of our other national problems. The present racial policy of the Government cannot solve our economic problems. The potentialities of our economy, the exploitation of our resources, and the proper utilization thereof can improve our race relations while the Government is creating still greater economic problems with its present racial policy. What does it mean when one says that a sound economic policy can lay the foundations for improved race relations?

An hon. member may not read another hon. member’s speech!

It is most certainly not the speech of the hon. member for Heilbron. Mr. Speaker, we know that human relations adjust themselves of their own accord and do not need official guidance. This can be left to the spiritual leaders of this country and m reality they also regard it as their sphere. Every man is striving to-day to achieve an existence which is worthy of a human being. He wants a house, his own piece of land; he wants a radio, books, a motor car; he wants a bank account, and the money to pay for his pleasures. He does not want to be tied down and modern people in particular do not want to be tied down by a lack of money. He would like to be productive and that is why he must not be denied opportunities. He wants all these things which a modem standard of living demands. As a matter of fact, what is wrong with that? And if one gives a person—whether he be Black or White—these opportunities, what does one find? Does one find that he only becomes a materialist? Of course not! An increased standard of living without financial worries is the ideal of all of us. If we can offer ourselves a higher standard of living and also our non-Whites, then we shall find that South Africa will be less neurotic, that it will be more spiritually content, and that its people will be better people as far as their cultural life is concerned. If that is so, why would such a person then destroy that which he had built up over the years? What does one find? That together with financial impoverishment, we also have spiritual impoverishment because then we are creating unhappy people. The emotional and psychological effect on people who want to get ahead but who see their purchasing power becoming ever less, must find expression through that person’s relations with his fellow human beings. That is one of the things which Sharpeville and Langa made South Africa realize. We know that the Black man to-day is striving to earn more money, and to live a better and more decent life. If he is not given that opportunity, then he will be like a bull in a china shop—he must get out, and if a door is not opened for him, then he causes tremendous damage. We have been given a lead by the hon. the Prime Minister himself who, according to a report in the Eastern Province Herald, said the following on 14 October of last year in a speech made in Pretoria—

By creating improved economic opportunities for the non-Whites and by the improved utilization of his services so that his purchasing power can be increased, White leadership in South Africa will not be destroyed. On the contrary, it will be strengthened because the non-Whites will gain greater confidence in the leadership of the Whites. If the White man does not do so, the non-Whites will always be suspicious of the Whites and the White man will be suspected of wanting to take everything for himself. And if there is something in South Africa, if there is an important factor which must be removed from the South African community, then it is suspicion between White and Black. With suspicion between us, our race relations must of necessity deteriorate. There are many farmers, businessmen and industrialists who are already paying higher wages, and there are still others who would like to do so but who cannot do so as result of various factors, such as restricted profit margins, high costs of production, small turnovers and poor markets for their products. The Government must not overlook the importance of these factors. If a sound economic policy is followed, we can take a great step forward and place our race relations on a sound basis.

Mr. Speaker, what is expected of the Government in this new era? We have reached the stage in our country where we should talk a little less about colour policy and we should pay more attention to the economic position of South Africa. We must concentrate our attention on this aspect in order to prevent the capital outflow continuing and by so doing to change lack of confidence in our country into confidence. We must create a better climate in South Africa and then we shall find that the “wait-and-see” attitude amongst industrialists which makes them hesitant to undertake new developments and also amongst investors will be transformed into new confidence in South Africa. Let the Government place emphasis on the positive, namely on increasing the purchasing power and the standard of living of its citizens. If we do that then it must pay dividends for South Africa. I want to conclude my remarks on this matter by quoting from a speech made by Mr. Harvey, the executive chairman of Assocom before the Chamber of Commerce in Cape Town. I do not agree with everything which he says in the preceding part of his speech, but the part I am now going to read is of importance. He said—

He is a Progressive!

Yes, I know and that is why I said that I did not agree with everything he said—

I hear hon. members opposite saying “hear, hear!” I agree with them because this is the task which South Africa must now set herself, particularly during this difficult period through which we are now going, and particularly in view of the fact that we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth of Nations and the steps which the hon. the Minister of Finance has had to take in recent days. If in future we pay more attention to economic development in South Africa, an improved and higher standard of living is possible here. If there has been a lack of confidence in our country in the past, I cannot see how that lack of confidence can disappear overnight. On the contrary. It will take a long time before we can get over the shock. I know that in future years we shall have to pay a heavy price for leaving the Commonwealth. Dr. M. S. Louw said as long ago as 1958 that it would cost us a great deal if South Africa became a Republic outside the Commonwealth. He also said that it would weaken our defence, and our air force and our navy and that in preparation we should take the necessary steps to expand our trade with other countries, particularly in Africa and on the European continent. We shall have to build up our own mercantile marine. At the same time he pointed out that hitherto we had only one merchant shipping company of any significant size “which at present owns seven modern cargo boats”. He said this in 1958 and he also pointed out that to do all this would cost money. We therefore expect that the Government will pay still more for the so-called freedom it now possesses. Let theGovernment therefore be warned that the country has a serious economic problem to meet. But in addition our relations between Black and White and also between White and White are such that they call for the most serious attention of the Government. There are certain things which must be given priority. As a result of our losing our membership of the Commonwealth, the animosity of many Black States has been given a great fillip. They have taken courage and in future we shall become the target of these people to an ever-increasing extent. This will also result in the extremist section amongst our non-White people revealing greater courage and impetuosity. To an increasing extent they will make the position difficult for those non-Whites who have always taken the side of the White man and who appreciate the value of the White man in South Africa.

The question which the Government must ask itself is what it must do to prevent these moderate non-Whites who have always stood by the side of the White man falling into the hands of the agitators. The Government will have to pay particular attention to these people. They will have to be given a say in our political life. We cannot ask for their support unless we consult them and we govern with their consent. That is why it is gratifying that people like Prof. Olivier, Prof. Cilliers and other prominent leaders of Sabra are trying to help this Government to decide on these important matters. They are convincing this Government that points of friction must be removed as soon as possible. What we must remember is that we in South Africa must build up a common patriotism between Black and White. Only if we do that will we create an important basis for meeting any sanctions or physical action which may be taken against us in future. To think that these sanctions or physical steps can never be taken would be foolish. There are many foreign agitators, particularly amongst the Black states of Africa, who think that now that South Africa is out of the Commonwealth we shall be “a walkover” for them in future, because they think that we in South Africa are faced with millions of dissatisfied non-Whites. My argument is that before we go any further in seeking friends abroad—something which is certainly of great importance—we must look to our friends at home and ensure that there are as many of them as possible. I realize that race relations is necessarily a task for the individual and even if a Government makes many mistakes, race relations can nevertheless be saved through the efforts of the individual. The non-White does not look at matters like we do. Their outlook on matters is often still primitive, as is also their way of life in many respects. To win these non-Whites for the way of life of Western civilization will be the task of every White person in this country. I feel that we should make more contacts with these people, or if we already do so, we should place such contacts on an even more friendly footing. But I am of the opinion that there is far too little contact between the Whites and the non-Whites in South Africa and that we still understand far too little of the ways and minds of the non-Whites. That invisible curtain of ignorance between the White and the non-White in South Africa must disappear.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon. the Minister in this regard that if we want to build up a future here, we must think more in terms of a larger White population in South Africa. In this regard I want to quote none other than the Deputy Minister of Labour. Last year he said the following when opening the Congress of the South African Iron and Steel Industry in Pretoria—

Then he expressed the following enlightening thought—

It is absolutely essential that we should have a larger White population if we want to maintain our position. The idea is being expressed by prominent economists, businessmen and others, and also by practical politicians because if we can do this, there will be a better future for us. Then, too, I shall also find it possible to believe that our economic position will improve considerably as a result.

This Bill provides an opportunity, at the end of the Session, for a valedictory review of the state of the nation at the present time; and for a consideration of what contribution the Government has made to our welfare and security in the course of the past six months. It is as well, therefore, that there should have been a full opportunity for hon. members on both sides of the House to participate in this debate. I could only have wished that more members on the opposite side of the House would have done so, because when we are asked to vote supplies, the opportunity is given to a free Parliament to range over the whole gamut of human relations and to deal with other matters of importance.

I want to approach the survey, which this Bill gives me an opportunity of making, from two angles, namely, firstly from the angle of our internal situation as it affects all sections of the population personally; and, secondly, our external situation which affects not only those individuals who make up our multiracial population, but also the State itself. What is obviously essential for the peace and prosperity of our people at the present time is confidence within the Republic and confidence in the Republic from without our borders. No one, however, can disguise the fact that it is abundantly clear that South Africa finds herself at the moment in a position of crisis—a crisis of confidence—which has been highlighted by the unprecedented measures taken last Friday by the hon. Minister of Finance when he blocked the capital repatriation of certain external investments and when he announced that we were not in a position to meet our international loan obligations. What exacerbates the situation is the blow delivered by the Government to the good faith of South Africa by the giving of assurances which have proved to be false. I want for a moment to go back to the beginning of the Session and to review it for a brief moment and, therefore, I want to go back to the beginning of the Session and to have a look at the opening speech of the Governor-General. We were then the Union of South Africa and it was the Governor-General who made the opening speech. Let me refer you, Mr. Speaker, to one or two items in that speech, a speech which expressed the views and the policies of the Cabinet, which was put forward with such optimism and contained such glowing forecasts when it was made on 20 January this year. Let me take one item. His Excellency the Governor-General said—

Then I quote another paragraph in the speech which was delivered at the opening of Parliament—

Let us just for a moment consider those two items. There was reference to the fact that a number of new nations on the African Continent had been admitted to the United Nations. And there is this statement that co-operation with African states and territories was a matter of particular concern to this Government. Of course, Sir, that expressed a very vital aspect of our policies. We at the southern end of Africa, with all the resources of our technical knowledge, of 300 years of civilization, have a great contribution to make to the African Continent. But what has been done in the course of this last session to implement the glowing words which were used on behalf of the Government at the opening of the session? We should be the link—in the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs some years ago—between the new independent States of Africa and the West. But what has the Government done to realize that goal, to respond to the potential destiny which is ours? Let me dwell on a few things that have happened.

Only last year the Government boycotted the Nigerian celebrations of independence. That was last year, and it may be said to me that that was before this speech. But what has the Government done to show that co-operation with African states and territories continues to be fundamental to Government policy? Did this Government send any representatives to be present at the independence celebrations of Sierre Leone in April of this year? What attempt has this Government made in the course of the last six months to establish reciprocal diplomatic representation with any of these new African states? Nothing. On the contrary, the hon. the Prime Minister has categorically refused to establish such diplomatic relationships, a refusal which was no doubt a decisive factor in our exclusion from the Commonwealth. So far from establishing closer relations and implementing those glowing words which were used in the speech from the Throne in January last, so far from establishing new relations, some of those contacts which we had have been withdrawn. The United Arab Republic has withdrawn its Ambassador. Here we stand with virtually no representation whatsoever for the Republic of South Africa on the whole of the Continent of Africa.

Now I come to another one of these glowing terms given in this prospectus which was held out to the people of South Africa by the Prime Minister in January last—because this is the Government prospectus. This is the sort of thing which was put before the people, and they were asked to contribute to South Africa on the basis of this prospectus. We have had this bogus talk about co-operation in Africa, which means nothing at all. It means absolutely nothing at all in view of what we know of the past six months. Let us take the next item in this bogus prospectus. We have known of many company directors who have been gaoled for much less than this; and this is on a national basis! These are the assurances which were given to the people of South Africa, and to the people outside South Africa, about our stability, about our security and about our economic integrity. So let us take the next point in this astonishing prospectus which was issued at the beginning of the session, because now I have the opportunity of dealing with this in my maledictory speech tonight. Let me quote it…

That is right, your valedictory speech.

I say my maledictory speech, not my valedictory speech, because I am certainly coming back. Let us take this next ironic statement in the speech made in January—

They are still increasing.

They are still increasing, says my hon. friend. But the hon. the Minister of Finance is now repudiating his debts. Is that the sort of thing we should have? I say that if directors of a company had put forward such a prospectus and we had had this result, those directors would probably have found themselves in a very difficult position in the criminal courts at the present time. And let me say that this is the gravamen of my charge against this Government, that they have deluded the people of this country, into believing that we could go on living in a sort of fools’ paradise. What did the hon. the Minister of Finance say on 17 April last? I will curtail it, but he said that rumours of the restriction of the repatriation of overseas capital were completely false. That was the statement of the Minister of Finance on 17 April. But they are not false to-day. And then, of course, we had this echo of the hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), this financial stooge who then added to that false declaration in the prospectus. The hon. member said—

This is the expert!

Does he still think so?

This is the expert from Pretoria (Central). Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Republic’s reserves have dropped by 50 per cent since Sharpeville a year ago; since 4 May when the Minister of Finance announced certain adjustments and financial restrictions, there has been a fall of some R16,000,000. And the net withdrawal of foreign capital during 1960 was about R160,000,000.

I want to say to-night, how does the hon. the Minister of Finance justify his indignant repudiation of 17 April when he said that any question of the restriction of the repatriation of the foreign capital was false? You see, Sir, the Minister is in a fiduciary position, not only in relation to the people of South Africa but also in relation to foreign investors. Good faith is and always has been the essence of our financial stability. And here you have a Minister of Finance who has come along and made a categorical statement that nothing would induce this Government to put a bar, a stopper, on the repatriation of foreign capital; and then, with a stroke of the pen, in a somewhat morbid statement last Friday, he announces that he now proposes to do that very thing. I say that this is not a case of “wolf, wolf”, but the converse. What has been happening in the course of this Session, which I am trying to review to-night, is that not only the Minister but his stooges in the Nationalist Party have been trying to create an impression that all is well.

Order, order! I do not think the hon. member should refer to other hon. members as stooges.

No, no, Mr. Speaker, just sycophants. And I say that those assurances…

You must withdraw.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “stooges”. I say these willing sycophants have been prepared to carry out this plan of trying to concentrate on this myth that all is well. I say, again, that if the directors of a public company had been guilty of such conduct, not only would they have been hounded out of society but they would have been brought before the criminal courts, and no doubt justice would have been done to them there. And now these assurances of stability have been refuted by the facts.

Let me take another item from this bogus prospectus that we had at the beginning of the year—

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will tell us if a state of full employment still exists in South Africa to-day.

I have before me the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. That Select Committee had to deal with the position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I find this stated in this report at page xii—

from 1953 to 1960—

Then when we look at the evidence which was given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, we find that the Secretary for Labour, who was cross-examined, said this—

This Select Committee has recommended that there should be a special actuarial investigation of the Fund in order to deal with the possible consequences of increasing unemployment. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us any information in regard to that increasing unemployment.

Then I come to my next item from this glorious prospectus which was issued at the beginning of this year. It says this—

There is nothing in this prospectus to say that a Bill would be introduced during the present Session making semi-conscription essential.

Is that the point you want to make?

Yes, that is the point I want to make.

Order, order! The hon. member may not reflect on legislation that has been adopted by this House.

I am not reflecting on legislation, Mr. Speaker, I am reflecting on the reasons which have led to that legislation.

Order, order! That legislation has been dealt with…

No, Mr. Speaker, I say that this bogus prospectus suggested that all that was necessary was to get a few rifles and increase the discipline in the Defence Force. But what have we found? We found, in the words of the hon. the Minister of Defence himself, that it is now necessary to put this country on a basis of semi-conscription in order not only to deal with a suspected threat from without our borders, but in order to be a sort of supernumerary Police Force to deal with prospective dangers from within. That is something we were not told about in this prospectus. We were not told that we might have to be a garrison State; we were not told in this prospectus that the Defence Force was going to be reorganized as a Police Force in order to put us in the position of a garrison State on a larger basis in order to defy the whole world.

There was no Angola at that time.

Then let me come to another item in this bogus prospectus—

and so on. This is offered to the Coloured population! It is put here in this bogus prospectus in order to make people both in this country and outside this country believe that all is well with our Coloured population and that they are entirely happy. What progress has been made in the socio-economic development plan for the benefit of the Coloured population other than edicts of the Group Areas Board to evict Coloured persons who have lived in those areas for a long time? What are the socio-economic benefits that they have received? They are just words—words—words. What are the benefits that have been promised to the Coloured population after that bogus prospectus was issued, other than the word of the Prime Minister who warned the Coloured representatives in this House that they would probably have to go when he gets to his extraordinary situation of a State within a State; that the Coloured representatives are merely here on trial until such time as he produces his State within a State? What relaxation of job reservation has there been since that statement in this bogus prospectus? What relaxation has there been of the harsh provisions of the Group Areas Act?

Having dealt with those aspects of this bogus prospectus, I come now to another phase of the pattern which has emerged in the course of the past six months during this Session which is now coming to its close—a Session which I find the Government so anxious to close. I wonder why they are so anxious to close the Session? Members of Parliament have a duty to do. I understood that we were told the other day that we are responsible people and have what amounts to almost a full-time occupation. I regard it as essential that Members of Parliament should have an opportunity of presenting their views in this House, and that is why I find it difficult to understand the inarticulateness of hon. members of the Government side.

They are following the example of the Cabinet.

I say, having dealt with those bogus promises, I am led to another manifestation of this Session, namely, the question of threats. This Session has been marked by a number of threats by the Prime Minister and by some of his hirelings on the backbenches. It is quite obvious that the Government…

Order, order! The hon. member may not refer to other members as “hirelings”.

No, no Sir, I withdraw…

The hon. member must withdraw the word at once.

I withdraw the word immediately. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was using the word in an old English sense. [Interjections.]

Order, order!

Mr. Speaker, I say at once that if you think I was making a personal imputation, I apologize. I did not mean it in that sense. I was meaning it in the sense of the word as I use it in English, as followers…

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member specifically said “a number of hirelings on the back benches”… [Interjections.]

Order, order! The hon. member has already withdrawn and apologized. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Speaker, if I gave offence I did not mean to and I apologize. I say I did not use it in that sense.

I say that there has been a pattern of threats running through this Session. It is quite obvious that this Government resents criticism.

Oh no, we welcome it.

Well they certainly have not shown that they welcome it. They resent criticism from members on this side of the House, they resent criticism from the Press, they resent criticism from overseas. There is now a pattern which shows that they are trying to concentrate on the so-called English Press. I say, in view of these implied threats, where do we go from here? Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, of what the hon. the Prime Minister said in this House on 14 April. He said the Government may take steps against the Press. And then he added this—

I say to-night, is it South Africa that is being harmed or is it the Prime Minister and his Government? Is he worried about himself and his Government or is he worried about South Africa? Because South Africa has a high reputation in the world.

She had.

But what is being criticized at the present time is not the country South Africa; not this great country which has done so much for the rest of the world. What is the subject of criticism at the present time is not South Africa; not you and me in our individual capacities Sir—what is the subject of criticism, and devastating criticism, is the policies of this Government which fail to bring themselves in line with the views of the outside world. I say that the Prime Minister’s indictment of the Press—and it quite obviously seems to be directed at the English language Press…

You are quite right.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) supports me. He says I am quite right. The indictment is directed against the English language Press. I say that that indictment was remarkable, because not only did it anticipate the findings of the ten-year-old Press Commission—and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what has happened to that Press Commission? Can he tell us to-night where it is?

It is lost.

Has it gone astray?

They are in outer space.

Has it gone into orbit? Has it been lost in outer space? Is it in Venus? What has happened to that commission? Not only did the Prime Minister’s statement anticipate and prejudge the findings of the ten-year-old Press Commission, but it is also vague and embarrassing because it fails to furnish particulars of the general charges made by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister’s imputations against the Press were implied and not specific. He said that he objected to untruths; to libellous comments; to distortions; and to anything which could harm our country. But he failed to produce a single piece of evidence to substantiate these accusations. And let me add this, he failed to add whether his threats against the Press were directed against the whole Press or merely against the English language Press. He failed to indicate whether they were directed against, for instance, Dawie’s comments in the Burger; whether they fall within the scope of his condemnation. And so in view of that vagueness it may well be asked whether there is any likelihood of the Prime Minister implementing these threats against the free Press of South Africa. Is he earnest? Does he mean what he says? I would say to-night that in considering that question which is very vital to the future of this country, in the situation in which we find ourselves at the present time, one must necessarily view it against the background of recent Nationalist back-bench criticism of those leaders of commerce and industry who have pleaded for a relaxation of the Prime Minister’s granite-wall policy of apartheid. Sir, you have heard these criticisms in this House of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, Sir George Albu, the Chamber of Commerce and others. It has been suggested that these people have no right to make political comment. A very sinister suggestion indeed. I regard that as a most sinister thing. But it is entirely in keeping with this totalitarian concept which is growing stronger and stronger every day in this House, and which shows that this Government is determined to stay in power if it can, but only on the basis of a garrison State of force, of Saracens, of bannings and of censorship.

It is essential to view this question in the significant light of something recently said by the hon. the Minister of Justice, in parenthesis, when he was replying to the debate on the second reading of the Indemnity Bill. What did the hon. the Minister of Justice say on that occasion only a few weeks ago? He said—

Let us take that to its logical conclusion. You ban meetings because you want to put down an expression of opinion. But then you must not stop at banning meetings. You must ban the Press. And then eventually you must ban the Opposition. And then you get eventually to the stage that you can say that we have to have a moratorium in this country and the Government must take control and we will not allow an Opposition, because the Opposition is playing into the hands of the communists, the neo-communists, the English language Press, the enemies of South Africa; and therefore we will not have a Parliament and the Government will govern by itself alone. I have no doubt whatsoever, and I warn this hon. House to-night, that unless democratic instincts assert themselves amongst hon. members on the Government benches, who now prefer to submit to the whip which has been put on to them—those who are inarticulate on the other side—unless they become articulate, we in this country will find ourselves in two or three years in the position where the Government will be in power and will say that there will be no future Opposition.

I say I have no doubt from the Prime Minister’s warning, and the manner in which it was given, that he would not hesitate to impose some form of Government Press control if the pressure for it among the young Broederbonders in the Nationalist Party grows any stronger.

An interesting sidelight on the hon. the Prime Minister’s present threat to the free Press of South Africa is a comment which the late Mr. George Wilson, who was at one time the editor of the Cape Times, made at the time of General Hertzog’s resignation as Prime Minister in September 1939; a comment one can only hope will not be diabolically prophetic. General Hertzog toyed with the idea of bringing in a Bill to deal with the Press. Fortunately he did not go on with that. I was in the Cabinet at the time. This is what Mr. Wilson said—and I want to say this in justice to General Hertzog, that he was toying with the idea, but he did not go on with it. Mr. Wilson said—

I want to say to-night that it is ironic that it should be the present Prime Minister who is now complaining about the “licence” of the Press, about “distortions”, about “untruths” being sent overseas through channels of the South Africa Press which may harm our country. Has the Prime Minister forgotten that he was the editor of the Transvaler during the War years? Has he forgotten that a Judge of the Supreme Court held that, in his capacity as editor, he acted as a tool of the Nazis and he knew it?

So much for the threat against the Press. There have been threats against the Coloured population. Only the other day the Prime Minister said that when we have this State within a State the Coloured representatives would go. And now recently we have had more threats. We had the threat made by the Deputy Minister of Education against the so-called Afrikaner “intellectuals”. The speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday was a direct kick in the pants for Cape Nationalists. He was put up by the Prime Minister to push down the Cape Nationalists, who have been thinking along what have been called “liberal” lines. It was a deliberate attempt to crush the free thinking amongst the Cape Nationalists. It was a Verwoerdian slap in the face for dissident Cape Nationalists. So I ask myself to-night, as we are coming towards the end of this Session—and I hope that we shall go on until next week as we obviously have to do our duty—I ask myself: Is this series of threats, threats to the Press, threats to the Coloureds, threats to the so-called intellectuals, threats to everyone, threats of banning, to be the pattern for obtaining unity in the Republic? When I give this farewell message and make this farewell speech at the end of the Session, it is not a valedictory speech but a maledictory speech.

It is your political farewell.

No, I shall be here. We shall all be here. Do not worry about that. One would have thought, in view of the Prime Minister’s shock tactics, that he would have amended our Public Holidays Act so as to have “Election Day” as a public holiday! But I ask where do we go from here?

Into the desert.

Last year at Sharpeville 70 Africans were killed and 200 wounded, and not a single White person was hurt. Yet 15 months afterwards five Africans are sentenced to gaol. I do not go into the merits of the conviction, because it would be improper for me to do so. Rut what I do say, however, is that this is how the world outside will see the result of an attempt by Africans to free themselves of the indignities and the hardships of the pass laws. I may be asked to-night, having made a destructive speech, what do we do about the situation, and what do I do about the situation in which we are isolated from the world and our race relations are condemned? In order to highlight what we are trying to do in the Progressive Party, let me remind you, Sir. of what is happening at present in Southern Rhodesia. There are proposed constitutional changes. Earlier this year Sir Edgar Whitehead, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, said this. He said that Southern Rhodesia had come to the parting of the ways and had three choices before it. I think we have come to a similar parting of the ways. He said that one choice was to attempt to maintain White supremacy by force. That is the choice of this Government. The second was to introduce Black supremacy, which could only lead to bloody civil war; and the third was a genuine determination by the races to work together. Now, Sir, the agreement arrived at in Salisbury earlier this year was an attempt to give practical expression to the third choice. And what were those amendments of the franchise, and how do they compare with what the Progressive Party offers to South Africa? Let me just remind you for a moment of what the proposals are which are going to a referendum in Southern Rhodesia. Under those proposals there will be an ordinary roll in which one of the qualifications will be citizenship; under the Progressive Party policy it is also citizenship. Under the Southern Rhodesian proposals the age will be 21 years—the Progressive Party also 21 years. In Southern Rhodesia there is the qualification of R960 annual income plus Std. VI—the Progressive Party, Std. VI plus R600. In Rhodesia, R2,000 property ownership—the Progressive Party. Std. VI plus £1,000 property ownership. For the ordinary roll, matriculation plus R600—Progressive Party, Std. VIII. In Rhodesia, literacy in English plus R1,440—the Progressive Party, literacy plus R1,000 ownership or income. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the debate itself there are a few points—and many stupid statements—which I want to dispose of; but before doing so I must devote a few moments to the speech of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). I think that in one of those unwitting moments of truth the hon. member said that this was his “valedictory” speech. [Interjections.] Whether he meant that does not matter, but I am afraid it is a fact. Mr. Speaker, it was a tragic valedictory speech by a man who has been in this House for so long. What a valedictory speech we heard him make to-night! All that was missing was that you did not ask him to withdraw from the Chamber! Then the hon. member would have been entirely true to form. He had a great deal to say about a “bogus prospectus”. He is, of course, an expert in that field because to-day he is the “bogus” representative of his constituency in this House. He was not elected by his constituents on the principles and the programme which he upholds to-day. I say, therefore, that the hon. member is the last person in this House who should use the word “bogus”. The speech which he made here to-night was nothing but a political post mortem. He has already expired politically; hence his post-mortem speech. Hence the bitterness of his speech. One could detect the bitterness of parting in his speech—the almost hysterical note. To me he sounded like one of these space missiles which simply cannot escape from its own frustration and bitter bondage. He has made statements in this House in the past which have sometimes amused me greatly, and this was his valedictory speech. I say it is tragic. But I think in many respects it is better perhaps that I should now let the curtain fall on the hon. member just as he let the curtain fall to-night on his own political career.

I have said that I want to discuss a few of the points and perhaps I should start with the economic stupidities that we have heard here to-night. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Muller) has referred to the terribly low wages which the workers receive in this country as compared with America. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago a survey was carried out by one of UNO’s sub-divisions in respect of the wages earned per hour by a worker in America, expressed in food value, and how long that same skilled industrial worker has to work in other countries to earn the same food value? I do not know whether the hon. member knows that it appeared that the average industrial worker in South Africa only has to work 58 minutes to earn the same quantity of food as the worker in America earns in one hour’s work?

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has also spoken here. If we are to believe her, then the agricultural industry in South Africa is bankrupt already and the same applies to industry… [Interjection.]

Their party is bankrupt.

Yes, that is the only thing that is bankrupt. May I just give the hon. member one figure relating to the national income. This is the contribution made by agriculture to the national income during 1959-60 as compared with the previous year. This is the country in which there is stagnation in the agricultural sphere. In 1959-60 the figure was R42,000,000 more than that for the previous year; and the comparable figure for the gold mines, which have experienced such tremendous development, shows that that industry only contributed R50,000,000 more than in the previous year. And does the House know that secondary industry, which has also experienced spectacular development, only exceeded its figure for the previous year by R41,000,000, while in the case of agriculture the figure rose by R42,000,000. [Interjections.] I am referring to agriculture as an industry, and these are the reliable figures given by the Reserve Bank in its quarterly bulletin. [Interjections.]

Order! If hon. members do not maintain order, I shall ask them to withdaw from the Chamber. The hon. the Minister cannot even hear himself speak.

With respect, Sir, you must at least appreciate the feelings of hon. members opposite. [Laughter.]

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has also put forward his customary point and that is that we are using short-term money to grant long-term loans in the Land Bank. This is a point which he raises regularly every year and this year he has raised it at least twice. But after all the tendency to-day is that one can no longer obtain the long-term loans of the past, not only in South Africa, but everywhere. If the hon. member will examine the experience in America, he will find that one cannot get a loan for longer than five years. Long-term loans are simply no longer obtainable except in very exceptional cases, and South Africa’s position is still one of the most favourable.

I have said here on a previous occasion that in respect of our short-term loans as compared with our long-term loans and our total loans, South Africa is in a far better position than any other comparable country. As far as the ratio of long-term to short-term loans is concerned I said on that occasion that ratio was much lower than it was during the regime of the United Party.

The hon. member has also asked once again how we are going to finance the tremendous expansion of Sasol, Escom and Iscor; that we cannot get the money! This question has been asked here before and I replied to it; my colleague has replied to it but the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) repeatedly asks the same question. We have told him that Escom will finance its expansion in the normal way as in the past through loans which it obtains locally together with loans which it obtains from the World Bank. We have told him that as far as Iscor is concerned, it has built up tremendous reserves over the years and these are adequate to finance these expansion plans. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has told him that Sasol has reached the stage where it is producing profits and that it can use export credits, apart from its own resources to finance this great plan, and that it only expects to need a temporary loan for a couple of years during the fourth or fifth year to meet expenditure which it cannot meet from its own funds.

Let me turn to the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). He says that there has been “a reversal of the whole policy”. At the outset, when I became Minister of Finance, I said that our difficulty in South Africa was that we were always faced on the one hand with a domestic economy and on the other hand with an external economy, and therefore our financial policy had to be elastic. [Laughter.] The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) does not understand the difference between the two. Perhaps I can make it a little easier for him. Our difficulty two years ago was that we had magnificent reserves and our balance of payments position was excellent; the weakness lay in our domestic economy. The method we then used was to stimulate the domestic economy. In the very next year there was a fall in our balance of payments. Too much had been imported and the terms of trade were against us. We then had to take the necessary steps, but there was still a tardiness in our domestic economy. This year the position, and I said so in my speech on 15 March, is that our external economy is vulnerable, and in this respect our balance of payments position, particularly on capital account, is such that we must take special steps to meet the position. I said that this was the weak point in the economic health of South Africa at that stage. And that is still the position. It is the position not only in the case of South Africa but in the case of so many other countries as well. I shall come to that presently.

The hon. member has asked what I meant by “securities” in the statement I made last Friday. “Securities” read in the proper context means “shares”. The hon. member has also suggested that the measures which I announced last Friday are measures which the Monteray Fund laid down as a condition for the granting of a further instalment withdrawal on the Fund. That is not the position at all. What happened was this. We applied to the Fund for these further installments, and as is customary in such cases they sent a mission to South Africa. Officials of the Fund paid a courtesy visit to me and I told them that our problem was the outflow of capital and I said to them: “You are people with great knowledge of similar problems in many other countries. When you go to Pretoria and hold discussions with the Reserve Bank will you please assist them with your expert knowledge?” There was never any question of imposing any condition. The hon. member has simply sucked this out of his thumb.

I now come to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), who has apologized for being unable to be present. He referred to the wonderful legacy which we inherited in 1948. For the purposes of the record it is as well that I should quote from the annual report of the President of the Reserve Bank of July 1948. As the House knows, this Government came into power in June 1948.

May.

Order!

The election was held on 28 May. and the Cabinet was appointed on 4 June. There was a “caretaker” Cabinet. The hon. member for Salt River who has sung his swan song was a member of that Cabinet and he did quite a lot of things before 26 May. He did not have cold feet at that time. [Laughter.] I want to read what this impartial person had to say about the wonderful legacy which we inherited in 1948—

And, I may add, as compared with a surplus on current account this year. This tremendous deficit on our current account was concealed. [Interjections.] It was concealed because there had been a great inflow of capital. People did not realize what the position was because at that time there was a tremendous inflow of capital and the reserves were consequently left unaffected because this deficit on current account was more than compensated for by the surplus on capital account. But what sort of surplus was it? It was funk capital, and this is what the President said—

It gave us a completely distorted picture. He went on to say—

In other words, at that time there was this great inflow of capital, but it was not capital which came to this country for the purpose of direct permanent investment, and that is what the President was warning the country about here. The position became so bad that the then Government was obliged to take steps to check this inflow of capital. [Interjections.]

Order!

Then Dr. de Kock said—

These are the people who talk about the wonderful legacy that we inherited! They had to resort to exchange control to keep this capital out of South Africa. The hon. member also referred to the gold mines. It is not the first time this Session that he has urged that taxation on the gold mines should be reduced. I have already told the hon. member in my reply to the Budget debate that the gold mining taxation formula has been reduced by five per cent since 1948, while it has been increased by 20 per cent in the case of ordinary companies. I told him at that time and I want to repeat it—perhaps he will hear it better in absentia—that in reality the gold mining companies have received far better treatment than other companies since 1948, and it is certainly not their turn to ask for any relief.

I just want to say a few words to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), who referred to foreign exchange control and suggested that we should perhaps control it ourselves through the medium of the Treasury and the Reserve Bank. I want to assure him that that is quite impracticable. It is incapable of implementation; we simply cannot do it. He also referred to short-term foreign assets. I just want to tell him that I think it is quite possible that a proportion of these short-term foreign assets which represent a considerable amount to-day—a total of more than R150,000,000—have been acquired irregularly and that we are going into this matter. I just want to assure him that we are giving our attention to it.

I now come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who asked me a very important question. He says that we are faced with a R30,000,000 deficit on the loan that we are to float, and he wants to know where we are going to find this money? I have told the hon. member that that is quite wrong. What I said was not that there was a deficit of R30,000,000. What I did say was that there was a loan of R75,000,000 which had to be converted. Only R43,500,000 has actually been converted and it is unlikely that we shall get the full amount to meet the deficit of R30,000,000. But the hon. member has done what the Cape Argus also did. This was their headline across six columns: “Dr. Dönges tells of R30,000,000 loan deficit”, which is not true at all because the loan has not yet been closed, and that is the maximum that the deficit could be. I now want to give hon. members the assurance that it is not going to be R30,000,000, nor is it going to be R25,000,000, and for the rest they must restrain their curiosity. The hon. member wants to know where I am going to find the money. That is the 64-dollar question. [Interjection.] Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Constantia himself cannot hear—and he would like to hear—because there is so much noise around him.

Order! I am sorry to say that the hon. the Minister has a heavy cold and he is speaking with a sore throat. I think it would only be fair for hon. members to remain silent and to give the Minister an opportunity to give the House the information which he has been asked to give.

Mr. Speaker, it is really not as bad as all that. If the hon. member had only read the statement I made, which I have read here and which he says he heard, and had given a little attention to it, the answer would have been apparent from that statement because this is what I said in that statement—

The hon. member can surely understand that if I must get a maximum of R30,000,000, I already have R26,500,000! But the hon. member’s knowledge of finance is just sufficient to be dangerous to his party. And if he had listened a little longer, he would…

What about the R28,500,000 which must still be converted?

The maximum which has not been converted is R30,000,000. However, other private money is coming in, and it will consequently be less than R30,000,000. Then there are two other loans which total R50,000,000 and which must be converted later in the year, and in this regard I said—

I can now give the House the assurance that proportionately speaking a much greater proportion of these two loans will be converted than was the case with this first large loan. As I have said, if the hon. member had just listened a while, it would not have been necessary for him to ask this question.

The hon. member made an election speech here; it did not contain much about finance. He made a very interesting statement when he said: “We are always prepared to alter our policies in the interests of South Africa”. I must say that the “interests of South Africa” have really changed tremendously during the past few years because the hon. member has changed his policy so often! While he was speaking and saying that he was always prepared to change his policy, it reminded me of that politician in America…

That is an old story…

This remark of the hon. member reminded me very much of the politician in America who explained his principals at a meeting. When he came to the end of his speech he said: “Well, gentlemen, those are my principals; if you do not like them, I have others”. (Interjections.) I do not know whether it is necessary for the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) to make so many interjections at a farewell function.

I come back to the hon. the Leader of theOpposition. I do not want to follow him in all his election talk. Apparently he is so impressed with the election rumours that he thought he must get in first and make an election speech. I want to tell him that the basic error in his argument is that he goes so far and no further. When he must criticize destructively, he does so with a dexterity which I admire, but as soon as he has to put forward his alternative to the policy of this side of the House, then he is silent. He no longer has a policy which he can change, because if he had to apply that alternative in practice, he would have to go still further than the Progressive Party—that is the logical consequence of his argument. I therefore say that the hon. member cannot get away from it; he is in the grip of this basic error in his whole argument. He will see that we shall go through this election—whether it be in 1961, 1962 or 1963—without the people of South Africa knowing what the policy of the United Party is as regards racial matters.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) started on a very restrained note. He spoke with an awareness of the seriousness of the position and he expressed himself as he felt and he expressed himself well. I do not think that he entertained any feelings of malicious delight; he made no attempt to embarrass South Africa or to embarrass our financial position. But I am afraid that when the Leader of the Opposition rose this tone changed completely and since then quite a few other hon. members have revealed a measure of irresponsibility towards South Africa’s interests. Is the United Party so filled with hatred, is it so politically bankrupt, that it must resort to this method, a method which is only calculated to do South Africa harm, in the hope that it will gain a few votes?

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has made a very interesting speech, but I do not want to go into the details. However, he has said something which struck me greatly. He said that he and many persons who thought as he did were in a great dilemma. They did not know how to reconcile their love for the state, as he expressed it, with their hatred of the Government. I am afraid that during this debate there have been many hon. members whose hatred for the Government is far stronger than their loyalty to the state. It requires great courage to make such an admission and the hon. member was honest enough to do so. It requires courage to admit that this conflict is taking place in one’s mind. One wants to be loyal to the state, but one hates the Government and what must one do? The best advice I can give him is to accept the remedy which is always prescribed in such cases. I advise him to seek something higher in order to sublimate these conflicting feelings in his own heart. If he finds something higher, this struggle will not take place in his mind. If he says together with this Government and together with all South Africans who have the interests of their country at heart: “We are prepared to stand together and to strive to retain for future generations what we have achieved.”

If we get rid of this Government, it will be so much easier.

I do not think it is necessary to deal with all the other points which have been raised. It is late and I want to make haste. However, Sir, I want to say that the debate which we have had during the past few days has apparently been a debate which has been held in the shadow of an approaching election. The United Party has stolen something of a march on the Progressive Party; the latter did not really realize what was going on. During this debate the United Party made speeches which were obviously aimed at an election. As the Prime Minister asked them: Are you not a little premature? We shall see. This was a record debate, this was a debate on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill and it lasted more than 20 hours. It is a record which we have never equalled before. I have never participated in a debate during which so many quotations have been made from previous speeches, without due acknowledgment of the source! This was not the first time that I have heard many of these speeches during this Session. There was a rush as it were to sing swan songs, but the member who outpaced everyone else in this regard was the hon. member for Salt River. I am certain that the United Party had its eye on the election and the members of the Progressive Party on the fact that they will not return to this House.

What were the issues during this debate? Financial matters were raised to a far greater extent during this debate than in similar debates in the past. Nor is it saying much when I say that there were more such speeches, because the real theme of this debate has once again been—the racial policy. The statement I made last Friday on the control measures merely represented a new hat rack on which to hang an old hat. This debate was really yet another debate on racial policies and I think that it was the fifth debate of its type which we have had during this Session. We had the no-confidence debate. We had the debate on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, we had the President’s address and we had the motion of the hon. member for Queenstown. I think that we have already had four or five of these debates and many of the speeches which we heard during this debate simply represented a repetition of those which we had heard during one or other of the previous debates. The phrasing has, however, been somewhat different. The theme has been that our racial policy is the cause of all our economic ailments. That is the refrain we have heard throughout. Let me examine this submission a little. The allegation has been made that all our economic ailments are a direct result of the Government’s racial policy. As I have said, this has been the theme of the speeches, but allow me to say this: There are many countries which do not follow our policy and which are suffering from the same ailments. Is it necessary for me to remind hon. members of a country like Canada which last week went so far as to devalue? Is it necessary for me to remind you, Sir, that there is another country where there is talk of devaluation, or of raising the bank rate, and which is faced with a tremendous deficit on its balance of payments on current account? Do I need to remind the House of a country like Canada with an unemployment figure of over 10 per cent, or the United States where it is 6 per cent; of Australia, the reserves of which are lower than they have ever been before—during the past 20 years at any rate; of New Zealand which is faced with the same difficulties; of Australia which has already had all the drawing loans which we are only now asking from the Monetary Fund? In not one of these countries is there apartheid. Not one of these countries applies apartheid, but because South Africa is suffering from this economic ailment, they attribute it to apartheid! In the other countries which are suffering from the same ailment they do not seek for a cause. We have the example of the Federation. Hon. members have quite rightly said that their political policy is completely different to ours, but economically they are in a worse position than we are. I wonder sometimes if Mr. Harry Oppenheimer had to make a speech to his shareholders in Rhodesia, what he would tell them was the cause of their economic ailments? Would he tell them that it was their policy of integration? Integration is a policy which hon. members opposite advocate and this policy has not saved the Federation from its difficulties—it is sicker than we are. One of the reasons for the difficulties in Rhodesia is the great fear amongst investors that their economy will fall under the control of the Bantu. That is the thing which shocks confidence the most. Investors abroad regard South Africa as part of Africa and they are also afraid that they will one day wake up to find that there is a Black government in this country and that their savings will be used as they are being used to-day in other countries in Africa. When we examine the position, we find that apartheid is not to blame; otherwise the securities in other countries where they apply the reverse of apartheid would not give a higher return abroad that our securities have. The hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) has given us the figures. The return on Kenyan securities is £8 13s. 6d.; East Africa, £8 17s. 7d.; Southern Rhodesia £8 15s. 9d.; Uganda £8 18s. 3d. etc. These returns are all higher than the comparable figures for our securities which give a lower return, and in those country they have a policy which is the reserve of apartheid! The fact that they are following a policy of racial integration, a policy of partnership, has availed them nothing. They are in difficulties as far as their balance of payments is concerned. Did hon. members read the other day in the newspapers how large a deficit the Canadian Minister of Finance has had to announce? The deficit is over R500,000,000.

On the Budget.

Yes, that is his budget deficit. Our reserves are low in South Africa, but reserves are after all not there to be kept permanently at the same level. They are there to be used. I spoke to a representative of the Bank of England the other day and he said that it had to be impressed on the public that it was a normal thing to borrow funds from the Monetary Fund. Our reserves are low, but it is not only in this country that they are low. In the United States of America, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia—countries were there is no apartheid—they are low as well. In the case of some countries they are low in respect of the capital account, as in South Africa and the United States. In the case of others again, such as the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, it is the current account which is at a low level. These countries are suffering from the same ailment but the causes differ. The cause of the deficit on capital account in the United States is different to that which applies in the case of South Africa. All these countries have falling reserves. There are only one or two exceptions in the whole civilized world, namely those countries which were involved in the war and lost it and which have now recovered to such an extent that they have been able to build up a vast new economy. This submission that our present economic difficulties are the direct result of our racial policy is not substantiated by the facts. No proof has been submitted to substantiate this contention. Even if we were to change our policy as hon. members opposite would like to see us do, it would not change our position. The Statist has discussed the possibility, although it regards it as very remote, of a change of policy and said—

We must therefore not think for one moment that if we were to follow the policy which Kenya and Uganda are following, these balance of payments difficulties of ours would disappear like mist before the morning sun.

I think that there are two charges against me. The first is that by the statement I made last Friday, I have broken faith. Hon. members were cautious initially, but later they made this accusation directly. The second is that by so doing I have shocked foreign confidence in South Africa’s economy for all time to come and that we shall never again attract capital. I think it is necessary that I should deal with these two points. I should like to remind hon. members that when I made my statement on 17 April and again when I spoke on 4 May, I did say that it was not the intention to restrict the repatriation of foreign capital. I said that it had not yet been discussed, and it had not yet been discussed. At that stage it was not necessary to do so either. Approximately two months had elapsed since my statement of 17 April when I made my statement of last Friday. I made one statement on 16 June and the other on 17 April. The first statement was on 17 April, that is to say approximately two months before 16 June, and my statement on 4 May was made approximately six weeks before 16 June. During these two months the reserves fell by about R35,000,000. In other words, when I made my statement on 17 April, the reserves were R35,000,000 higher than on 16 June when I made the further statement. In my statement of 27 May I did not specifically, although I did by implication, refer to capital restrictions.

Hon members have also claimed that what I said on 15 March, 17 April and 4 May was misleading and that I was too optimistic about our financial position. I just want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether hon. members expect me to join the chorus of prophets of doom? If I had done so, we would have been obliged to take the steps we took on 16 June far sooner. If I had also just said how weak South Africa’s position was, we would have been forced to take those steps far sooner. It is perhaps because I have confidence in the economy of South Africa that I have acted as I have. Our one difficulty is that we are vulnerable and will always be vulnerable for so long as we have a large amount of capital lying here which can so easily be withdrawn. This is what is called non-direct investment. These are not permanent investments such as for example investments in a factory which cannot be so easily withdrawn when the investor feels that things may go wrong. I therefore say that we would have been able to avoid these steps if it had not been for the fact that so many of the residents of South Africa have placed their own pockets above the interests of South Africa. Free repatriation of foreign capital has always been the ideal of every government and it is the ideal of this government. We upheld this principle until South Africa’s balance of payments position became endangered by the continuous leakage of capital. The steps we have taken will in fact help to protect that foreign capital which is still here, while it can still earn high dividends. Should I, like a modern Don Quixote, have unrealistically assaulted an impossible position, or should I have fought to the last ditch in an attempt to maintain an impossible position, while I could perhaps have lost the whole economic war for South Africa? I have not revealed such wonderful originality in this regard. As long ago as 29 April the Statist was saying that I should take these steps.

After that you said that you were not going to do so.

The hon. member thinks that I read the Statist and despite that, I said we were not going to do so. This Statist only reached me afterwards because it did not come by airmail. This Statist is the one for 29 April and it says—

But then it goes on to say: They have this feeling that they do not want to restrict foreign capital, and what is the point in quarreling with people who do the wrong thing from such good motives? That is what the journal said at that time, and it repeated this later on 13 May. We must remember that foreign capital investments in South Africa do not only involve capital which is invested in shares. We must also remember that there are the direct permanent investments in South Africa. But these investments in gold shares which are regarded (not all of them) as non-direct investments, are so easily withdrawable and because they are so easily withdrawable, they make the balance of payments position so vulnerable because if they can be withdrawn at the slightest sign of danger, they are often withdrawn at the very moment when we require that capital most. It is like the man who offers one an umbrella when the sun shines, but as soon as it starts raining he says: “Now I want the umbrella.” This type of non-direct investment is a danger, and traditionally in South Africa it is a far greater danger than in all other comparable countries because a far larger proportion of foreign capital has been invested in this country through the London Stock Exchange and in gold shares. There are also those non-direct investments in gold shares which are in the hands of bona fide investors and not of speculators and tickey snatchers”. We must also think of the position of these people who do not want to withdraw their money at the slightest sign of danger and to protect them we have had to take steps to assist the South African economy through this balance of payments crisis. It is also to protect these people, not only those who have direct investments here, but also the bona fide investors in indirect investments. But we also want to protect the direct investors in industry. They cannot withdraw their money as easily as those who have made indirect investments, but their investments are also endangered, and will be seriously endangered if we do not take steps to safeguard our balance of payments position. Indirect investments are estimated to total R600,000,000, but direct investments total more than R2,000,000,000. This type of investor is not a danger to one’s balance of payments position because their investments cannot be so easily withdrawn. Now hon. members speak of a breach of faith on my part! I say that if I had not taken these steps, I would have been breaking faith, not only with South Africa, but with all these other people who still have the remainder of the R600,000,000 and who have the R2,000,000,000 invested here in South Africa. What would have happened if this R600,000,000, i.e. the indirect investments, had been withdrawn to an ever-increasing extent and our reserves had consequently fallen? Then the indirect investments of those people who were not amongst the first to withdraw would have been endangered. We are not prepared to endanger the position of the overwhelming majority of the foreign investors who have placed their confidence in us because there is a small minority who have acted in such a panic-stricken way, supported by the greed of foolish residents of this country. That is why we have taken these steps because this group of people have become panic-stricken and they have been supported in their efforts by the greed of our own people in South Africa. I say that we want to protect foreign capital, even if we have to do so by temporarily blocking it, while we are after all allowing their dividends free exit. The charge against me, if there should be a charge, cannot be one of breach of faith, because I want to say that as far as the charge of breach of faith is concerned, I am an unrepentant sinner. I shall do the same thing again tomorrow under such circumstances and I shall do so whenever it is necessary to protect South Africa and to protect investors in South Africa. If there should be a charge against me, it can rather be that I did not take these steps earlier. There would have been some grounds for such a charge. Allow me to read to the House what the Statist said on 13 May—

I therefore say that as far as I personally am concerned, I am an unrepentant sinner. On the contrary, if under these circumstances I had not taken these steps I would have been guilty of a breach of faith, and I would have been unworthy of the confidence of the people of South Africa.

I now come to the other part of the charge, namely that foreign confidence has now been destroyed and that we shall not attract capital again. This has also been said here, particularly during the later stages of this debate when the election spectre became a little more evident. In this regard I just want to say that although these measures were only taken after very serious consideration and with great regret, they must not be regarded too tragically. Hon. members must remember that similar provisions exist in the United Kingdom. We have in effect taken them over from the United Kingdom. And furthermore similar measures have also been taken for example in the Netherlands and Denmark, apart from the less developed countries which I do not need to mention. These measures only affect securities and do not affect fixed property anl bonds, and foreign investors retain the freedom to sell their shares abroad or to sell them locally and to invest the yield in other quoted shares. The House will have noted the reaction. In London the reaction has already changed completely. At the outset they were also panic-stricken by such headings as that to which I have just referred in the Argus, but they are now coming to their senses and hon. members will see that quite a different position has arisen. While hon. members opposite have stated, almost with a measure of delight in certain cases, that our shares have declined by 35 per cent in London, they will see that that is no longer the position. These measures only affect securities and foreign investors retain the right to draw dividends because dividends and contractual obligations are not affected at all. As I have said, we have in fact already been criticized abroad for not taking these steps sooner.

Let us now examine this argument to the effect that we shall not attract capital to South Africa again. Have we on balance attracted share capital over the past three years? No, on the contrary, long before we took these steps we noted a steady outflow, and if hon. members will examine the Reserve Bank’s figures, they will see that, as far as this particular type of leakage through shares is concerned, it is something which has been going on for quite a few years already. Ever since the first African state was given its freedom this withdrawal has been going on. People have said: South Africa is part of Africa; we see what is happening in those countries, and we are afraid that it will happen in South Africa as well. At that time already this withdrawal started. In any case there was this withdrawal. I now ask: Would we attract more capital if we were to allow this outflow to continue unrestricted? Would it attract more capital if by so doing we were to aggravate our whole balance of payments crisis? We must solve this balance of payments crisis. That is the prerequisite for attracting capital again. And simply to say that we should have allowed capital to leave the country and that we should not have taken these steps, would have meant that the people abroad would have said: We cannot trust this Government; it cannot even take the steps which are required to prevent the outflow of capital. I ask the House to-day whether there is any sensible bona fide investor, whether direct or indirect—any person abroad who has direct or non-direct investments here or who wishes to make such investments—who will not realize that the steps we are now taking are in fact calculated to protect their capital in this country by assisting the country over its balance of payments crisis? They will realize it. Can we as South Africans not realize it as well? I can assure the House that in responsible financial circles these steps will be regarded as redounding to our credit, namely, that we did not hesitate to take such steps to safeguard our own economy. Experts from abroad, such as the chairman of the World Bank, already said to me when we applied import control in 1949: “That is one of the things which we like about South Africa; you are prepared to take steps, even if they are not popular, but the security and the stability of your own economy is your first concern.” But I now ask whether similar restrictions in Great Britain, Holland and Denmark have stopped the capital inflow? In Great Britain, such restrictions have been applied for many years already—since the end of the Second World War. Have they had the result of halting further capital inflow into those countries? We still saw recently that, as a result of the great “take-over bid” by American Ford for British Ford, a large amount of capital entered the country despite the restrictions which they have. One hon. member—I think it was the hon. member for Musgrave—has said that this will cause inflation. But I want to tell him that the increased stability of our balance of payments and on our stock exchange should in fact be an important factor in the restoration of domestic confidence and the encouragement of sound development. Foreign investors may be hesitant to invest in South Africa, but we hope that they will realize that, to a certain extent, our difficulties are artificial and that it is our earnest desire to relax these protective measures as soon as possible, and those who have the necessary confidence can achieve an important advantage over their competitors.

But I just want to say a few words in conclusion. We have discussed the present position. What now of the future? When one examines South Africa’s position, we see that it is under fire from quite a few sides. It is under fire to-day as a pawn in the cold war. It is under fire to-day as part of Africa. It is under fire as a penance for past behaviour which is on the conscience of other people. They want to salve their consciences by acting against South Africa. And we are under fire as the victim of one of those great tides in the history of the world over which we have no control, over which no one has any control and which one can only endure. And then we are also under fire as the Government which the Opposition would so much like to replace. All these various movements concentrate and rationalize their behaviour by attacking our policy of separate development in South Africa. This attack is the means which they want to use to achieve this rationalized purpose—the attack from various quarters by people who do not have much in common with one another, but they all have in common the fact that when they make an attack on separate development they stand together, even if they are diametrically opposed to one another in many respects. They have now rationalized their behaviour and this is the attack being made, and one of the methods they want to use is the economic method, the financial method. They hope by so doing to bring us to our knees. We, therefore, know that we shall experience these difficulties in the future. We should like to have foreign capital. But if we cannot get it, what are we to do? That is the question we must consider. I think that if we can restrict the outflow of capital—and it is felt that these measures will be adequate to achieve this purpose—then even if there is not a net inflow it is not impossible for us, if we achieve a slightly higher savings rate, to continue with our development at a somewhat reduced tempo, particularly if we can retain this balance on our balance of payments current account—the balance which we have had in recent years. As I have just said, there was a deficit of £127,000,000 in 1947, while we now have a credit balance. If we can maintain this position, then I say that if we do not intend under-estimating our own abilities, we can overcome our difficulties. Allow me just to tell the House what well-known economists, successful financiers, in South Africa have said. Dr. van Eck has said—

And, on the next day, Prof. Wijnholds, professor in Commerce, Currency and Banking, said—

That is what I also say. We welcome foreign capital. If we want an accelerated tempo of development, we must get it. But if we cannot do so, then we must not think that we should lie down on the ash heap and wail. These are people who can speak with authority and we must have a little more of this spirit. Prof. Wijnholds went on to say—

And does the House know that the difficulty facing Canada to-day is that she has allowed so much foreign capital to enter her country. That is the reason why she has had to devalue. I say that we must just not under-estimate our own abilities. The balance of payment difficulties which I have described, are not insignificant. I do not want to under-estimate them, but we must view the problem in the correct perspective. It is not our whole economy which is experiencing difficulties; it is not our whole economy which has suddenly fallen ill since the examination of 15 March, as some people are trying to say. Let us retain our sense of perspective in this case. The basic foundations of our fundamentally sound economy in South Africa are still present, are still the same as they were. Take our natural resources and our mineral wealth; take our sound financial economic structure which we have built up over the years in South Africa, and which is a stabilizing factor in our economy; take our political and economic stability which is envied to-day by so many other foreign countries; take our technological and executive resources which are of the highest quality compared with world standards; take the balanced economy which we have developed here—these are the basic things, these are the things which decide whether an economy is fundamentally sound or not. We have them. And what is the factual position to-day?

Let us examine for a moment what the factual position is, now that I have described the basic position to the House. What does the Reserve Bank say? In its bulletin for March, the Reserve Bank gave the following survey in respect of the year 1960—

And when one examines the June issue which has just appeared, one sees that it is said that this 1960 tendency has continued during the first quarter of 1961. This is the material, this is the factual position, these are our raw materials, i.e. the labour, the people and all the things I have mentioned, and I tell the House that we can build on this basis, even if we must do without the capital which we should like to have and which would help us to develop yet more rapidly; then we can still develop and we can develop at a satisfactory tempo. We can save a little more. A few days ago the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) said that there was a great deal that could still be done in this regard, and I agree with him. When we take into accountthat we lost R100,000,000 in South African capital last year through the purchase of South African shares in established businesses in this country—this is not capital which was put into new productive fields; this was used to buy shares held by non-residents—then we can see what the actual position is. If we had not had to send out that R100,000,000, then this R100,000,000 would have been available in South Africa for investment in new productive fields of development. We can save. We have a high savings rate, but we can save still more. We work hard, but we can work still harder. It is not impossible to increase our present rate of capital formation. We can do it. But then we must not have people in South Africa who have political water on the knee. Then we do not want people who are small South Africans, who always want to emphasize how weak South Africa is, how dependent she is, that she cannot take a step forward in the world if she does not hold someone else’s hand. These are not the people we need if we want to make full use of this material! We do not want people who want to force an inferiority complex on South Africa. If we have people who have the courage, the enterprise and the faith, then we shall overcome this balance of payments crisis, perhaps sooner than we think. But it is not only courage and enterprise which is needed. Besides courage and enterprise, we need loyalty. And if we have a strong sense of loyalty to South Africa amongst all her peoples, if we feel that we may not harm South Africa even if we hate the Government and no matter how much we hate the Government, then I say that we shall overcome this balance of payments crisis, perhaps far sooner than we think.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

More than two members having objected,