When the House adjourned last night, I had said that hon. members of the Opposition were giving a very extraordinary pattern to this debate. That pattern reminds me very strongly of a mongoose, with one difference, namely that hon. members of the Opposition jump from one subject to another, but as soon as the Minister reveals the true facts the Opposition leave that subject and jump to another.

Which Minister?

I shall come to the hon. member for Durban (Point). When he started speaking about housing yesterday the hon. the Minister of Community Development presented him with the true facts by way of some interjections, and like a kitten on a hotplate the hon. member immediately jumped about.

Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Hillbrow brought the charge against the Cabinet that the Cabinet was no longer attaching any value to the part played in our economy by gold; that as a result of the current taxation system imposed on the gold-mining industry by the Government, the industry will within ten years provide no more work for Whites in the gold mines. Later he said that that would come about within three years and that the Government was solely to blame for the fact that only high-grade ore is extracted and that low-grade ore is no longer extracted. That was the charge the hon. member for Hillbrow brought against this Government. Mr. Speaker, I want to give the hon. member for Hillbrow a friendly warning: He is rapidly becoming Jeremiah II in this House. Last night I asked why the gold-mining industry was dragged into this debate. What is the Opposition trying to achieve by dragging the gold-mining industry into this debate? The only reason is that there is at the present moment a dispute between White underground workers and the management of the mines, with regard to their wages. The hon. member for Hillbrow got up here as the big man who would prove to the world that this Government was ruining the gold-mining industry; that this Government was not prepared to do anything whatsoever for the gold-mining industry and that as a result of the Government’s taxation system the gold-mining industry would ultimately be unable to pay higher wages to the White mineworkers. What are the true facts as far as this matter is concerned? Is it not in fact this Government which has gone out of its way to assist the marginal mines? Is it not this Government which took measures from time to time to keep the marginal gold mines going? Is it not this Government which made tax concessions to 20 marginal gold mines to help them to keep going? Is it not this Government which assisted those mines to pump out subterranean water? Is it not this Government which made it possible to obtain capital at a lower rate of interest in order to keep those marginal gold mines going? Mr. Speaker, we can recall the speeches made in this House in 1962 by the then members for Springs and Benoni, and the spectres they saw at that time. To-day we are no longer hearing that kind of speech, because the spectres they saw haunted them out of their constituencies. This is the Government which has seen to all these matters and which has kept those marginal gold mines going. As regards the high-grade mines where high-grade ore is extracted, would hon. members of the Opposition have the Government grant them tax concessions? If the Government granted those tax concessions, what guarantee would the Government have that low-grade ore would be extracted? What guarantee would the Government have that that money would not simply be used to pay larger dividends to the shareholders? Are those mines doing the country a favour, at this juncture when gold is a product of such importance, by leaving the gold underground, or are they merely filling their own pockets without caring what becomes of the Government? This Government has proved itself to be of service to the marginal mines. It has proved that it is seriously concerned with keeping them going. I want to ask this question: What is the Chamber of Mines doing as far as this matter is concerned? Are they really concerned about that ore which is lying underground? Have they, for their part, made any attempts to solve the inflation problem? Or do they expect the State alone to contribute to the development and the progress of the mining industry? Or does the Chamber of Mines expect the White mine-worker alone to contribute his share? I want to say this to-day, that the Chamber of Mines have attuned themselves deliberately to the demand that all sacrifices should come from one side only, and they will look forward to the day, and that is the object they pursue, when the White underground worker will be replaced by non-White “boss boys”. They want to replace the White underground workers by non-Whites.

Why do you not rather chide the Government?

What the hon. member is saying now is utterly untrue. The hon. member for Yeoville is deeply concerned to see that the large majority of the mine-workers remain firm supporters of this Government, which has always been their friend. What he would like to see, however, is the dissolution of the mine-workers’ union. But I can assure the hon. member that that will not happen. I want to say this to the Opposition to-day, and I want to say it to the Chamber of Mines, that they should not try the patience of the White underground workers too far. They should go out of their way to give that White worker his fair share, because he has proved in the course of many years that he acted productively; he has contributed his share. Now an appeal is made to the Chamber of Mines and to the mineworkers’ union to settle their disputes to the advantage of our country. But we want to say the same to the Opposition. Do not try to present this Government in a bad light to the White mine-worker, because you will never succeed in doing so.

But you yourselves are doing that.

We are not doing that. You are the ones who are trying to create the false impression outside that we are imposing unfair taxes on the mines.

To come back to the problem of inflation, however, I want to say the following to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday he accused the Cabinet of furthering inflation. The hon. Leader said: Look at the way you are expanding the Public Service; but you should look at the Johannesburg City Council; there you have a magnificent example of how to combat inflation. He said the Johannesburg City Council was a model government. [Interjections.] Well, we may forgive him, but let us see what this wonderful City Council of Johannesburg is doing. Was it not this very city council, which is run by the United Party, which imported consultants from America to advise them on how to pay their officials? And what did those consultants recommend? They said that the Town Clerk of Johannesburg should receive a higher salary than the Prime Minister of the country. And what happened then? Then it was once again the National Provincial Government of the Transvaal which was compelled to bring this United Party city council to its senses by passing legislation providing that the salaries of town clerks shall be restricted, because the local governments were furthering inflation by drawing officials from one city council to another by means of higher salaries.

But let us further consider what was done by the City Council of Johannesburg. Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the fairways being built in Johannesburg. Why do you not stop them? We can do without them for a further two years. But let us consider the tariff of rates levied on fixed property by the City Council of Johannesburg. In 1955-’56 it was 1.87c in the rand, and in 1964-’65 it was 3c in the rand, an increase of 60 per cent. Let us go further. Let us consider the revenue in rates on those properties. We find that in the past nine years the revenue from rates increased by R5,774,000. It increased from R7,541,000 to R 13,315,000. It increased by 60 per cent. There you have the wonderful City Council of Johannesburg.

But let us go further. What are they doing as far as their mayor’s allowance is concerned? In 1953-’54 the allowance was R11,200. This year it is R 19,200. Is that not a disgrace? [Interjections.] That is more than the Prime Minister receives. And then we go further. [Interjection.] Let us see what is happening in the Natal Provincial Council, which is also governed by the United Party. This is what the Administrator of Natal said yesterday in the Daily News—

It is the United Party which is governing that province. Those hon. members want to govern the country, but they cannot govern Johannesburg or Natal properly.

Then I should like to come back to the hon. members for Parktown and Hillbrow. Both those hon. members made the following statement in the House yesterday. I want them to listen very closely. The effective utilization of the full production capacity of all workers will combat inflation. This statement, which was made by those two hon. members, has a fine sound in theory, and it is a most acceptable slogan, but let us measure this statement, which those two hon. members made in this House yesterday, by the actual practice, by our political background in this country. Instead of our achieving the higher productivity those two hon. members are advocating, I put it to hon. members that if we were to put that statement into effect, we would bring about the greatest chaos, the greatest struggle, the greatest famine and deterioration in this country of ours. As soon as we interfere with the colour bar in our industrial field, as soon as we try to replace Whites by non-Whites in our mines, as soon as we seek to substitute non-Whites for Whites in our industries, we will not, I can assure you, have the industrial peace we are experiencing at present. On the contrary, we will create the greatest chaos and I want to caution those two hon. members. They should not simply make statements which sound fine in theory, couched in fine phrases, but they should get down to the practical field and say things which can be put into operation in practice, in order that we may have love, peace and progress in this country. This Government appreciates that it is faced by a tremendous problem as far as inflation is concerned, but this Government will not fold its hands in despair. It will tackle that problem as it tackled it in all other fields.

I want to say, in straight language, how inflation should be tackled. Inflation can only be tackled if the State, the provincial councils and local governments and every public body, are really prepared to come to grips with the task of curtailing their capital expenditures immediately. But can we do that in this country, can we curtail it, can we fold our hands and not expand our Defence Force? Can we fold our hands and not expand our aircraft factory any further? Can we follow the reckless course suggested by the hon. member for Parktown and no longer prospect for oil? Are we to neglect our communications system and our transport system? [Interjections.] Now they are denying that. Can we stop housing? No, Mr. Speaker, those things must continue and we can tackle inflation properly only, as Dr. Gerhard Rissik put it, “provided that everyone in the Republic of South Africa, from the father in the home to the youngest child in that home, is prepared to and will bring his sacrifice”. Only then shall we curb it, because prosperity has brought this inflation and every citizen in the Republic of South Africa has benefited by that prosperity. It is, therefore, the bounden duty of every citizen to ensure that he maintains that prosperity, provided that he is prepared to contribute his share to the progress of our country. This Cabinet and its Prime Minister will carry us over this hill as well, even if they have to drag us, but we shall get to the top.

Mr. Speaker, in the speech we have just heard, we had a typical example of political narrow-mindedness, in the attacks which were made on the mining industry in general and, secondly, the attacks which were made on the Johannesburg City Council. I just want to say a few words about these attacks. Firstly, the hon. member for Brakpan made two proposals. One of them was that that great and important economic expansion as regards the roads in and around Johannesburg had to be stopped. Does he want to upset the economy on the Witwatersrand? He made a second attack—and I hope that the thousands of officials in Johannesburg will take note of it—in which he objected to the proposals which have been made for increasing the salaries of those people. The citizens of Johannesburg will know now what they should expect under a Nationalist Party City Council. The Johannesburg City Council employees will now know what is in store for them as far as their wages and their future under a Nationalist Party City Council are concerned.

The attack made on the mining industry is as reprehensible. The hon. member for Brakpan actually complains about the fact that we are talking about the mining industry. It is one of the most important industries in our country. We have the right to talk about it; we have the right to call attention to the matter when the Government does not do its duty in regard to it. Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister admitted his ignorance in regard to economics. He said that he could not do anything to reduce the cost structure in South Africa, but who is responsible for transport tariffs which affect the mines, who is responsible for the cost of fuel, which also affects the mines? Who is responsible for those economic factors such as taxes which affect the cost structure of the mines? The hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday that he was helpless and that he washed his hands of the matter, an admission of powerlessness such as I have never seen in this House. When we talk here about the mines, we put as much emphasis on the mineworker and his interests as we do on the mining industry in general. The hon. member must remember that my hon. friend the member for Yeoville was quite correct when he said that the leaders of the Mineworkers’ Union were saying that theirs was a struggle with the Government and the Broederbond. [Interjections.] If there is one factor which goes against the grain of the mineworkers, it is the indecision, the uncertainty and the chopping and changing of that Government’s policy in regard to the Mineworkers’ Union.

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the wording of this motion. This Government reminds me of a cricket team which is far from being first-rate. They batted first when the weather was fine, while they had glorious weather. They were batting on a wonderful wicket, namely apartheid, and then they were able to put up a good score with the elections. But now this Government has reached its second innings. The wicket has been neglected. Apartheid has been ruined and the weather which was fine during the first innings is becoming worse by the day. That is why we say that this Government is so inept.

In the first place it is, of course, attributable to the inherent inability of the Ministers to carry out their tasks. In passing I mention factors such as the following: the inability of the Minister of Information to put our case abroad; the failure of the Minister of Labour as regards the mining industry and its difficulties; the delay of the Minister of Water Affairs in coming up with a plan for the Vaaldam Triangle. In reply to a question I had put to him he said yesterday that there would be virtually nothing on the Estimates for this year for the purpose of devising new plans for solving the Vaaldam problem. A commission was appointed in January last year and they still do not know what they are going to do this year. [Interjections.]

Order!

I just mention that in passing. The inherent incompetence of the members of the Cabinet is not the only reason why this second-rate cricket team on the other side are finding themselves in such a difficult position to-day. The main reason is that they are paralysed and lacking in purpose owing to the internal struggle in their own ranks. They have been paralysed by the struggle between the narrow-minded ones and the liberalists or neo-liberalists in their own ranks. There is also a third group, those who sit on the fence. Sir, there was some laughter when I spoke of disunity, but here I have proof of it from a mouthpiece of the politically narrow-minded ones on that side, led by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. Here I have the latest edition of the publication which is really their mouthpiece, The South African Observer, edited by Mr. S. E. D. Brown. I shall read to you what he has to say in the January edition. He says—

I repeat: “It will be madness to try to continue papering cracks and fissures in the Nationalist Party.” This is the mouthpiece of a large group on that side. The article continues—

But this mouthpiece goes further. It says that certain members of the Nationalist Party should be expelled. It does not mention them by name, but this is what it says—

Not “he”, but “we”—

That is, there is a large portion of that Party of which they will have to rid themselves because they are no longer able to maintain unity in their own Party. Is there one of the members on the other side who belong to this narrow-minded section and who will repudiate this statement? I challenge them to do so. They will be given an opportunity to talk about it Let me take an example of how political narrow-mindedness sometimes paralyses this Government. The first is a case concerning the hon. the Minister of Immigration.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, please. I do not have time. All of us are aware of the recently published report about a memorandum which was drafted by the Chairman of the Federal Board of Liaison Committees. Mr. Twakkies du Toit. I think he also furnished the Prime Minister with a memorandum which was partly based on this. That is why I am raising the matter here. At a later stage this chairman of the Board of Liaison Committees said that, although there were exceptions, many of the people entering the country were “scum” and that they belonged to the lowest social groups in Italy. Portugal and Greece. I consider that statement to be a reprehensible, scandalous and objectionable statement. What I should have expected was an immediate reaction from the Minister of Immigration and a reaction from prominent members on that side of the House. But what happened? There was deathlike silence. It is not I who say that. Here I have a clipping from the newspaper Die Beeld, which many members on the other side like and others like less. In Die Beeld of the day before yesterday the following heading appeared: “Nationalist M.P.s are silent about immigration.” The report states further (translation)—

The hold of the narrow-minded group on those members is such that they are too scared of repudiating this terrible thing! I challenge the Minister of Immigration to repudiate these words of Mr. Twakkies du Toit. That word “scum” which was used in connection with thousands and tens of thousands of good new South Africans must be repudiated here, in public. I referred to those who were narrow-minded, to liberalists and to those who were sitting on the fence. The hon. the Minister of Immigration is a person who excels amongst those who are sitting on the fence. The following saying suits him pre-eminently: “He has sat so long on the fence that the iron has entered into his soul.” I hope that the hon. the Minister will get off the fence in this debate.

There is a second case I want to mention. This example concerns the hon. the Minister of the Interior. It also concerns a newcomer on the other side of the House. It concerns a shameful, shocking statement which he made in public and which he admits to having made. He made this statement last month. The statement is in connection with the Public Service. In this regard, too. I expect a repudiation during this debate. The hon. member I am referring to is the hon. member for Pretoria (District). A report was published in Die Sondagstem under the heading “Purge the Public Service of United Party supporters and fence-sitters, demands M.P.” This statement was made by him in a speech during a report-back meeting at Lyttelton on 25th November, 1966. The hon. member said “that he advocated that all key-posts in the Public Service and the Defence Force—I hope the Minister of Defence is listening—should be filled by officials and officers who have also proved themselves to be people of irreproachable nationalism”. The hon. member said “that he was convinced that in a time of crisis this country would simply not be able to afford being saddled with United Party supporters and fence-sitters”. [Interjections.] Now I ask the Minister of the Interior: If there should be trouble in South Africa, does he want United Party supporters to be thrown out of the Defence Force? Must good officials in the Public Service who may perhaps not be supporters of the Government and who are called fence-sitters be kicked out? I demand a repudiation of these words by the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, these two Ministers I have mentioned took so much of my time that I do not have much time left for dealing with a third Minister. This is the Minister I really regard as the most narrow-minded of all, my hon. friend the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. When the hon. the Prime Minister announced the day before yesterday that he was going to appoint a new Minister of Finance, I experienced a very anxious moment and I shuddered because I knew that in his Cabinet there was a person who had no more than a few weeks ago said, “The financial magnates of the United States and England want to destroy the White man in South Africa.” This is an irresponsible statement by a Minister of a country which, after all, would also like to maintain its economic relations with Britain and America. It is an irresponsible statement if ever there was one. Therefore I was very glad to see that the Prime Minister had not appointed the Minister of Posts as Minister of Finance. But then there was another vacancy, since the post of the Minister of Economic Affairs was vacant, and then I was afraid once again and I said to myself, “Oh my goodness, here it comes!” The Minister of Posts is sitting over there; there is the man who said that foreign financial magnates and capitalism had a hold on commerce and industry in South Africa and that that hold had to be broken. If he had to become our Minister of Economic Affairs, just imagine what would have happened to our commerce and industry in South Africa! But fortunately this did not happen. When the new Minister of Mines was announced, I thought, “There is some small ray of light”. When Dr. Carel de Wet’s name was mentioned, before Mines was mentioned. I thought, “Ah, we are now getting a new Minister of Health at any rate.” But that did not happen either.

Now, Sir, there is as yet one vacancy to be filled, one opening—the office of High Commissioner in London. It is not my intention to advise the Prime Minister to send the hon. the Minister of Posts there. If ever there was a great critic of the English, the English banks and the English Press, then it is the Minister of Posts.

I have here another statement made by the Minister only a month or so go, namely that “the English Press wants to destroy the Whites”. Therefore, the United States wants to destroy us, wants to destroy the Whites in South Africa, Britain wants to destroy them and the English Press also wants to destroy them. According to the statement the English Press in South Africa is “engaged in forcing the White man to his knees and undermining him; the English Press has only one object in mind, and that is the destruction of the White race in South Africa”. Well, I hope he has already sold his shares in the Argus Company. Will the hon. the Minister give us a reply to that? [Interjections.] If somebody has to be sent to London, I think that the hon. the Minister of the Interior should rather be sent there.

When it comes to immigrants, I can talk about the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs at length and in great detail. I can talk about him and the defeat he suffered in regard to Twentieth Century-Fox and the false allegations he made. I can talk about the foolish things he said about the American Field Service. I can talk about his Afrikaner Order which created confusion in their ranks. I can talk about SAPA and the humiliation he must have experienced because he had given wrong information in connection with a SAPA report, a report which SAPA never even wrote but which was written by one of his own newspapers, if I may call Die Beeld one of his own newspapers. In addition there is his attack on the English universities in which he discouraged parents from sending their children to English universities. [Interjections.] Yes, I would rather not talk about his strange attitude towards Hansard in the Other Place.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker. Let me come to his actions in his capacity as Minister. I maintain that under him the Post Office cannot keep pace with the development of the country, in so far as there still is development. Services are behind schedule on a very large scale. He can come here with figures and say that there is an increase of 5. 6 or more per cent in the number of telephones this year. But he should go to other countries, to France, to Britain, to Italy, to Japan, where there was an increase of between 7 and 14 per cent in one year, something he can never hope to achieve in this country. And what does the Minister do? He actually increases the cost of telephone calls by 40 per cent, and he does that while the hon. the Minister who is sitting next to him implores us to keep the cost structure in the country low. I think it is the present Minister of Finance or his predecessor who asked, “Please, if you come across cases where people are unnecessarily increasing prices so as to push up the cost structure, report them to me.” Here I stand and I now report such a case to the Minister of Finance. I report that the Minister of Posts has increased the cost of telephone calls. You know, Mr. Speaker, last year alone the telephone department on its own showed a profit of R14 million, and that after interest and capital and everything had been taken into account. Now the Minister wants to increase telephone costs by 40 per cent. And what is his excuse? His excuse is a marvellous one. He says that with the increased charges it will be possible for the Post Office to obtain greater independence and then more money will be required for it. But I always thought that greater independence for the Post Office was something they wanted for the very reason that it would then reduce expenses. If there is greater independence, the Post Office will have greater control over its own revenue, which the Minister and others complain that the hon. the Minister of Finance is always taking away from them. How is it possible then that independence of the Post Office can increase the costs?

We are paying R72 million for telephone services every year. That is almost as much as the interest we pay on the public debt of R3,000 million, and it is much more than we pay for the police services of South Africa. Then the Minister actually goes and increases the cost of telephone services, which causes an increase in the cost structure of all industries and in every sphere of commerce and mining as well as a further increase in the cost of living of the man in the street.

I can discuss the matter of television at very great length. We have a new Government now. I should like to ask a pointed question, and I hope it will be conveyed to the hon. the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s predecessor stated in public that the question of television was a matter for the Cabinet to decide. I think that I am justified in asking the Prime Minister whether the policy of this new Government in respect of television is the same as the policy of the previous Government. The Minister of Posts may possibly act as his mouthpiece—I hope he will consult the Prime Minister in regard to this matter.

As regards the S.A.B.C., Sir, I wish you could have read some of the “Current Affairs” broadcasts, of which we have copies in our library here, and seen how on many occasions there was nothing but politicking in those broadcasts. But that is a matter we can deal with on a later occasion. My object was to show this afternoon that in the ranks of the party on the other side there were those who were politically narrow minded, those who were sitting on the fence and those who were neo-liberalists. I do not know whether the name neo-liberalists really is a good one because sometimes—not always, only sometimes —they display very healthy conservative tendencies. But those three tendencies are indeed to be found in the Government. They may have suffered a few defeats recently with the recent election of the head of state, with the election of the deputy-chairman of the Transvaal Nationalist Party at the Transvaal congress when the Minister of Posts was defeated. There have been a few defeats. But we know that the members of that narrow-minded group are still licking their wounds and that they are going to rear their heads again. It was announced last year that their little newspaper would not appear again. It still appears at present and apparently it is getting more money than before.

There is one matter I should like to take further, and that is in regard to the increase of telephone costs. Yesterday I asked the hon. the Minister a question; I asked him whether it was true that he had said that the Federated Chamber of Industries and Assocom, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, had approved of these new increased telephone costs. He replied, “Yes, they did approve of them because they wanted to bring about expansion in the Post Office by those means.” Let me assure the hon. the Minister that he was talking absolute nonsense in that reply. I have here a copy of a public statement issued by the Chairman of Assocom and the Chairman of the Federated Chamber of Industries in which they positively and frankly deny that they as organizations ever approved of those increases. I am quoting from the statement made by Assocom—

These two organizations rejected it. More than that, they rejected it in writing, and the hon. the Minister is in possession of that letter in which they rejected it. Why then does he say that those two organizations approved of this increase in telephone costs?

You will be disillusioned presently.

Mr. Speaker, every now and then members of the public ask: Who are the narrow-minded ones in the ranks of the Nationalist Party? I mentioned a few names here to-day. I mentioned the names of a few of their leaders. But let me read to them once again what Die Beeld, a Nationalist Party newspaper, has to say about them (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, if one group of the Nationalist Party calls members of another group inverted communists and that other group, in turn, calls the first group neo-liberalists, then, surely, the state of affairs in the ranks of that party is really not a happy one, and that, of course, explains a great deal of the confusion and the lack of purpose which are to be found in that Government to-day. However, it is not for me to save the Nationalist Party from that lack of purpose. The more there is the better, because it will lead to the downfall of the Nationalist Party. But as matters stand at present, they will inevitably occupy the Government benches for the next four to five years, and it is in the interests of South Africa that that lack of purpose of the Nationalist Party should disappear, that at least some guidance in one form or another should be given by the Cabinet, even to certain members of the Cabinet as well and that this Government, which is like a jelly-fish on the beach at present, should at least begin to take on the appearance of something that can walk or crawl.

We can well understand why the hon. member for Orange Grove did his best to try and indicate that there are signs of disunity in the ranks of the National Party. He was even glad about it, but I can give him the assurance that he has no reason for rejoicing, because inherent in the ranks of the National Party there is the greatest measure of unity and solidarity and they stand firmly behind the principles of the National Party. They are not afraid to state those principles. It is evident that the attack of the Opposition in the debate has not up to now been directed against any of the principles of the National Party. In the past the debate on motions of no confidence has always been the occasion for disclosing and taking a stand here on the major differences in policy between the Opposition and the Government. However, the Opposition has not availed itself of this opportunity and it has obviously not done so because they have no alternative policy to offer the voters of South Africa. The hon. member for Orange Grove said here that he was afraid—he was so afraid that we saw how his knees were quaking— that the hon. the Minister of Posts would be appointed as Minister of Finance. He was so afraid that this would happen that it puts one in mind of the story of the bogy man who frightened the baby. But we know that there is one thing they are afraid of; the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to it and even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition devoted a long section of his speech to it. They are not using the platform of this House to put their policy before South Africa but are using the platform of this House in an attempt to win the election in their last stronghold, the municipality of Johannesburg.

That is poor.

It is very clear that they are using this House as a platform for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, mention was made here of batting. Hon. members of the Opposition said that we were batting and that we had a weak team. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition departed in one respect from the speeches which he made on previous occasions in debates of this nature. He did not come forward with the customary potpourri which covered everything; this time he confined himself to certain aspects of an economic nature, particularly those concerning the cost of living, and he attacked the Ministers in question. His entire motion was also directed against certain members of the Cabinet working together as a team. Since reference was made here to cricket we can remind hon. members of the Opposition that they have also batted in the past. But what happened in 1948? In how many innings has the United Party team not already been defeated? In 1961 they only reached a total of 49 and last year they only reached 39; they were all out for 39 and they are becoming steadily weaker. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition confined himself in this debate to the Cabinet which was supposed to be so inefficient. He has also done so in the past, but with this difference: Last year when he came forward with the same accusation—it was on the eve of the election—he offered his alternative. What team did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put forward? I quote from their own pamphlet—

Who were the members of the team?

Here is another member of the team—

And what about the General, the hon. member for East London (City)?

The two teams were presented to the voters of South Africa and what happened? Of the United Party’s 49 members, whom they put forward with all their qualifications, only 39 returned to this House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has seen fit to attack the Government on cost of living, inflation, etc. I am convinced that if he still had the hon. member for Jeppe here he would have put up a much better performance as far as those aspects are concerned. He laid the charge “that the Government mishandled the boom”; that was one of his accusations. They enlarged on that and stated that we had no policy because under certain circumstances we had said, “Spend for Prosperity” and now we are saying, “Save for Prosperity”. They said that as far as import control was concerned we had a “Stop-Go” policy. In other words, if they had been in power they would have said that one must spend or one must save, one must import or one must export, but they would never have vascillated. The fact remains that such an economy does not exist anywhere else in the world. We are compelled by circumstances overseas to change our economic and financial position because we have to adjust to them. Prices overseas affect our domestic position. Our exports are affected by them. There are many aspects which affect our economic progress and the entire economy, both domestic as well as overseas. All those factors influence our policy and we consequently have to adjust to them in order to obtain a uniform and smooth economy. When we examine our present economic position we can only say that we have experienced a period of prosperity. We can examine our financial position. As far as the influx of capital was concerned, there were considerable increases. Our banks are in a position of considerable liquidity. Domestically there is more money available than there are goods and services available. These are signs of prosperity and progress.

Consider our industrial production. It has been considerably increased. Our export figures are high. We have no unemployment. On the contrary, we have more offers of work than there are workers. There is industrial peace. There are thus all the signs of stability. Even our economic development programme has given indications that these growth processes are too rapid and that they have to be reduced. A few years ago it gave indications that the Government should take steps te deal with that rapid rate of progress and make it develop more evenly with a view to stability, for otherwise problems would have arisen. It was to that very need that the Government adjusted itself from time to time. The accusation was levelled here that the Government had stated in 1961, “Spend for Prosperity”. I can only say that if the Government had not followed that policy in 1961, South Africa would not have experienced that long period of prosperity which it has been experiencing since 1961. On the contrary we have, as far as South Africa’s economic position is concerned, experienced since 1961 the longest sustained period of economic progress we have ever seen, and that was as a result of the active role which the Government played after Sharpeville and after the establishment of a Republic in order to restore our economy and inspire confidence in our country. If the private sector had paid heed to the warnings and the lack of confidence of the Opposition South Africa would never have been as prosperous as it is now. I want to concede that one of the signs of this prosperity is in fact inflation—an increase in costs.

The Government has from time to time taken the necessary steps to counteract that increase in costs. When we consider cost of living it is nothing new. Let us just consider how the cost of living rose between from 1935 to 1948 when that Government was still in power. Then, too, it affected the production of the gold mines. It is therefore a process which has been at work for a long time. But I can say that this Government has succeeded over the years, with the exception of the last two, in keeping the cost of living particularly low. I am referring here to the latest Economic Development Programme for 1966-’71 which appeared last week. There we will note that as far as our cost of living is concerned it rose by 4.2 per cent in 1966 whereas in 1960 it had risen by 1.9 per cent, by 1.4 per cent in the following year, by 1.3 per cent in 1963, by 2.4 per cent in 1964 and by 3.6 per cent in 1965. That appears on page 145. We see therefore that in general there was a very small increase, and a comparison was also drawn which appeared in that publication. What was the position in 1965? The cost of living then rose by 2.5. We find that in the U.S.A., Canada and Australia it was lower, but that in New Zealand, West Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy and Japan it was much higher than here. We concede therefore that in the past few years there has been an increase in the cost of living. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that the cost of living had increased far more rapidly than wages, salaries, etc. I differ from him because it is not correct. Here I am once again referring to the Economic Programme on page 151 where the percentage increase in the various sectors of the economy in 1965 was indicated. Let us bear in mind that the increase in the cost of living was 3.6 per cent in 1965.

As far as the mining industry was concerned, average wages and salaries increased by 5.4 per cent during the years 1960-’65, that of the factory worker increased by 7.4 per cent, and the same applied to construction. In the Railways it increased by 5.4 per cent and in public authorities by 4.6 per cent. One can see therefore that in all these cases the increase was higher than the average increase in the cost of living for those years. The average increase in the cost of living in the years 1960-’65 was 2.1 per cent. In general therefore and in spite of the increases in the cost of living, the average increase in wages and salaries of all these groups was greater, and they were better off.

But as far as the increase in the past few years is concerned, it is not a case of the Government having sat still. The measures which the Government has taken for the very purpose of counteracting this increase, an increase which went hand in hand with the great growth and prosperity which there was and the tempo which was too high, are known. That is why an attempt was first made to convince our businessmen by means of moral persuasion to go slower. Subsequent to that there were various increases in the bank rate and there were fiscal measures. Building control was introduced. Import control was intensified and subsequently relaxed, depending upon our position. The government sector attempted to restrict its capital expenditure to a minimum. Restrictions were imposed on the credit advances of banks to their clients. Stricter conditions of sale were imposed. Price control was introduced. Even the budget policy was anti-inflationary and means were suggested to bring about increased savings. As far as price control is concerned there are certain essential requirements which are controlled. I am making particular mention here of sugar. The price of sugar was increased, but it was done after the circumstances had been gone into thoroughly, and it is particularly the overseas decrease in the sugar price which gave rise to that. It had its effect on the industry and I am certain that the hon. member for South Coast has no objection to the fact that the price of sugar had to be raised.

The price of wheat was raised, but the price of bread was not raised; the Government bore a higher subsidy, precisely because they did not want to increase the price of bread. Then there are also mealies and ground nuts. Those prices are controlled. The price of milk for the farmer was increased because it was felt that under the circumstances the farmer had a good case for an increase in those basic prices. But there are other foodstuffs which are not controlled. Vegetables and fresh fruit are not controlled. Normal supply and demand determines the price of those commodities and for some of them there are maximum prices. There are other commodities, such as petrol and implements, which are not controlled but where an agreement is reached that the Government should accede to an increase. All that has been done, and there has been an indication that these steps of the Government had their effect and that in the first half of 1966 there was a slowing down in the economy, for these measures did not have an immediate effect. They take time to set on taxe effect, but in the second half of 1966 there was once again a rapid revival. There was a rapid revival particularly because there was more money and one of the basic reasons for that increased activity was the great influx of overseas capital. Often in the past we have heard that there is no confidence in South Africa overseas and that we cannot obtain capital from abroad, but we find that in the first three quarters of 1966 there was an inflow of foreign capital to the amount of R119 million, which took place in spite of events to the north of us.

In spite of resolutions taken at the U.N. that capital flowed into this country and it once again had a disrupting effect. That is evidence of confidence in our country’s economy, confidence in our stability and in the security of the country, but it nevertheless had a disrupting effect on our economy. That was one of the major reasons why there was another revival. Last year, however, the Economic Advisory Board dscovered that there was another reason, i.e. an excess of confidence prevailing in the private sector and that it had to be dampened even further. That is why further steps were taken towards the end of 1966, particularly by the Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs in order to counteract this inflationary tendency. Fortunately we know that there are indications that they are beginning to have an effect. It has already been pointed out that the cost of living index did not rise in December and November. That is a good sign. We perceive that in certain sectors there is even a decrease of employment which might bring about higher productivity. We know that large parts of the country have had good rains which have also had an effect on agricultural production and we know that certain increases which were granted by the Government have already had an effect and are no longer exerting that pressure on the cost of living. There are signs therefore that our economy is once again slowing down and that the Government has already intimated its determination to endeavour, with all the means at its disposal, to keep the cost of living stable and to keep it down as far as possible. But there are of course still factors beyond the control of the Government which exert an influence on the cost of living, such as imported articles, and we note particularly that the costs of imported goods have increased considerably.

The Government is therefore determined to maintain the stability of our economy and to protect the value of the rand not only for the sake of the gold mines but for the sake of the salaried man, for the sake of the pensioner, for the sake of our entire economy. Yesterday, however, the statement was made that we are practically ignoring the gold mining industry, that we are not paying enough attention to it and that we are merely allowing inflation to continue without considering the consequences which it will have on our economy. Here I am referring particularly to the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. He indicated at considerable length what the gold mining industry means to South Africa—as far as currency, labour and employment as well as the utilization of goods is concerned —and also that the gold mining industry is reasonably stable and is not influenced by overseas factors. He is correct, but I want to tell him that we are in agreement. There is no difference of opinion between us as to the meaning of the gold mining industry in South Africa. We know what it means. Recently the Gold Producers’ Committee also published a report, namely “The role of the Gold Mining Industry in the future economy of South Africa”. It contains those particulars and I am sure that the hon. member will agree that it is a very comprehensive report and that it sums up the positon very well. I want to say to the hon. member that everything he has said appears in this report of the gold producers but that it contains a little more information and there are more graphs in that report.

I take it that the hon. member did not have the time to present it more comprehensively, but he did reproduce the essence thereof. I want to tell him that that document containing all those particulars which was drawn up by the Gold Producers’ Committee did not merely come about of its own accord. That document was submitted to the Economic Advisory Board in December. It was marked strictly confidential and was dealt with there. But it was submitted at the request of the Economic Advisory Board after a considerable amount of discussion during the previous two years had made it apparent that we must take the position of our gold production into consideration. With the drafting of the first economic programme three years ago it appeared that as far as our gold production was concerned it would increase until 1967, that it would then decrease for a few years, that it would then increase and after that from 1972 it would begin to decrease permanently. It is this particular effect which serves as an indication to us that there were factors here which we must take into consideration now more than we have done in the past. After discussions at cabinet level it was decided that this matter concerning the future of the gold mines would have to be taken into consideration thoroughly, and investigated. Instructions were then issued for this investigation to be undertaken and it was discussed by, inter alia, the Economic Advisory Board. The Economic Advisory Board then requested that such a report be drafted by the gold producers, which was then done and it was submitted to this House in December. I am mentioning this because the impression might be created that we are unacquainted with those problems. We are fully acquainted with them.

It is in fact as a result of the Government’s actions that this comprehensive summary was drafted. It was discussed last year and referred to a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Steenkamp and other members of the Reserve Bank, of the Department of Finance, the Government Mining Engineer, the Economic Advisor, and others. Only yesterday, however, I received a call from Johannesburg in which they requested that certain sections of this report, those dealing with the entire position and progress of the gold mines be made available, and yesterday I gave my permission for it to be released. It will therefore probably be released before the end of next week, after which those particulars will be known. But there are inter alia, also certain recommendations which they made. The hon. member referred to certain of the recommendations which were made therein. He referred for example to a higher gold price. We are aware that this Government has, through its Minister of Finance, done everything in its power to bring about an increase in the gold price and they will continue with their representations.

Reference was made here to the question of productivity. The Opposition has once more intimated its impatience at the fact that the Government last year intervened with that mining experiment. They are not happy about it. I can say, however, that the Government had no alternative because that experiment caused dissatisfaction in the ranks of the mineworkers. That is why a commission was appointed and one of the findings of this Viljoen Commission was that the statistical data gleaned from the experimental mines indicate unequivocally that there has been a reduction in the members of the mineworkers’ unions as a result of the experiments. There was therefore reason for the dissatisfaction but the Government did not summarily reject any application for improvement. In its reply to this Commission’s report, as a result of which this experiment was discontinued, it also stated. inter alia—

The way to judicious reorganization has therefore not been closed, but the Government was also obliged to take industrial peace in the mining industry into consideration. That is why it had to discontinue the experiment. I think the latest reports of the mines also indicate the detrimental effect these strikes have had on the mining industry. That also is the reason why the Government, when it was dealing with strikes which had nothing to do with a difference between the employer and the employees, declared such strikes illegal. Industrial peace is therefore a serious matter for the Government. But the prosperity and the stability of the mines is an equally serious matter. The hon. member referred here to the tax position. That is correct. They do not pay the company tax of 33⅓ per cent. When a mine produces it is higher. But what the hon. member omitted to say is that the exemption received by a gold mine and which an industry does not receive, i.e. that it receives its entire capital plus, at the moment, 8 per cent compound interest before that mine becomes taxable. When the time comes for a change and that comparison is made, we must take that fact into consideration. It is now being said that if the taxation is reduced the life of the mine will be extended. It is true that the State receives a considerable amount in the form of gold tax. In 1961 the State received R101 million out of a total revenue of more than R1,000 million, but that is as a result of the fact that many of the rich mines of the Free State and the Far West Rand became taxable. However, that was not always the case. From 1956 to 1960 when the State’s total tax was R726 million the gold mine tax was only R39 million, i.e. barely 5 per cent. It has now increased, but that does not mean to say that the State is adopting an indifferent attitude to it. Mention was made here of subsidies. In the past the mining industry itself was opposed to any form of subsidy. But in the past few years the Government, who is well aware of the fact that the life of gold mines must be prolonged where justification exists for that being done, has rendered assistance. The hon. member referred, as it is also stated in this report, to three cases where assistance was rendered. But considerably more assistance has been rendered to the uranium and the gold industry. Since 1963 the tax surrender as far as uranium contracts are concerned as well as concessions and agreements made in order to prolong the life of mines has been R88 million. It is therefore no small sum. The hon. member also referred to a possible agreement between Vaal Reefs and this new mine to be established south of the river. To establish that mine will also entail a surrender of taxes. It will cost the Government R39 million in taxes surrendered in order to bring that gold mine into operation. This the Government is doing because it is aware of the meaning of the gold-mining industry. But that does not imply that the worker will not be given a fair share for his work. At the moment that is a source of dissatisfaction. It is not the case that the workers are dissatisfied with the National Government. It is dissatisfaction between employers and employees and the Government deemed it to be in its own interests that peace be made between employers and employees. That is why the hon. the Minister of Labour adopted a strong attitude and maintained that there should be peace in the ranks of the mine-workers themselves because it is only when there is peace that they will be able to get the maximum out of the workers in an industry which the Government is prepared to go out of its way to stabilize.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the trend of the debate, but I wish to deal with different matters which have not been touched upon yet in this debate. I am sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister is not here, but I do hope that some responsible Minister will convey to him the subject matter of my speech this afternoon. I am sure that the hon. the Prime Minister will forgive me when I say that in all conscience I cannot bring myself to vote for his amendment, namely that this Houe has the fullest confidence in the Government. However, in order to soften the blow, I should like to tell the hon. the Prime Minister, if he were here, that if I decide to vote for the motion submitted to this House by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I shall exculpate the hon. the Prime Minister personally from the terms of that motion because in all fairness I do not think that he can be accused of incompetence or ineptitude. Whatever other criticism may be levelled against the Prime Minister, I do not think that he can be charged with incompetence and ineptitude. On the contrary, Sir, I should like to associate myself immediately and publicly with the tributes which were paid to the hon. the Prime Minister not only by members on both sides of this House but by different representative cross-sections of our South African population with regard to the manner in which he faced up to the onerous responsibility which devolved upon him as Prime Minister of our country. As we all know, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister was suddenly called upon to deal with many grave issues involving the future of South Africa. He did not shirk those responsibilities, to his credit. Through the manner in which he dealt with these grave issues he has undoubtedly won a great deal of esteem and respect from not only his own party followers but from a large number of the fair-minded people in this country. His moderate and reasoned replies to the attacks made by U.N. against South Africa has brought about a spirit of unity in the South African nation. At the same time, Sir, I should also like publicly to congratulate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for the stand that he took in defining the Opposition’s attitude with regard to these external threats and attacks which have been made against our country. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that whilst we may have internal political differences among ourselves, when it comes to external interference in our affairs, when it comes to South Africa being threatened by boycotts, by sanctions and indeed by external attacks, then the South African nation will forget these differences and will rally as one man in defence of our fatherland. I repeat, Sir, that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have in this regard earned the greatest respect and esteem of all sections of the South African people.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister’s broadcasts since he assumed office has brought about a feeling of hope among all sections of our people and a greater feeling of confidence in the future. His addresses to the White section of our population as well as to the non-Whites are worthy of the greatest commendation. I want to refer particularly this afternoon to some passages of the hon. the Prime Minister’s address to the Coloured people of South Africa. In a special New Year’s message to the Coloured people, the Prime Minister said this:

I should like to emphasize that last point.

I want to say also that I am personally convinced that the hon. the Prime Minister was absolutely sincere when he gave this address to the Coloured people. I am quite satisfied that the Prime Minister would not willingly do anything to harm any section of our people. I am convinced that it was his earnest desire when he assumed office—and it still is his earnest desire—to bring about unity and peace and harmony in our country, and to act with absolute fairness to all sections of our population.

Now, it is in this spirit that I am constrained to bring to his attention this afternoon some of the hardships and the indignities and the frustrations which our Coloured citizens have had to face as a result of Government action, even during the parliamentary recess. There are many things that have happened under Government policy, for instance under the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act, and other provisions of our ideological laws, that should not be tolerated. I do hope that the Prime Minister—because he is the only one to do so—will take heed of the appeal that I am now making.

My limited time in this debate does not enable me to deal with all these matters. Of necessity I must confine myself to a few. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware of certain group area proclamations which have been made in recent weeks and which have resulted in our Coloured people being forced by law to leave their homes and their areas which have belonged to them for generations. One realizes immediately that under the Government’s policy of separate development, apartheid, group areas have to be established for the different sections of our multi-racial community. But one feels that there has been an unnecessary intrusion, and I repeat this—an unnecessary intrusion—upon the Coloured people in respect of areas which have traditionally been theirs for over 100 years.

Apart from group areas being proclaimed in respect of portions of the city of Cape Town, portions which traditionally have been occupied by our Coloured people for centuries—I refer, for instance, to District Six, portions of Claremont, Fraserdale, and so on. Now we find that our Coloured citizens are also to be denied their birthright of living in areas like Sir Lowry’s Pass village, areas like Temperance township, which, as you know, lies between Sir Lowry’s Pass and Gordon’s Bay, and areas like Mansfield and Gordon’s Strand Estates.

Let me take, as an instance, the position in regard to Sir Lowry’s Pass village. Our Coloured people have been settled in this village for over a century. I would say that over 90 per cent of the inhabitants of this little village are Coloured people. But what do we find? Despite the fact that the village consists almost entirely of Coloureds, despite the fact that these people have been lawfully living there and have been settled there for over 100 years, they are now to be removed against their wishes to a new area some 30 miles away.

Take the case of Temperance township. This little settlement was built many years ago by a private individual, a well-known public-spirited Afrikaner, in order to house his own Coloured employees. It then grew to become known as a Coloured settlement. For decades the Coloured people have lived there and have found employment in the adjoining areas like Gordon’s Bay, the Strand and Somerset West. It is true that over the years the township has developed a neglected and dilapidated appearance, but instead of the Government spending money on improving conditions there, these innocent people are to be evacuated from that area. I know, Mr. Speaker, that we will be told that these Coloured people are to be removed to new areas where they will be given the benefit of amenities which they do not enjoy in their present areas. I know that we will be given an assurance on the part of the Government that no undue hardship will be imposed upon these people and that they will be removed only when suitable alternative accommodation can be found for them. I accept these assurances, and I hope, indeed I am confident, that these assurances will be carried out. But at the same time I must state that, in my view, and this view is shared by many responsible White citizens of this country, it is quite wrong for the Government to uproot a community without first consulting that community in every respect, and without at least endeavouring to obtain from that community their approval to their being uprooted. It must be remembered that the Coloured people did not ask for this change. On the contrary, they are totally opposed to this change. It is a fact that there has not been—and I say this advisedly—adequate consultations with the people affected, and it is this fact that has brought about so much resentment and friction. Coloured leaders who have made representations to my colleagues and myself in regard to this very important human matter urge us to remind the Government-—and I do so in their own words—that they are not dealing with cattle, but with human beings. They feel that the uprooting of these well-established Coloured communities can be likened to the shifting of cattle to new grazing areas.

There are other instances of established Coloured communities being uprooted from areas which for generations have been the homes of law-abiding Coloured people in this country. It may well be that the Government may have been actuated in finding for these people better homes in areas nearer to their places of work. It may well be that the eventual evacuation of these Coloured populations to these new areas may be all in all to the ultimate benefit of these Coloured people. But I feel that the Government should have taken the Coloured people into their absolute confidence, they should have told them where these new group areas were to be established, they should have told them what was being planned for them, and they should have tried to obtain their co-operation and goodwill before these proclamations were issued. They should have been told, I suggest, the reasons why their establishments in which they had been settled for over a century, were now to be abandoned.

I repeat, Sir, that I know that we will be told that the Group Areas Board heard representations by interested persons and bodies before making their decisions. But I feel that that is not sufficient. These people are not well versed in appearing before public bodies like group areas boards. They have not the means of being properly represented at these hearings. I feel that the affected Coloured people should have been given full details by responsible officials and that the full reasons should have been given to them as to why they were going to be uprooted and shifted into these new areas. It is the lack of this co-operation, it is the lack of this consultation between the Government and the Coloured people and the failure to give them adequate reasons and explanations which have brought about a spate of complaints, not only in this country but also overseas.

It is inadequate public relations, I suggest. It is the failure to give full explanations for group areas proclamations, particularly in the cases where whole communities are being uprooted, that has prompted questions being asked, not only in the South African Press but in the overseas Press also, as to why the Government is flouting the laws of human decencies. There have been articles written in overseas papers condemning the attitude of the Government in which they say that they have completely flouted the laws of civilization in uprooting whole communities without giving them adequate reasons and without explaining to them and obtaining their consent before taking any action in this matter.

I can quite understand that there are reasons at different times for slum clearances in respect of different areas. But the uprooting, I suggest, Sir, and the disturbing of an entire community, such as is the case in Sir Lowry’s Pass village, cannot possibly under any circumstances be described as slum clearance. On the contrary, it can only be described as a clearance and disturbance of an entire law-abiding community.

In any event, I should like to know what is going to happen to this village after the Coloured people have been removed therefrom. Is it intended that a White group of persons should be settled in this little village? Is it intended to build homes for White people in this area? All these things should have been disclosed. It is these pin-pricks, I suggest, these unnecessary actions, which disturb good race relations in this country and which exacerbate the feelings between the Coloured and the White people of South Africa. I have raised this matter in the debate this afternoon in the sincere hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will take a direct interest in the future of our Coloured citizens.

Sir, I would like to refer to another instance which has created a great deal of unnecessary resentment, not only among a large section of the Coloured citizens of this country but also among a large number of prominent Whites. We all know of the activities of the Eoan Group, of how this Coloured group, financially helped by a number of well-disposed Europeans, have endeavoured to uplift their own people culturally and artistically. We all know of the wonderful achievements of this group; we all know how they have presented to the citizens of South Africa, White and non-White, magnificent productions, including some of the world-famous operas and other musical productions. Their achievements have been acclaimed not only in South Africa, but almost throughout the whole of the civilized world. Currently they are staging the musical production “Oklahoma” at the Alhambra Theatre in Cape Town. The Department of Community Development granted the Eoan Group a permit to present this musical production at the Alhambra Theatre from the 18th to the 31st January and to an exclusively White audience. May I say incidentally that they are playing to capacity houses to White citizens who are enjoying the show tremendously. In all fairness I want to quote an extract from a letter addressed to the Eoan Group by the regional representative of the Department of Community Development when he forwarded their permit. This is what he says in the letter—

Needless to say, the Eoan Group, as well as their White financial sponsors who are interested only in bringing about better relations between Coloureds and Whites in this country, shared the views of the Department and felt that it was only right that at least one performance should be given to an exclusively Coloured audience at the same Alhambra Theatre. This would have been an exclusively Coloured audience, but what do we find? The Group have been informed that their application has been refused, and that if they wish to perform before a Coloured audience, that performance should take place in the Luxurama Theatre in Wynberg. Sir, it must be borne in mind that the scenery for this mammoth production—and it is a mammoth production—was specially designed and constructed for the Alhambra Theatre, which is fully equipped to handle a musical production of the size of “Oklahoma”. It is humanly impossible for the same scenery to be utilized at the Luxurama Theatre, for various technical reasons into which I need not go this afternoon. The Department of Community Development was informed that if the Eoan Group was compelled to stage the production at the Luxurama Theatre for a night or two this would involve them in a possible loss of over R8,000. These people who are struggling for survival would have to face an unnecessary loss of R8,000. The Department was also told that the Luxurama Theatre was inaccessible to many Coloured people who live in areas like Athlone, Bonteheuwel and the City area. The appeal to the Department for a reconsideration of this reasonable request was again turned down. Thereupon, as the Coloured representative for the area, I was requested to make representations on behalf of the Eoan Group to the responsible Minister. I accordingly wrote to the Minister urging him to be good enough to reconsider the matter and to give sympathetic consideration to this reasonable request that the Alhambra Theatre should be utilized on one occasion only, under permit, for the presentation of this production to an exclusively Coloured audience. I have not the time to read out my letter to the hon. the Minister but I must read out the reply which I received. The reply reads as follows—

Now what do we find? We find that merely because permits for performances before Coloured audiences only, have been refused on numerous previous occasions, no exceptions can be made in this instance.

Because of the fact that in the audience part of the Alhambra Theatre there are no facilities for Coloureds.

But we asked for the whole Alhambra Theatre to be set aside for Coloureds for that night, not for a mixed audience. We asked that one night be set aside for Coloureds only to occupy the whole of the Alhambra Theatre. What objection could there have been to that? We did not ask for permission to perform before a mixed audience. We asked that one night be set aside for an exclusively Coloured audience. Sir, I ask in all seriousness, how can an isolated presentation to an exclusively Coloured audience on a single occasion, under permit, be in conflict with Government policy?

Mr. Speaker, I have cited this as another example of the petty approach made by some Ministers to human matters of this nature. It is the application of this petty apartheid policy, it is these pin-pricks, which are bringing so much discredit to our country.

Sir, I want to cite another example. The non-White people of South Africa are very justifiably proud of the fact that a member of their group has managed to be capped to play cricket for England. Despite all the disabilities under which a Coloured man labours—and there are many—Basil D’Oliveira was selected to play for England. He has won for himself a place of singular distinction in the annals of cricket. He is paying a short visit to South Africa, the country of his birth, the country of his origin. He took part recently in an exhibition match between two Coloured teams. Many White cricket enthusiasts, and particularly our young men, were very keen to see this accomplished player in action, but again what do we find? Under the Government’s petty apartheid policy large numbers of law-abiding White citizens, keen sportsmen, the cream of our country, were refused admittance even to a separate, allocated European area, and were unable to see D’Oliveira play. Only a handful of White people—I think some 30—were allowed under permit and by special privilege to see the match. The vast majority of the young men who wanted to see Basil D’Oliveira in action, were refused admittance. Sir, how can the presence of White spectators, in their own allocated and separate area, demarcated as a European area, be in conflict with Government policy? This incident, unfortunately, was publicized abroad as a further demonstration of the Government’s flouting the laws of human decency. Sir, how long does the Government think it can continue to allow these things to happen? How long can this go on? How much longer can South Africa afford to disregard world reaction to these petty measures which bring so much ridicule and contumely upon our country?

Sir, dealing further with the situation which has arisen as a result of the unfortunate and untimely statement made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior with regard to the Government’s attitude concerning Basil D’Oliveira, I would ask the Prime Minister particularly whether he has seen the strong condemnation of the Government in the overseas Press? Is it right that our country should be held up to such ridicule because of these unfortunate and ill-considered statements made by certain Ministers? I would like to quote very briefly some of these scathing attacks made upon the South African Government by the overseas Press. I am going to confine myself, not to criticism that came from a Leftist newspaper, but to criticism that came from one of South Africa’s strongest supporters overseas. In this morning’s Cape Times, under the caption “Newspapers hit at South Africa”, this appears—

The leader goes on to say this—

And I am glad they said this, Sir, because there are many Government supporters in this House who feel the same—

I do hope that some members on the Government side will stand up to-day and say what they have said privately, that they disagree with this policy of petty apartheid. The leader concludes by commenting: “If Mr. Vorster can have luncheon with Chief Jonathan, can he not overrule this shortsighted and legalistic decision?” Sir, when we talk of ineptitude, as does the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, surely here is an instance of great ineptitude on the part of the Government. What earthly reason was there for the Government at this stage to indicate that if this Coloured South African is chosen for the next M.C.C. tour some two years hence he will not be allowed to come here? What necessity was there for it? Why precipitate a controversy of this magnitude at this stage? Much water can still flow under the bridge before the next M.C.C. team is chosen. I ask in all seriousness: Why precipitate a situation which may never arise? It is this type of ineptitude over petty matters which casts so much ridicule on us and I think it is time that it should be stopped. Sir, I have decided to bring these matters publicly to the attention of the House and of the hon. the Prime Minister, in the hope that he will take a personal interest in what is happening in our country as regards our Coloured people. [Interjection.] I am reminded of the hon. the Prime Minister’s New Year message to the Coloured people, when he spoke about our many different races having to live together in this country in harmony. I ask him to ensure that from now onwards, under his control and guidance, and not under the control and guidance of some of his Ministers, who apply a legalistic attitude and cannot be shifted from it, the Coloured people will be spared these indignities and humilitations resulting from this petty apartheid.

The hon. member for Peninsula started off with a panegyric on the hon. the Prime Minister and then referred rather scathingly to the other Ministers. I just want to tell him that the Prime Minister is responsible for Government policy as a whole, which is implemented by all the Ministers, and if he hopes to bring about a rift between the Prime Minister and the other Ministers by means of that kind of speech, he is off the mark.

But the hon. member raised various issues here. Among others, he elaborated at considerable length on the issue of petty apartheid. I want to say something about that in a moment, particularly with reference to something which was said by one of the United Party members during the recess and which he had also said on a previous occasion. But I just want to point out to the hon. member that one should be very cautious not to state a case so pertinently here without first checking all the particulars and ascertaining whether the case one is stating is well-founded. The hon. member referred to the resettlement of Coloureds at Sir Lowry’s Pass. What is the position there? From what I understand, slum conditions are developing there. That area is situated in a purely White agricultural complex. [Interjections.] Even in 1956, when the divisional council wanted to carry out extensions there, there were the most violent objections from the Whites living there, as a result of which the divisional council decided even ten years ago not to carry out further extensions. Apart from that, only 40 of the approximately 350 Coloured wage-earners who live there work where they live. The others are working over virtually the entire Peninsula. It is therefore quite clear that there are very sound reasons for the resettlement, which include among other things the obviating of race friction which may arise as a result of the conditions which are developing there. Surely the entire policy is aimed at creating racial harmony and co-operation in this country.

I said I would shortly come to other arguments advanced by the hon. member, but I notice a most extraordinary phenomenon among the Opposition since the last election, in March of last year. I trust one of the Opposition Whips will ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to come into the Chamber, because I want to speak to him specifically. It is a pity that I did not let him know in advance. As this extraordinary situation is developing, we find that in a debate such as this, in which the Government is called to account, it is quite correct that the Opposition should do so, but I think it is also correct that the Opposition, which also has a responsibility to the people, should also give an account of some of its actions, particularly during the past recess. I want to say a few words in that connection.

If we consider the past nine months in particular, since the last election, we notice that the Opposition is avoiding its own policy consistently, and particularly also the colour policy of the National Party, which it had attacked and discussed tirelessly in the preceding 17 years. All at once it has stopped doing that, and it is now avoiding everything it used to advocate. It is even avoiding the accusations it used to bring against this Government and its policy. Why is that so? Firstly, it can only be for one of two reasons. I think the first is that they have become convinced that the policy which they used to submit to the voters had been rejected entirely and conclusively by the electorate. They do not want to talk about it any more; they do not want to think about it. But I think there is another reason, and that that Party is working on a new policy—another new policy. They are moving in a new direction and as yet they are afraid of stating that new policy. They are still feeling their way. But it is a policy which is clear to me from the pronouncements of some of their leaders and of their Press—a policy which is even more rash and even much more dangerous than their previous policy, and against which one should warn, and on which they should answer pertinent questions in this debate. I just want to mention something else before I say something about that policy. It is something which cannot pass without comment after what happened in the recess. The hon. the Prime Minister made an announcement in Durban to the effect that the Government was going to inform the world abroad much more effectively and intensively on the policy of the Government in this country and on what is done for the non-Whites. I think it was welcomed and acclaimed by everybody. I think even the Opposition acclaimed it, but then one of the leaders of the United Party, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, used this announcement, as on so many previous occasions, in a speech he made at the Transvaal Congress of his Party, to launch an attack on the Government in an attempt to find allies for his own cause abroad, to join in working against South Africa. It is clear that he made use once again of the uninformed people abroad, of the misinformed and ignorant people, and tried to exploit them and their erroneous information and ignorance in order to serve his own objects. We are in fact striving to combat the perils which threaten this country from abroad. We are in fact striving to neutralize them. It is for that very reason that we are grateful that the Leader of the Opposition and other responsible leaders of the United Party, and now also the hon. member for Peninsula, have stated that they would not tolerate any attacks on South Africa from the outside. It is precisely to meet those attacks that that announcement and those measures are contemplated and taken by the Government. What did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout do? He said: “The hon. the Prime Minister is going to do that, but first I want him personally to tell South Africa why there are no Coloureds in this Parliament, and to tell South Africa (and presumably the world) why a White and a non-White cannot buy stamps at the same counter.” Petty apartheid is exploited and represented as though it is discrimination by the Whites against the non-Whites in this country. That is the impression which is created abroad. That is the impression which was continually created, and it does not serve South Africa’s interests. It merely serves to discredit South Africa even further abroad, and, what is worse, it is not true. It is totally and utterly untrue. Let us consider the question of Coloureds in this Parliament. The hon. member knows that it is a matter which was referred to a Select Committee, and subsequently to a Commission of Inquiry. If he feels so strongly about this matter, surely he can give evidence before that Commission. Now I want to ask the United Party this: Is it their policy that Coloureds should be represented in this Parliament by Coloureds? If it is not, then surely such a statement by a United Party leader at a United Party Congress is the worst hypocrisy imaginable. Surely it is nothing but blatant hypocrisy. And if it is, why do they not say so? Why are they avoiding that? Why are they afraid of saying that? No, Mr. Speaker, such conduct is not in accordance with what they profess, that they also want to combat attacks from the outside.

Let us consider the other accusation of petty apartheid. Why cannot a White and a non-White buy stamps at the same counter? Why were those apartheid laws introduced right at the beginning of the National Party régime? We all know why. We all know that the abuse of conditions which existed previously was exploited in the most terrible fashion by communist instigators in this country, because there were organized action and organization to create friction and chaos—to cause friction between White and non-White and to use all those levels on which they could come together to create friction and bring about chaos in South Africa. If the United Party had remained in power after 1948, there would have been such chaos that it would have been impossible to set it right. They are the ones who refused to take action against those who wanted to create chaos in this country, in spite of their Government and in spite of the fact that they had been warned against the perils of Communism. They refused to take action. Their Minister of Justice pretended that nothing of the kind existed. Those were their allies in the 1948 election. Because of that, matters would have come to such a pass here that there would not have been discrimination against the non-Whites, but against the Whites. Apparently the world outside, which is so hostile to us, would not have found that strange, and it would not have been wrong in their opinion, provided that the discrimination against the Whites was restricted to South Africa. Will the hon. member for Transkei, who is so clever, tell me whether it is the policy of their Party to do away with all those laws, provisions and regulations regarding apartheid in this country? Is that their policy? Mr. Speaker, now they are zipped up. Their minds have always been zipped, but now their mouths are also zipped. I ask the hon. member for Transkei whether that is their policy. Is it their policy to do away with those things which are presented by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as being discrimination in this country and as the reason why he is seeking assistance abroad to incite it against South Africa? Is it their policy to do the opposite of the things of which they accuse us? They are using those things to discredit South Africa—not the National Party— in the world abroad.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, specifically, is doing that. What is the Opposition doing in respect of the steps taken by the Government? Take, for example, the separate schools and separate university colleges for the various non-White race groups. When legislation was discussed here to create them, what happened? There was shouting to high heaven that it was discrimination against the Coloureds. It was discrimination against the Indians and discrimination against the Bantu. It was said that it would be inferior education. It would be another example of suppression and discrimination. There would be “tribal colleges”. Now that those measures have withstood the test of time, now that it has been proved that this Government is sincere it its implementation of the policy of separate development now that it has become apparent that the services rendered by those colleges and schools are equal to those of the White schools, they admit that it is right, that it is good and that it is in the interests of those groups. But at first they called it discrimination. They, and the Press supporting them, never ceased their cries of discrimination and suppression by this Government. Will those people never learn? Will they never realize that the Government is sincere in what it is doing? Will they never realize that what it is doing is not discrimination, but is in fact done to eliminate discrimination? The hon. member for Peninsula mentioned an example of Whites who were not allowed to go and see a Coloured cricketer. It would not surprise me at all if it were represented as discrimination gainst the Coloureds. It would not surprise me at all if that happened.

Discrimination against the Whites.

Exactly, Sir. They should then call it discrimination against the Whites. To our enemies abroad that is not a valid argument. That argument is not used. It is not a valid argument which is appreciated by our enemies. It carries no weight with them. It does not matter if it is discrimination against the Whites. The United Party is directly responsible for these misconceptions, for the erroneous impressions which are continually created by them among many people abroad. Every step taken here to bring about separate development, no matter how well-intended or how clearly it has proved to be in the interests of those non-White groups, was slated and broadcast abroad as discrimination against the non-Whites. It has become apparent that that is not true, but those impressions have persisted. The impressions left by those hon. members and by the Press supporting them have remained over there. If they want to join us in resisting the attacks from abroad, it is their primary duty and responsibility to correct those impressions created by them abroad. They will find it hard to do that. The matter has got completely out of control, but they have an obligation to meet, and the sooner they do that, the better.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back immediately to what I said at the beginning with regard to the question of the change in policy on the part of the United Party. The United Party has avoided any mention of its race federation policy and is formulating a new policy. This time it is not race federation but territorial federation. I want to ask them to tell the country and this House unequivocally whether they are in fact formulating a territorial federation policy. Is it their policy to grant representation in their proposed federal parliament to all race groups in every homeland territory in this country? If those things are announced and if their newspapers write about them, it is their duty to see to it that they render account for the things they are saying.

If they are not prepared to accept that responsibility, if they want to shirk that responsibility, what hope have they of ever making any progress? What hope have they of ever keeping their wickets standing? Surely they will lose more and more wickets. The least they can do is to accept that responsibility to the voters. This new policy of theirs has in fact arisen from ideas of discrimination. This idea of theirs, to eliminate discrimination in their way by bringing about unification, is in fact the basic difference between the National Party and the United Party. The United Party is advocating a policy which seeks to bring about one multiracial people, one multiracial state and one multiracial parliament. The National Party policy is the very opposite, namely to bring about separate nations here and to develop each one of them separately and to give to each one its own pride and responsibility. Mr. Speaker, if they are prepared to continue along this new way, it is their responsibility and their duty not to shirk these matters. They should not try to smother them by silence. They should declare their positions. Surely they need not be ashamed of their policy. If they are prepared to bring about a territorial federation here, if they are prepared to give each of those homelands representation in this Parliament, and if they are prepared to give each race group representation in that federal parliament, they should say so. They should not avoid the truth. They should not try to achieve that ideal of theirs under cover of some other policy or other arguments. Parliament has an interst in that new direction which the United Party is contemplating. Parliament and the people outside have a great interest in it, and the United Party should accept its responsibility towards the people.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the seat of the hon. member who has just sat down is Winburg and not Wynberg. I hope they will not make any mistake on that score. It seems to me, having listened to him for the last few minutes, that the rainfall in the Free State has gone somewhat to his head. We were treated yesterday to another example of the hon. the Prime Minister’s exhibitions—the sort of exhibition to which we were accustomed when he was Minister of Justice—of heavy sarcasm and histrionics, if I may say so, Sir, about our incompetence and the great competence of the members of his Cabinet. I must say that if the Prime Minister, with due respect, were in the theatrical world, I am quite sure that he would by now have been given the Sari award for the best dramatic actor in South Africa.

And you would have been my leading lady.

We were exposed to an exhibition of ridicule by the Prime Minister and to what amounted to outright contempt for the Opposition. And now. Sir, I think that it is time that someone reminded hon. members of this House that the Prime Minister, surrounded as he is by his cheering minions, that this party that governs South Africa to-day has in fact abused our democratic system in their own interests, and over the election of members to this House. I want to remind hon. members that 42 per cent of the South African electorate voted for the opposition parties last year and that 58 per cent of the electorate voted for the Government. Yet, with 42 per cent of the electorate behind us, we were allocated, i.e. the opposition parties, 40 seats in this House, and the Government with 58 per cent sits happily with 126 seats. [Interjections.] The truth of the matter is that the allocation of seats in this House bears no relation whatsoever to the voting strength behind the Opposition and the Government in South Africa.

The motion which was moved by our hon. Leader yesterday referred specifically to the incompetence of the Cabinet, and I must confess that in my view certain members of the Cabinet may be reasonably competent people—not all of them, by any means—but, Sir, it is to be regretted, very much regretted, that the nature of our politics in South Africa is such that even those who have proved that they have a degree of competence are continuously being hamstrung by the nature of the policies to which they are committed by this Government.

The Nationalist Government has produced fewer answers to our problems in South Africa than any other government in the history of this country. In fact, I would say that they have created far more problems than they have solved. The truth is that there is scarely one government department that is able to function on a straightforward basis, on the one normal and accepted criterion in modern government for the solution or containment of human problems, that is to say, the general welfare of the human beings concerned and their affairs, with which any government department is concerned.

Here in the Republic we have the extraordinary situation that all the normal procedures of government are distorted and, may I say, consistently bedevilled, by the application, in the first place, of a rigid ideology by this Government, and, an attempt to find a practical answer to our problems within this respective framework so that the human aspect of these things always comes out as a kind of second best. This means that any administrative action taken by government departments (or lack of it), can be attributed to ideological premises which are false in the first instance. I would say that the Government’s consistent attempts to apply these rigid ideological ideas to the administrative problems of a country as complex as South Africa, restricts their field of action in the first place to a frightening degree, leaves very little room for the Government to manoeuvre—which we have proved quite clearly—and results in what I can only describe, in many instances, as a callous disregard for human beings as such and, in some cases, to a deliberate inhumanity of a most deplorable kind. And here I do not by any means only refer to the non-Whites in South Africa.

The truth is that this Government is worshipping false gods, so that the starting point for any solution of any practical administrative problem is seldom, if ever, the question how can this or that section of the population, or the Republican population as a whole, be best assisted or encouraged or made secure? The first question the Government always asks itself in the application of all its policies is, how can they most effectively divide the population, thinking only in terms of units in the first instance, and then, as a secondary consideration, once these division have been decided or completed, then only is the Government prepared to think in terms of paying attention to the human side of the problems that are involved. The result then is that the ultimate consideration of people as people, as human beings, always and without exception as far as this Government is concerned, takes second place. The outcome of this thinking, and this is one of the charges which we have against every single government department, is the existence of what I can only call a kernel of falsity within the administrative field itself, a falsity which the Government, because it is ideologically committed, is powerless to eradicate.

Mr. Speaker, over the years the Government’s steady application—or refusal, shall I say, to face the consequences of the application of these rigid dogmas and imaginative theories in the field of race relations in South Africa, has given rise to a whole new series of problems, so that the basic issues in this country are, to-day, in a hopeless state of confusion. This is one of our main charges. The truth of the matter is that little or nothing is done to face the basic realities of our internal situation. One of the most outstanding things is that sociological problems in particular continue to grow at an alarming rate. Yes, they do. There is practically no indication of their being diminished, as in fact they should be if the Government is as competent as it claims to be.

Let me give just a few practical examples. Now, I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Health is not here because I was looking forward to saying quite a lot about his handling of his portfolio. Our health problems in South Africa do not receive anything like adequate attention, and the dangers of their deliberate avoidance multiply every day. But what does the Government care about it? We have not even begun to face squarely in South Africa the joint issues of labour and productivity, not only for Whites, but for everyone. In the interim the Government continues, quite deliberately—we know this—to keep the electorate in a kind of fool’s paradise over this question of labour and productivity whenever these matters are discussed. They are afraid to face the issue.

Our educational problems, which tie up very much with labour and productivity, have been scandalously neglected, and for precisely the same ideological reasons. I would say that by placing the emphasis, as this Government does, always and only upon race, our human relationships in South Africa have become at all levels increasingly unreal. We think that we live in water-tight compartments, but this is a phantasy because in fact we do not. I would say that the very real human suffering consequent to the Government’s refusal to allow Bantu workers, for instance, a proper homelife in our urban areas, appears to leave this Minister—whom, I am glad to see, is now in the House—stone cold. But sociologically speaking the problems arising out of his indifference, the sociological problems, are enormous. Even the cultural background of the two main White races in South Africa has led, again for ideological reasons, to negative policies. What a pity! I refer to the Afrikaans and the English-speaking people.

They are not two races.

Well, this is an ideological approach that I am discussing, because, having forcibly separated the English and the Afrikaans-speaking children in our schools… [Interjections.] Hon. members can jeer, Sir, but that is what their party has done.

Why do you not speak Afrikaans?

Recently a big moan has gone up to the effect that the standard of bilingualism in South Africa is not what it should be. I can speak Afrikaans as well as the hon. the Minister, if he would like to hear me. Another recent moan is that too many immigrants are now going to English-medium schools. In spite of the fact that there are 600,000 more Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa to-day than English-speaking, we now have a major campaign under way, based on a quite unnecessary fear, that the Afrikaans language in South Africa is in danger. What absolute nonsense. It is in no danger at all. As far as the immigrants and their children are concerned, the Government must surely realize that it cannot have its cake and eat it. What has happened? Everything goes sour on this Government, even their own policies—one by one. Planned immigration, instead of being an asset, suddenly overnight becomes a national menace and the newspapers even begin to run competitions as to whether we want any more immigrants or not.

Take sport, church-going, entertainment, transport, publications—all these things, which should be handled on a perfectly normal, straightforward basis, now loom large under this Government as national problems, and everyone, starting with the Cabinet, is on the defensive about them. The net result is that we are faced with a multiplicity of problems of such depth and complexity as we have never seen in this country before. I would say that the loss to South Africa is phenomenal, for we are forced to live and work, thanks to this Government, within a kind of physical and mental strait-jacket.

We on this side of the House have a duty to point out deficiencies, failures and abuses in the field of Government wherever we find them—that is our job. May I say that in South Africa it is a particularly thankless task, for the reason that this Government is seldom prepared or even able to argue an issue with us on its merits, on the basis of realities. All their thinking, their administrative approach, their departmental approach, is constantly obscured by a thick fog of built-in prejudice, fear, indifference and the endless fantasy of thinking and acting at all levels on a basis of petty apartheid. Sir, this distorts everything, so that we are forced, whether we like it or not, thanks to the policies to which this Government is committed, to go counter to the elementary laws of economics and to deny to many of our people less than the minimum daily requirements of adequate employment, food, shelter, training, real scope for advancement and at least some kind of security in the land of their birth—and here I am referring, of course, to the migrant family. Sir, the whole situation is more than a little cock-eyed when, for instance, 10,000 Coloured children die every year in South Africa from gastroenteritis, which is a disease linked with malnutrition, and the Government can happily allocate R150,000 a year for a Department of Sport to be run by a Minister who, whatever his capacity in a rugby scrum, is certainly entirely redundant in this House.

Mr. Speaker, take the question of health. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister is not here. Qualified speakers on this side of the House, with specialized qualifications, draw the attention of the Minister year after year to the urgency of very real and practical health hazards in South Africa, such as the spread of bilharzia throughout our inland waters; the alarming increase of tuberculosis amongst certain sections of our population; the grave dangers and the threat to our national health of widespread malnutrition and its attendant consequences; the desperate need of funds for medical research; the need for the universal establishment of clinics in order to educate our less privileged people in hygiene, feeding and health matters; and the shortage of trained psychiatrists to deal with the increasing number of people suffering from mental disorders. Sir, all these issues, which are practical issues, not political issues, were raised by specialized people on this side of the House under the Minister’s Vote last session. What kind of answers did we get from the hon. the Minister, of whom the Prime Minister is so proud? I think his reply to the debate was an absolute disgrace. On the subject of accommodation for mental patients, the Minister merely informed the House that the number of mental patients had increased from 25,000 in 1959 to 35,000 in 1964, and he then went on to say, “Can one expect the Government to conjure up accommodation?” There was no attempt to tell the House or to tell qualified people, “We are fully aware of the situation but this is what we are going to do”. It is clear that the Minister is making no effort to deal with the matter. On the subject of bilharzia the hon. the Minister replied that it was virtually impossible to prevent the Bantu and Coloured population from polluting our inland waters, and he ended his reply with the comment: “But if there is pollution, we have to do our best, and at the moment the best we can do is to try to keep our people away from contaminated water.” Sir, just how helpful and constructive was that reply from the hon. the Minister, of whom the hon. the Prime Minister is so proud?

Dealing with the lack of trained psychiatrists for our mental hospitals what was the hon. the Minister’s reply when we pointed out that there were not enough of them? All he said was that the private sector could pay these psychiatrists higher salaries than the Government. Sir, the Government could do away with the hon. the Minister of Sport and train a few more psychiatrists with the money that they would save. We get no constructive answers when we raise these issues. What did the hon. the Minister say when I raised the question of malnutrition? He said that the Bantu had too many illegitimate children. That is probably correct, but the medical people have to deal with this issue. The hon. the Minister went on to say: “Hon. members want to create a situation where the White man will have to look after all the children born in South Africa.” Good heavens. Sir, we keep on spending our time saying that we are the civilized people who are giving the lead, and then the hon. the Minister says in effect that this is the sort of responsibility that he wants to know nothing about. This is a perfect example of an ideological approach to what should be a health problem—health education—a problem which should be dealt with essentially in conjunction with the medical authorities on a scientific basis. My charge against the Minister is, quite frankly, that he is largely indifferent to this particular portfolio, that he does not know his job and that he is not competent to give the people of this country, and the medical profession, in particular, who are working under great difficulty, intelligent answers to specialized questions. It is quite clear that the hon. the Minister is quite incompetent.

The second charge of incompetence that we bring against this Government, is in the field of education and manpower—the Government’s complete failure to meet modern requirements in this respect. Sir, the majority of newspapers, public representatives and heads of corporations continue to make the mistake of relating the current education crisis to a lack of manpower itself. May I say that it is nothing of the kind. We have all the manpower that we want in South Africa. We are extremely lucky in that we have an almost inexhaustible supply. What our portential labour force lacks in training and skills—the lack is not to be found in manpower as such but in the field of education, and the blame for this can be laid firmly at the door of the Nationalist Government, because they have failed to produce any long-term economic or educational plan for the development of the country in this regard. Secondly, by deliberately cutting off, for more than ten years, the flow of skilled immigrants to this country, they helped very much to make this situation worse. Sir, one of South Africa’s main problems to-day is the grave state of imbalance that exists between skilled and unskilled workers. I wonder if hon. members know that in South Africa 66 per cent of industrial workers are unskilled, compared with the United States here only 15 per cent are unskilled.

In 1963 the then Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science told us that all we had to do in order to cope with a shortage of 40,000 trained workers by the end of 1970 was to bring in 2,500 immigrants a month. He said that if we did that we would solve the entire problem in the field of skilled manpower. But, Sir, political memories in this House and in the country must be very short. How many people realize to-day that between 1949 and 1956—the first eight years of Nationalist administration—over 96,000 White people left South Africa for good? Ninety per cent of them were South African citizens, whom we had largely trained and educated.

You were the people who frightened them away.

The hon. member will have plenty of time to make his own speech. Those 96,000 people left because they did not like this Government. In 1951, 15,382 people left the Union, of whom all but 265 were South African nationals. Well, there is quite a backlog to catch up and when the hon. the Deputy Minister told us that 2,500 immigrants per month would solve the manpower crisis, he was talking through his hat.

Mr. Speaker, let us face the practicalities. What is this Government doing to get down to an intelligent long-term assessment of the country’s requirements in this field of trained manpower, which means a considerable degree of co-ordination between a great many Government departments? Can the Government tell us what has happened to their famous Manpower Research and Planning Committee which was set up in 1964? It is composed entirely of civil servants. Why? Why no representatives of employers? Has the committee ever reported? Who is responsible for it? Can we have the findings? If not, why not? Where are the answers? This is supposed to be such a competent Government. Where do we get the answers? The Government remains silent.

Sir, in terms of modern economic planning and the high standards of technical efficiency demanded by science, the professions and industry to-day, I say that the Government’s failure to face the realities in this field will inevitably lead sooner or later to a degree of economic stagnation. Meanwhile, the intelligent thing to do is to utilize, to train and to co-ordinate all our workers, White and non-White, in the country’s interests. But the Government has a fixation on Colour, so there are no real attempts at co-ordination at all. The Government’s own policies in fact prohibit it. That is the anwer and that is what forces the chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation to say, referring to skilled people—

The recent report of the 1961 Education Panel says that restrictions on the admission of non-Whites to skilled work must be abolished or gradually lifted if South Afric is to continue to grow economically at a satisfactory rate. Sir, that is perfectly right. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has said so himself; but this is going to involve certain political decisions. Has the Government the courage to take those decisions? It will mean the abandonment of the Nationalist Government principle that each population group must finance its own education as much as possible, however poor it is. Hon. members know perfectly well that that is not going to work. It must also mean the abandonment of the principle that no non-White can be permitted to hold down a job reserved exclusively for Whites, even if there are no Whites available to fill it. The question that hon. members opposite will no doubt shout at me is, “What about the protection of the White worker?” Precisely; what about the protection of the White worker? I want to say to hon. members that this Government has done less than any administration in our history to protect the White workers in terms of training.

Nonsense.

Seventeen per cent of the total White school-going population falls into what is called the dull-normal group. These are the children who never go beyond Std. V or Std. VI and who leave school at the age of 16 or 17. A few of them become apprenticed, but what happens to the majority of them? The majority of them end up in dead-end jobs with little hope of promotion, jobs which they still hold in their forties and fifties.

They end up in the Cabinet.

Some of them end up in the Cabinet, as the hon. member rightly says. But if you add to this 17 per cent, which represents a potential of 136.000 skilled White workers, all those other White youngsters whose parents have not been able to afford to keep them at school longer than the age of 16 years, and if you add all that up, then the neglect of this Government becomes increasingly apparent. After 21 solid years in office the hon. the Prime Minister can turn round and say he is perfectly happy with his Minister of Education and that he has done very well indeed. But they have done nothing to assist the White youngster in this country in 21 years of government. The Government does not in fact appear to have any definite plans, unless this Bill we are expecting produces something spectacular.

I would like to end up by saying that one of the most vital examples of Government action of placing what I call ideological theories first, coupled of course with material benefits, and putting the sense of moral values and humanity second, is its steady refusal to answer any charges that are made from this side of the House or to make any intelligent comment on the wilful destruction of Bantu labour as the result of our system of migratory labour. The Bantu territories, as the result of the lack of economic development, have only one commodity for export, and that is their labour. With them it is export or die. They are forbidden to bring their families with them to the urban areas and if our Bantu townships here, like Langa, are taken as an example you will find that of the 20,000 men present here in 1964, 18,900 were living in bachelor quarters and the majority of them were married; and this is the situation that exists in all the industrial areas of South Africa. You hear people saying that these people like to go away from their families and that the system is working fairly well.

Are you pleading that they must bring all their families here? Is that the policy of your party?

The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that we published our policy in regard to the urban Bantus in 1954. [Interjections.] I want to ask the Deputy Minister how we can, as a Christian country, tolerate a social system in which families are forced to separate? [Interjections.] They are faced with the agonizing choice either of remaining with their families in the Reserves and suffering starvation or coming to the urban areas to earn decent money. They then have illicit affairs with the local Coloured women, with the result that hordes and hordes of illegitimate children have been born here over the years in the urban areas, children who are undisciplined and uncared for and having no schooling, people who by the time they are 16 do not want to go to work and who have no security, no affection or any secure background. This is producing a grave sociological problem in our urban areas which one day a South African Government will have to face, and let us hope it will be our Government. This is a terribly serious issue and no one ever seems to want to talk about it. This is typical of big business and of Government, that the children of these illicit unions are never mentioned by members of this House, and it is the children I care about.

What about the mining industry?

I have never said that I was happy with migratory labour under any circumstances. [Interjections.] I am speaking as a woman and I say that I dislike it intensely under any circumstances. I think it is a shocking system and I think that in a Christian country there can be no possible justification for it whatsoever. [Time limit.]

The previous speaker had a great deal to say about “ideological theories”. In doing so she referred to the local situation, and I take it, therefore, that she regards the opposite situation, that which obtains in the U.S.A., as the alpha and the omega. I want to refer to a speech made in August by Robert Weaver, the first American Negro to become a member of the American cabinet. He said—

As far as the hon. member’s statement is concerned, I shall leave it at that.

When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved the motion of no confidence, he placed special emphasis on three aspects. They were the gold-mining industry, agriculture, and the way in which inflation affects the consumer. As far as the gold-mining industry is concerned, he has in my view received an adequate reply, and I just want to spend a moment on the situation as regards the consumer in this period of inflation. I myself am a consumer. I am also one of those who have to rely on the salaries they receive at the end of the month to make ends meet, and because of that I qualify very well to serve as an example of the objections raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I therefore pricked up my ears when I listened to his discussion of inflation and its effect on the consumer. I waited to hear about the secret weapon which would be produced to relieve my plight as well. I said I listened with great interest, because my father taught me from my earliest years that one can learn one’s most valuable lessons from one’s greatest adversary. But I was disappointed. I saw no light at all, not even a black light. It was clear to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can hardly visualize the real position of the consumer. In fact, the impression has been created that the Opposition has not the slightest grasp of the situation in which the consumers find themselves. I thought that if the Leader of the Opposition wanted to deal with bread-and-butter matters, he would have had a look at the shops. We had a look at the shops in recent times. It is now pretended that the Minister is to blame for the fact that I cannot make ends meet on my salary. But those of us who took a look around the shops learnt something there. As Oom Harm Oost asked on a certain occasion, I may also ask: Who are the culprits? I want to know why it was necessary for the Minister of Community Development to clamp down on a certain group of landlords of dwellings, and in particular flat-owners. He had to clamp down on them as a result of exploitation. Personally, I was fortunate and was re-imbursed to the useful amount of R60, by my landlord here in Mouille Point, on the rental for my unfurnished flat during the previous session. For the edification of the hon. member for Durban (Point), those are the landlords or “flatlords” who make it necessary for the wife to go and work. The Minister is not to blame.

I ask the following question: Why did the Bureau of Standards prescribe compulsory safety specifications for electrical apparatus in August last year? I read to you from a Press statement by the Bureau of Standards—

I ask the question: Who are the culprits? Only last week it became known that in the interests of the consumers the Assizes Section was compelled to recommend that it be made compulsory for the weight of certain consumers’ articles to be indicated on the containers—1 hope in fine, large, clear print which will indicate the mini-contents of the king-size container beyond all doubt! I ask whether the Government is to blame for that scientific manipulation of weights. I ask once more: Who are the culprits? Why does the Opposition not blame the real culprits? Another fact which I thought the Opposition would mention is that it is not the Government but commerce itself which sells its wares to the consumer and which increases the prices. To that end commerce is at present using a particularly potent aid in the form of Press advertisements. In 1965 commerce spent an amount of R25 million on direct Press advertisements. The amount spent on advertisements of other kinds is not known to me, but it would probably also run into millions. In 1950 the total amount spent on Press advertisements was barely R6 million, which means an increase of R19 million in the past 15 years. That indicates that a fantastic development is taking place in the advertising industry in South Africa, an advertising industry which compares very well with the best in the world and which is undoubtedly the best in liberated Africa. It provides evidence of the fact that commerce is enjoying a heaven on earth in our country. This R25 million, which was spent on Press advertisements in 1965, was not handed over to those newspapers and periodicals from sheer charity. It is only a pity that a mere 8.5 per cent of that went to Afrikaans dailies, in contrast to the 43 per cent which went to English dailies. Incidentally, the Government is probably not to blame for that either. People who advertise know who holds the purse-strings in this country. They know that it is the wife, the one who acts impulsively because of her loving nature, the one who thinks progressively—and I do not mean this in the leftist sense of the word. These advertisers try to offer any article they have to promote in such a way that it will catch the feminine eye first of all, and they succeed in doing so. What mother will miss the picture of a pretty baby in a newspaper? That is why one sees a little boy and a little girl behind a steaming cup of tea, with the following caption: “One can go steady with a fellah who can make a good cup of tea.” They believe in an early start, because commerce is waiting for the population explosion which is bound to come. Once the cup of tea is left behind, the little boy is barely at school before the newspaper advertisements entice him to buy a motor-car. Now that the 70 miles per hour limit has been imposed, they may no longer entice him with a strong engine which can take the curves at a high speed. Oh no, true to type, the blonde is now sitting on the engine cowl and saying invitingly: “Get yourself behind the wheel.” It is not very long before that boy finds himself in the throes of buying that motor-car, and has to pay R40 to R60 a month in instalments which he can hardly afford, and then he becomes another potential victim to United Party inflation propaganda. Needs which consumers did not feel in the past are created deliberately and are stimulated continually. If there is no market for something, the market is created. A certain make of fertilizer proposes to make one’s lawn so beautifully green that one’s neighbours will become green with envy. That motor-car, that tractor, that furniture, that polisher, that refrigerator, soon become obsolete, and in their advertisements they put that very pertinently to the ladies who are their most avid readers. They put it to her that she needs more spare time because it is the birthright of the family to be able to relax in her company, and for that reason she must get rid of her old things and buy new ones. They are influenced in a subtle way. And that’s the way it goes. Fear of old age is exploited to the utmost. She need no longer feel bad about it, because there are dozens of pills that will help, and apparently such a pill is now the solution. It is a pill “to fight off fatigue and to build up body resistence”. Its miracle formula is as follows: More Vitamin A than in nine pints of milk, more iron than in two heads of lettuce, more Vitamin D than in 12 eggs, more Vitamin Bl than in a pound of pork cutlets, more calcium than in two cups of green peas, more Vitamin C than in 3¼ ounce of fresh orange juice. Mr. Speaker, this advertisement is only one of many to which thousands of housewives are exposed every day and which encourage them to open their purses and to buy and buy again, and to buy much more than their husbands’ salaries allow. This has a gradual influence on their way of life. It changes their purchasing pattern, always with the object, on the part of commerce, to obtain the greatest possible advantage for itself. It is the lifeblood of commerce, and we can most certainly not blame commerce for showing such initiative. Nor is commerce to blame if the consumers buy beyond their means from time to time and get in the way of those rising prices. For this is a free country where everyone can incur debts as he pleases, as much as he pleases and where he pleases. Or would the Opposition prohibit the consumer from buying as much as he likes, or would it prohibit the advertisers from advertising as much as they like? If by means of this motion the Opposition had called on the consumers to commence building up a broad consumers’ front, had encouraged the consumers to set standards for quality, had encouraged the consumers to bring about reductions in their cost of living by means of co-operative cash purchases, if they had pointed out that in co-operation with manufacturers more and more attention should be given to practical and lasting value rather than to chromium and repair bills, if purchase guidance for the consumers public were called for in order to protect them from exploitation, I as a consumer would have heard a positive note from the hon. Opposition in this debate. But I fear that if the Opposition is seeking to blame the Government alone for this rising cost of living, it is barking up the wrong tree altogether.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria (District) complains that inflation is due to the fact that foolish housewives are swayed by the encouraging advertisements they read in the newspapers. I do not intend to deal with that part of his speech as I am quite sure that his own wife will deal with him effectively.

I propose therefore to return to the main theme of the debate which so far has largely been devoted to a more serious consideration of the difficulties South Africa is encountering as a result of increased inflation, the situation on the gold mines and eventually I want to touch on a subject which so far has not been raised in this debate, perhaps largely because of this new bi-partisan policy which exists between the Government and the official Opposition, namely foreign affairs. I want to say that of course, the main reason for the inflation, which has been dealt with by one or two speakers on the Opposition side and to which has not been satisfactorily replied to by members on the Government side, is the need for increased productivity. Nor has the fact that the major cause of inflation in this country is our policy of non-utilization of non-White labour to its fullest extent been dealt with. The hon. the Prime Minister told us that he has his Economic Advisory Commission which naturally consists of the experts in every field and that these people have made recommendations to him. But I wish to point out that this panel of experts is hamstrung by the Government’s racial policy. They can only make recommendations to the hon. the Prime Minister within the limits of that policy. Thus in seeking the solution to our manpower problem, the major problem, they are unable to offer a single recommendation in depth. They cannot suggest that the Government abandons its existing policy of restricting the utilization of labour and that we fill these unfilled White jobs—White with inverted commas—by training African and Coloured workers to do semiskilled and skilled work. I might say that the whole question of labour utilization is closely allied to the difficulties of the gold-mining industry which we are all agreed is still the flywheel of the economy of South Africa. I should like to say that I am in full agreement with the statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and using an expression he used, namely that the chickens are coming home to roost. I agree that many of the difficulties complained of by the hon. Minister of Mines this afternoon about the difficulties encountered in the White Mineworkers’ Union as a result of the experiment which had to be abandoned, are a result of propaganda made over the years by Government members stumping from platform to platform impressing upon the minds of the White workers that their entire livelihood will be at stake if non-White workers were taken on in jobs reserved for White workers on the mines. Having said that, I want to say at once that I do not exonerate the official Opposition from blame in this regard as well because they, although they purport to be against job reservation, have never once said that they are prepared to repeal the Mines and Works Act. The Mines and Works Act passed way back in 1911, and amended several times since then, is the major job reservation Act on our Statute Book and if one is to have any changes in the whole structure of the labour force on the mines, then the first thing that will have to be done will be to repeal or radically amend the Mines and Works Act. I should like to say therefore that all of us are suffering the results of past propaganda amongst the White workers of South Africa and all of us are going to feel the effects of this in the future when necessary changes have to be introduced. We are going to find ourselves confronted by White workers who are in fear of their future livelihood because of this ridiculous idea which has been inculcated into their minds that the increased use of Africans and non-White workers generally in new fields of labour must inevitably mean the loss of their own livelihood. In fact, we would have the contrary effect, that is an expanding local market and an increase in the demand for services and labour and goods of all kinds which in turn can only redound to the advantage of everybody in this country. What we should all of course be saying loudly and clearly is that there is urgently required in South Africa a re-examination of the classification of jobs, not only in the mining industry, but in all the so-called craft occupations in South Africa, so that some of the jobs which are classified as skilled can be reclassified into what they really are, that is classified as semi-skilled jobs, as they are so considered to be in most other industrial countries in the world. This would immediately enable us to train non-Whites to step into those jobs which I might say in any case we do not have the White workers to fill at the present stage. This is the only way, as I see it, that we can really overcome the danger of inflation. This is one of the main ways. The other way is of course to tackle major Government expenditure and this has been touched on by some members of the Opposition.

I refer now to one aspect and that is the huge increase in expenditure for defence. We are to-day spending something like 20 per cent of our total Budget on defence. One wants to know: defence against whom? I do not think that even the most ardent anti-communist in this House, including my hon. neighbour, Sir, will suggest that we are in imminent danger of attack by either Red Chinese communists or by Russia. I am sure that nobody in this House seriously believes that we are about to be attacked by the African states to the north. Therefore, Sir, we have reached the ironical situation that it would appear that what we are really arming ourselves against are our own Western allies, the rest of the Western world. I agree that it is necessary that as part of the Western complex, South Africa should maintain an adequate defence force, but I think that for this country in its present stage, its not fully developed stage, to be spending 20 per cent of its Budget on defence, is not only unproductive but is one of the major causes of the present inflationary tendency. Other countries are developed industrially. I am talking of South Africa which, although it is becoming highly industrialized, is not yet fully developed. It is not necessary for us, providing that we adapt our relationship to the outside world, which I believe can be done a lot more easily than hon. members believe, and could certainly be done without handing South Africa over to the Black people of this country, to devote this enormous percentage of our total Budget to defence expenditure.

Now this brings me to the as yet untouched subject in this debate. I am referring to South Africa’s relationship to the outside world, namely foreign affairs in general. Like every other politically conscious person in South Africa I have followed with the greatest of interest the recent meetings that took place between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Lesotho. There is no doubt, I hope, that this meeting has set the pattern for further meetings of this kind. I believe that this is all for the good. I believe that every time an important dignitary, a personage of importance from South Africa, representing particularly the Government of South Africa, meets with a non-White person or meets with a Black counterpart from some other country on the continent of Africa, in a spirit of man-to-man exchange and not in a spirit of master-servant relationship, which is so traditional amongst White South Africans in their dealings with their fellow citizens who are Black, every time such a meeting takes place on a higher level of a man-to-man exchange, some good has been done for race relations and human relations on the continent of Africa. I believe that it is very important at this particular stage that we develop those better human relations with our African neighbours as fast as possible. I said last year that I thought it very important that South Africa assume her role of continental responsibility, that she become the power house of Africa and that she become the industrial workshop of the rest of the continent, and I feel even more strongly about this matter now. I feel more strongly now for various reasons. Firstly I think it is very important for this country to look for alternative trading avenues, and particularly now, because of the greatly increased possibility of the entry of Great Britain into the European Common Market. Without any doubt Britain, who takes 30 per cent of our exports, is of great importance to this country. We are always stressing our importance to Great Britain as a trading partner, but may I stress that Britain is equally as important to this country in so far as she takes some 30 per cent of our exports, excluding gold. Therefore, with Britain entering the European Common Market, it is increasingly important for us to seek possible markets elsewhere because it is likely that we are not in future going to enjoy the Commonwealth preferences which we previously enjoyed. This is one reason why we must look to Africa to be our major market of the future. Therefore it is very important indeed that we establish proper relationships with the other states on the African continent. I believe that the opportunities will open up if we are only sensible in our own attitude and in our own racial policies in this country, because there are changes taking place on the continent of Africa. The old African nationalist leaders of the new independent territories are gradually being replaced by the much more worldly leaders who have come to take over the reins of power in these territories over the last year.

Dictators.

No, Sir, some of them have replaced the dictators. There have been military coups, it is true, in many cases in order to overcome the dictators. [Interjection.] Nkrumah has gone. The hon. member has apparently not been following his political history.

Why did they get rid of him?

Simply because he was an extremist… [Interjections.]

Order!

The point I am making is that we are finding in Africa a more realistic type of leader taking over the reins of power from the extremists who first assumed power when the African states achieved their independence. They are beginning to realize that political independence is one thing, but economic independence is another and that the one without the other has no meaning. Indeed, unless there is economic independence, as well as political independence, there can never be stability. This is the important discovery that they are making. It is important for South Africa which, I believe, is more and more going to have to look to the rest of Africa as its major trade outlet. I believe therefore that it is essential for us to exchange diplomatic envoys with the other African states. I believe our Prime Minister should not only receive visitors from the African states on our soil, but equally he ought to travel through Africa and meet other African leaders. He ought also to travel to the Western countries and the United States and do all he can to build bridges and not to isolate us. I think it is very important that this new era, this new phase, should be opened up soon and that South Africa should take advantage of this situation. I believe that we should be assisting the independent African states to become not beholden to us but to become economically viable. It is to our great advantage that we have prosperous neighbours in Africa. It is not to our advantage to have poverty-stricken neighbours who are constantly in a state of instability and upheaval. Therefore I hope that we take advantage of this new era. It is going to be necessary for us to open up our relationship with other countries because particularly now we are in a potentially dangerous situation.

I say this because there have been two potentially dangerous situations which have arisen recently. The first is of course the South West African issue. Last year there was jubilation in South Africa over the World Court decision. I warned at the time that this would simply mean that the issue had been taken out of the judicial field and had been put squarely back into the political arena. This is of course what has happened. The South West African issue has come out of the judicial field and it is now firmly in the political field. There is no doubt that as long as we maintain our inflexible racial policy in this country and as long as we translate those policies across the borders into South West Africa, we are going to continue to face the hostility of the outside world. The resolution recently adopted at the United Nations by the General Assembly by 114 to two with three abstentions and two absentees demonstrates that this is unfortunately the case. I should like to say at once that I do not support that resolution. I do not believe that it is necessarily legal. I think therefore that it is irresponsible, and I also think it is impracticable. I do not for a moment believe that the 14-nation committee is going to find any modus operandi for translating this resolution into actual action. Whether the resolution is legal or whether it is advisable or whether it is even authoritative is not the issue. The fact is that this resolution has been passed and we have to deal with that fact. I think that we should realize that this type of resolution epitomizes the great hostility that South Africa is experiencing and with which she is regarded by practically every other single nation represented at the United Nations. I am not going into the old reasons. All of us in this House know them.

They are, briefly, because the world is simply not prepared to accept that race discrimination is the basis of policy. They are prepared to accept that there are differences. They are prepared to accept that people cannot all be living at the same high standards. But what they cannot accept is the legislative entrenchment of discrimination on a racial basis. The hon. member behind me mentioned that Mr. Weaver, the first Negro member of the United States Cabinet, had stated that the Federal Government had not yet found a solution to the urban problem. Of course he is quite right—that statement was made. But I can tell the hon. member that America is making every effort to solve the urban problem, and not on the lines of segregation and discrimination. She is attempting as fast as possible to remove the results of years of segregation, of decades of deprivation which have been suffered by the American Negro in the United States. The Federal Government is the first to admit that it is not moving far enough or fast enough. But make no mistake about it, Sir, the American credo to-day is the removal of race discrimination.

And what is the South African credo?

The South African credo is the entrenchment of race discrimination.

We are trying to do away with all that without having discrimination.

Well, the hon. member of course is putting all his hopes in Bantustans. He is hoping he is going to be able to prevail on the world that this is an ethical basis for our policy of discrimination, and that it is an ethical quid pro quo for the deprivation of rights in White South Africa. Nobody is deceived by that. One has only to look at the existing situation to realize that this is no quid pro quo at all. Because, despite all the hon. the Deputy Minister’s efforts to remove people from the White areas, our labour requirements and the poverty factor in the reserves are the economic factors which overcome political ideology. Even though there is a turnover in the number of individuals who are actually in the cities, nevertheless the overall number of people in the White areas will remain, and increase. It certainly will not decrease. It cannot decrease if South Africa is to progress. And this is the essential conflict between good economics and bad politics, and it is something that we have suffered from all these years. Therefore, as I say, our policy is considered overseas as a legal entrenchment of race discrimination and that is why we suffer the hostility outside world. [Interjections.]

I say that the South West Africa crisis need never have arisen—in the first place, if we had not attempted to and, in fact, have already proceeded to transport our apartheid policy across the borders. Naturally, this is not acceptable to the outside world. I say, too, that I believe we should have rendered reports to the UN. I do not believe that we gain anything by not rendering reports. We cannot on the one hand say that we maintain that our mandatory rights to South West Africa exist, and on the other hand say that there is no world authority to whom we have to render any reports at all. Surely we should be prepared to render reports. We are spending a lot of money there. I saw only the other day in S.A. Digest that there is a R16 million programme on the go in South West Africa. That is fine, but let us tell people about it and let them come and see for themselves. That is the sort of thing that we ought to do. [Interjections.] I always accept invitations from that hon. member, Sir, because he is such an hon. member.

The other thing is that we deceive ourselves if we think that economic expenditure in South West Africa, no matter of what magnitude, will obviate the complaint that the inhabitants of that territory, the non-White inhabitants, have no say in the government of the country. That is something which I am afraid we have simply got to accept.

Now, the second matter pertaining to foreign affairs which I want to deal with is the question of Rhodesia. Again I do not believe that South Africa should in any way invite further hostility from the outside world on the Rhodesian issue. The position has changed considerably since last year when voluntary sanctions were introduced, after UDI. My own opinion then was that it was not in our interests to help the Smith régime and, indeed, that in the long run we would be doing Rhodesia a disservice by prolonging the Smith régime. And I have not changed my mind. [Interjections.] If hon. members would stop being so emotional about this Smith issue and would not just think of him as the bulwark against Black Africa, and would consider the matter in its practical implications, they would realize that surely a settlement between Rhodesia and Great Britain was far preferable to having the whole matter referred to the UN. A settlement embracing the six principles laid down by Britain, with independence—as was offered at that time, and which Rhodesia would very well have had to accept had she not been relying on assistance from outside—would have been much better for Rhodesia than the present situation, which is now being handled at UN. Now there is NIBMAR—that is “no independence before majority rule”, something that was never demanded by the Wilson Government when the negotiations first started.

Therefore, I say that helping to keep the Smith régime going over the last 15 months has not in fact helped Rhodesia in the last resort. UDI has not proved the “nine-days’ wonder” that Mr. Smith and his government hoped it would prove. And those who believe that Mr. Smith has got away with UDI have not counted the cost to Rhodesia in growing unemployment, in the stultification of economic activity there, and in White emigration which is taking place from that territory.

Do you remember the words, “In weeks rather than months”?

Yes. I also agree that Mr. Wilson was wrong when he said that it would take weeks rather than months—certainly he was wrong. But Rhodesia has not got off scot-free, and we should remember that. The basic problem—and this is the real thing that we should remember—remains exactly what it was, and that problem is how to reconcile the legitimate claims of the White minority in Rhodesia with the legitimate claims of the Black majority in Rhodesia, and still maintain economic viability and the development of that territory. That, Sir, is the basic problem. [Interjections.] That is exactly what I say. It is their problem, and we should keep out of it. [Interjections.] I say that our assistance, however unofficial it was, has been the major factor in keeping that régime drifting along to the ultimate detriment of Rhodesia, I believe, because now look what they are confronted with. They are now confronted with the U.N., and whether South Africa helps or not, they are going to face tremendous difficulties now. I believe that our efforts should not be bent on buttressing the Rhodesian government’s present intransigent attitude. [Interjections.]

But we are playing no part.

The hon. the Minister of Sport says that we are playing no part. Will he explain to me the propaganda that came over Radio South Africa, the official Government medium of propaganda, in “Current Affairs”, which is the mouthpiece of the Government, day after day, week after week, month after month, right through that crisis? It gave the people of Rhodesia false hope, and it extended this whole situation, something which, I believe, has in the last resort been not of benefit to Rhodesia and Rhodesia’s people.

If the object was to show everybody that sanctions cannot work. I think the object was achieved. I do not think that anybody overseas is under any illusions about sanctions. They do not for a moment think that sanctions are easy to impose; everybody realizes that. Therefore, I do not think that we should in any way jeopardize our own relationships with the outside world by helping an unrecognized government, a government which we have not even recognized.

What do you mean by “helping”?

I mean exactly what I say, by giving the impression, by our propaganda, by allowing what we purport to be normal trade, to continue at an ever-increasing volume, thereby giving false hope that this situation can be perpetuated indefinitely.

I might say that I do not think that the rôle played by the official Opposition has been above criticism either in this regard. This thumping of drums, all this racial drum-beating never in the long run does any good in a multi-racial country. The attempt to gain advantage over the election period was something which I personally deplore very much indeed. [Interjection.] I will tell the hon. member something, namely that this is another example of everybody being hoist with their own petard again.

You are always the only one who is right.

On many occasions, Sir, I think there is very little doubt that I am the only one who is right. I have no doubt about that. When I say “I”, I should say “I— and the rest of the world”. That is not too bad, it is not too bad a majority to have.

The rest of the world?

Yes, the rest of the world. In fact I am considered really rather conservative by the rest of the world; that is the amusing thing; here I am considered what the hon. members calls a sickly liberalist, a sickly humanist, and I find that in the outside world I am considered to be a very moderate, a very conservative person.

I suppose next you will say that Kennedy is a conservative.

Well, he is a very moderate person too. This is another example of being hoist by one’s own petard. I mentioned the gold mines as one example and said that everybody here who tries to gain some political advantage goes round drumming up this business about the use of White labour. If the Minister of Transport takes on more non-Whites in the Railway service then, of course, there is a big song and dance on this side of the House about the displacement of White workers. We cannot go ahead with good experiments on the gold mines because the interests of the White workers are at stake. Equally so in the case of the Rhodesian issue, with the Government on one side and with Radio South Africa bleating away night after night in that perfectly awful voice of the gentleman who does Current Affairs, and with the official Opposition drumming this Rhodesian business up for their own propaganda purposes, we are again being hoist with our own petard because public opinion in South Africa gets roused to such a pitch that it is very difficult for South Africa to take the right line in extricating herself from this whole difficult international problem.

Why do you listen to him if his voice is so awful?

Well, I have to listen because I believe that I must know what the other side says.

I want to say finally that my experience overseas leads me to believe that our Western friends are eagerly hoping that South Africa will show some flexibility, particularly with regard to her racial policies. It will make their own task of opposing the immoderate demands of the Afro-asian and communist countries so much easier. I believe that we shall have to do something like this because we should remember that on the Security Council the revolving members have now been replaced by other members, and these are not people who are going to be particularly disposed towards South Africa. Although I know that the Government is inflexibly determined to continue with apartheid, I can only say that some modus must be worked out by this Government so as not to exacerbate, as it does do in every possible direction, the present feelings of hostility of the outside world.

I listened attentively to the hon. member for Houghton. It struck me that the hon. member, who is the only representative of her Party in this House, had the courage, which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition lacked, to discuss major, important international matters; that she was prepared to get up here and to put the policy and the point of view of her Party. Against that I must immediately contrast the behaviour of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who carefully avoided referring to anything about which his Party is divided; because within the ranks of the United Party there is at this stage marked disagreement about major, contentious matters. [Laughter.] This is not the first time one sees people who are getting nervous trying to disguise their nervousness by laughing. I say that the hon. member for Houghton had the courage to state her point of view. Perhaps there is this difference between her and the Leader of the Opposition, namely that there is no-one in her Party who can kick her out if she oversteps the mark whereas the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in fact afraid of that because previous Leaders of the United Party have had to make way.

Mr. Speaker, in this debate we have seen the Opposition in its naked form. It no longer even has a fig leaf for protection. But, what is more, is that the Opposition is weak. I go further and say that the Opposition has a weak Leader.

You are a “papbroek”.

Order! What did the hon. member for Wynberg say?

I said the hon. member is a “papbroek”.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by that?

I mean precisely what the word means in English and that is that he is a coward.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

On a point of order, may I point out that last session it was ruled…

Order! I asked the hon. member what she meant and she herself stated what she meant by the word. The hon. member may proceed.

Just think of it, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moves a motion of no-confidence in the Government at this juncture. At the beginning of last session, four months after the election, he moved a motion of censure; in the first session last year he moved a motion of no-confidence in the Government, and once again this year the same hon. Leader of the Opposition moved a motion of no-confidence—two motions of no-confidence and one motion of sensure within one year! This is the first time I have ever come across something like that. It is the action of a Party, Mr. Speaker, which has gone bankrupt politically, a party without a leader. These motions of no-confidence and censure are symptoms of bankruptcy. Why has the Opposition acted negatively throughout this debate? Whilst listening to the Leader of the Opposition I noticed how he looked at his watch every now and then and I gained the impression that he was merely waiting for an hour to expire so that it would be possible for the newspapers to report that the Leader of the Opposition had spoken for one hour. He found it extremely difficult to speak for one hour. During that time he remained negative. There was nothing in his speech which one would have expected from a leader who had to defend the policy for which he stood. We did not hear a single word about the United Party’s policy. It surprises me that the hon. the Prime Minister did not reply to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said within a matter of five minutes.

He spoke much longer.

He only spoke longer as a matter of courtesy. Mr. Speaker, the answer is to be found in the fact that the United Party has nothing to offer to the Republic of South Africa and its people—absolutely nothing. Here we have a Party thinking it may be put into power in the future and what do we find in this debate? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved a motion of no-confidence and not a single member of the Opposition stated the Party’s policy. They state no policy; they simply act negatively. I say that it is to the detriment of the Republic of South Africa that we are saddled with such an Opposition. Three motions, two of no-confidence and one of censure, within a matter of one year whereas the nation of South Africa has expressed the greatest loyalty in a Party which has ever been expressed in this country, and just think, Sir, the Leader of the Opposition has come along immediately afterwards and once again moved this motion. Now, the question will arise… [Interjection.] The hon. member for Durban (Point) is telling me that I do not know what Parliamentary procedure is if I speak about too many motions of no-confidence. However, I want to tell the hon. member that this Party has also been in opposition. The National Party was in opposition for quite a number of years and I recall that Dr. Malan moved motions of no-confidence on three occasions, namely in 1935, in 1941 and in 1946. The other years he presented specific points of policy and told South Africa, “The National Party offers the following to the country”.

That is what we did when this Party was in opposition. That was positive action. But since 26th May, 1948, the United Party has been entering a political desert and has been losing itself in that desert. It has become frustrated. That is why one has to expect the United Party to be politically ineffective and unable to think and act positively. That is also the reason why even their Leader is in the same rut. This is confirmed by the fact that the Opposition has moved a motion of no-confidence in the Government whereas the nation has expressed the fullest confidence in the Government. According to Die Beeld of 22nd January, 1967, a certain Mr. Marais Steyn allegedly said (translation), “During this session the United Party will endeavour in particular to gain the sympathy of the small man by fighting for his interests”. It is very clear that the United Party now only has one purpose in mind, namely to try and catch political votes cheaply. That is the only thing in which it is interested. It is not interested in offering something to South Africa. It only has one purpose in mind, namely to try and catch votes in the easiest way. For that reason it is posing as the party which is doing so much for the small man.

Let me remind the United Party that it is the National Party which has given the small man a decent livelihood throughout all these years. Yes, it is this Party that found the small man in the slum areas in 1948 and that ensures those people a decent livelihood at present. For that reason the United Party should not think that it will be able to create the impression that it is the Party which can do something for the small man. It cannot do so because history is against it. I recall that during the election some one said at Ladysmith that she had voted for the United Party all her life but that she was then going to vote for the National Party because her husband was employed on the Railways and it was possible for her under the present Government to look any lady full in the face and to be on an equal footing with her, something for which she was indebted to the National Party government. Now the United Party should not come along with this type of story. What was the fate of the small man under the United Party government? He was not taken into consideration. He was neglected and trampled under foot by the United Party. Those are the people that Party is now trying to compensate. However, we say to the United Party that the deeds of the National Party is as plain as a pikestaff and what the National Party has done for the small man cannot be obliterated because it is still doing things for the small man and will continue to do so in furture.

One can understand why the nation of South Africa expressed unshakeable confidence in the National Party government on 30th March, 1966, because this Party does not only think of certain sectors but plans systematically for every population group in South Africa. I want to mention here that this Party stands for the Whites in South Africa; it stands for the interests of the Coloureds, the Indians, the Chinese and the Bantu. The hon. member for Wynberg should not speak about the relationship between Afrikaans-speaking persons and English-speaking persons, because I want to tell her that I come from Natal where the United Party is in power. In Natal the Afrikaans-speaking section has always had to fight step by step for every right it had to get—it had to fight not for privileges but for every right. I challenge her to mention a single case to me where the National Party government has discriminated against an English-speaking person of South Africa. But let her also challenge me about the actions of the United Party in Natal. I shall accept such a challenge gladly because in Natal the United Party has a multitude of sins because of the way it discriminated against the Afrikaans-speaking people. [Interjections.]

One would have expected that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would not have confined himself only to the gold mines and to the farmers, to whom he briefly referred only in order to be able to say that he had referred to them. One would have expected him to discuss here questions of more cardinal importance than merely inflation. The question arises why he did not do so. I maintain that the reason is that he is afraid of discard within the ranks of his own Party. That is the reason why the United Party cannot take action and cannot make statements because it is afraid of that discord. The United Party members know what happened in their caucus when they discussed the strategy for this debate. [Laughter.] Let me put it clearly. Last year during the election the Leader of the Opposition blossomed forth as the person who wanted to do more for Rhodesia than the Prime Minister of South Africa and the Government. Now I challenge him to tell me that he has ever said one word about that again since 30th March, since the election. No, he has never again said a word about that, which proves what I said at the beginning, namely that the United Party is merely canvassing votes. He put that case from platform to platform throughout the Republic but concluded the matter on polling day and never again said a word about it. Even the hon. member for Orange Grove did not gossip about it again. I say that the ranks of the hon. the Opposition are divided on this cardinal question. Now, in conclusion, I want to quote a small passage to hon. members to prove to them that hon. members of the Opposition are not of the same mind. Last year during the election an hon. member, Mr. Warwick Webber, at that time the United Party candidate for Pietermaritzburg (District) said the following:

While this hon. member was engaged in trying to catch the votes of the Party of the hon. member for Houghton he was also saying that a day would come when the Bantu would sit in the House of Assembly of South Africa. That would not happen to-day but perhaps later—that dummy which the United Party is holding out to catch persons with liberal leanings. I say that this hon. Opposition should sit down between four walls and should work out the policy which they have for South Africa. However, I am afraid we shall have a long wait, because as we know them they change their policy from time to time. Whilst they will be in that process this Government will be continuing to serve South Africa and its people. This Government is continuing to act in the interests of all people in South Africa and we are doing so in spite of the negative cries of the hon. members of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and who talked about the policy of his party, which to him seems so definite, that I propose this evening to deal with one or two matters whereby I hope to show, that not only is the policy not definite but the Nationalist Party has changed its tune and its course considerably, and will continue to do so, becaue it cannot get any further along the road that it has been following by this policy of separate development. Let us look a few facts in the face. Money at the present moment is the major key to the debate, and I have heard it said by various speakers on that side of the House, that everybody is well off, and that there is no unemployment, and that wages are high. I should like to point out to hon. members on that side of the House, that 12 million Bantu do not enjoy high wages and neither do 1½ million Coloureds in relation to their White colleagues. The cost of everything that they purchase is exactly the same as the White man pays in any shop, in any place. I think that it is time that Government members stopped kidding themselves, and stopped kidding the public, because when the United Party applies its thoughts to the problems of the day, we have the kind of speech which we have had to listen to a moment ago. That is a speech from the hon. gentleman sitting beside me, he who has excluded Coloured people from all beaches in the Peninsula and the whole Western Province area. These are people who are in the majority in the Western Province to the order of approximately 600,000 to 400,000 Whites. But they have no place here, because of this hon. gentleman from Natal. The fact remains, that 600,000 Coloured people are going to be pushed around here in the Western Province, in terms of Nationalist Party policy. I heard some time ago that there was going to be a fishing village established for Coloured people on this coast, but nothing has happened, because all that we have had has been a lot of separation and no development. We have the Coloured people and the Bantu as well as Indians, thrown out of suburbs, and other places where they have lived for years, and no provision is made for any development for them. On the contrary, we find White traders, many of them Government supporters, setting themselves up in business right on the borders of these Coloured and black areas and reaping the full benefit of whatever business is going there. They trade with these people wherever they can, and I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that bottle store licences are in great demand. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Department of Coloured Affairs and I should like to tell the Nationalist Party that we are heading for disaster, if that is the type of separate development, which the Coloured man can expect. The Coloured man is chased out of every White area and he is expected to trade in those small areas set aside for him—with people of sub-economic standards according to the houses they occupy. Then on the main road, right on the perimeter of these areas, bottle stores get licences and supermarkets open their doors, in direct competition with the small Coloured trader. We call that separate development. I have a case in mind where an hotel situated at least a mile from an area which was never a business area and which at present has a Native bus stop close by, has a White off-sales licence—a White bottle-store licence at a Bantu bus stop. In terms of the law, although there were objections from the local authority, the licence was granted. I was told only last week that there is nothing to stop that happening. On the boundaries of a Coloured area in Oudtshoom a business is being set up and there is no other business there at the moment. At Paarl prominent people who are associated with hon. members on that side of the House, are in business with bottle stores and liquor-selling lounges on the road to the Coloured township and there are no shopping facilities for the Coloured people in those townships. While the Government talks for outside consumption, about separate development, no development takes place. I shall deal at the appropriate stage on the Vote, in detail with what I have said just now. Now we come to the situation—and I see that the hon. Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration and Development is not in his seat—referred to by the hon. member for Wynberg which is at present arising at Barkly West. The feeling of the White digger in Barkly West, and of the Coloured man as well is, that it is the Government’s intention to put them out of business. Why has this come about? People who have lived on those diggings, both Coloured and Bantu, for many years, are now faced with the problem that Bantu labour has been removed lock, stock and barrel by Government trucks to a place 90 miles away, namely the reserve at Taungs. These men are going to have to work as single men, away from their wives and families. As recently as Monday these men told me that they had borrowed 50c from their employers for their wives and families in the reserve and I asked them what it was like there. They said: “Baas, dis mooi, maar daar is geen pap nie.” Mr. Speaker, it will cost those men R1.60 per trip to visit the reserve 90 miles away to see their wives and families. In addition, these small diggers are expected to provide accommodation to an approved standard at their own expense on their claims and to be responsible for these men. In terms of Government Notice 1892 that is what the law says. But the Department of Bantu Administration is so ashamed of itself in this regard that I was told by a responsible official on Monday that the instructions are, not to apply it too harshly. If it is not going to be applied too harshly, why apply it at all? Because it is a bad law. It is a wicked thing. I am going to ask this Government very plainly whether they approve of adult men living together in compounds with nothing to do in their free time except amuse themselves with each other. Do they advocate unnatural behaviour between men? That is what we are going to do with these people because the astonishing thing about this removal is, that in any one labour force, 3 per cent of that labour force of any one employer may be married men with their wives on the spot. Where they got the 3 per cent from, heaven only knows. I ask: Why not 3½? Why not 5 per cent or any other percentage? I say, Sir, that the Government has failed. I say that this apartheid myth that we have been listening to for 20 years is impossible in its application, and they know it. Not only do they know it, but they have been told so by leading Bantu affairs officials in local authorities at a conference called by the Government last year.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if this House knows that the intention of the Government is to establish Bantu urban authorities inside proclaimed Bantu villages in the urban areas of the so-called White South Africa. In all these White cities there is a preponderance of Bantu, considerably greater than it was 12 months ago. In the Western Province there is an increase of 20 per cent. Already there are three such authorities in existence. The White officials— I am sorry the hon. member for Houghton is not here—have been told by departmental heads that they must expect to be eliminated and that the Bantu Urban Council will employ Bantu. And, that is inside a White area, a declared and proclaimed local authorities area. This is what is happening at the present moment in this country of ours.

The Government protests that there will be development in the reserves. I want to ask them whether or not the establishment of Bantu authorities, autonomous authorities, inside urban areas is their policy. I want to ask them whether or not, these are going to be extended and exactly what powers are going to be conferred upon them. All these Black areas are inside White areas. We here talk about White South Africa. There is no such thing. Every town and city in the Republic has more Black and Brown people in its population than White. I am glad to see that the hon. the Prime Minister is back. I think it is time that he should abandon the stupidity of this policy of so-called separate development because there is no such thing as separate development.

Is that why you want to bring the Bantu to Parliament?

I shall not discuss that point at this moment. We shall have an opportunity of doing so at the proper time. I should like to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that Bantu authorities and urban authorities in the Bantu villages and the municipalities have provided facilities of various kinds for the benefit of the inhabitants of these townships. The money has been taken only from the rent of plots, from the sale of Kaffir beer locally and from the sale of hard liquor.

The hon. the Prime Minister was not in his seat earlier on, but I should just like to tell him that a bottle store on the border of a Brown and Black area belonging to a White hotel a mile away, designed exclusively to trade only with Bantu, does not have its profits taken away for the benefit of some distant Bantustan or Bantu area. Not only does the Bantu authority have the power to appoint its own officials and eventually to fire the White officials in the Bantu administrative local authorities, but they are also going to have their own town guards—a short of civic guard. I should like to ask: Is this in addition to the South African Police, who are doing a good job? Is this in addition to the municipal police? Are we now going to have a third police force in every proclaimed area controlled by this Bantu authority in a White area in White South Africa? These are the questions we should like to have answered. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that the law provides that 80 per cent of the profits from the sale of hard liquor is not spent in the local authority where it is so urgently needed. It is spent in some distant part. Municipalities are being criticized by officials of the Bantu Affairs Department because they are providing facilities like swimming baths, crèches, clinics, sports stadiums, etc., all of which compete with the homelands which, according to officialdom, cannot provide the same facilities.

Everything that a municipality has ever done has required the consent of the Minister, whoever he may have been at the time. Everyone of these facilities has had to be authorized by the Minister of Bantu Administration. Now, when they are in existence, and when Bantu are unwilling to move, Government officials state that municipalities are encouraging the Bantu to remain in the White areas. I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister how he proposes to move these thousands of Bantu, who work in all these urban areas and are gainfully employed. In the northern portion of the Cape Province we have the situation where the Tswana does not take easily to heavy work. Employers like to have Zulu, Xhosa and Basuto working for them. A problem now arises because these people, being as they are, individuals, are not interested in heavy pick and shovel work. So what is the attitude of the authorities? Employers must get together and share the labour. But now the question is asked: Who is responsible for the compilation of his book? Who is responsible for the deduction of his taxes? Who is really the man to handle this? If this labour force is working for five or six employers at the same time, who is going to decide who goes where? And officials throw up their hands and say that there is no answer. Yet the Government, led by the Prime Minister himself, persists in stating that this thing is working. We have to-day, in 1967, far more Bantu in the urban areas than we have ever had before. Business and industry depend upon them. They are with us. The only thing that the Government people can suggest or think of, is, that the Bantu for all time has to be “Trekarbeid”, itinerant and migrant labour. If that is our mission in life, then I should like the hon. the Prime Minister to say so.

I now want to touch on a point in which he himself is personally involved, because I think that it requires an investigation. The whole country was very complimentary when he decided io sit down to a meal with Chief Jonathan. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he got a permit to do that from the Minister of Community Development? If he did, was there any qualification or restriction in the permit? I do not want to embarrass him. The point I want to make is this. We heard from the hon. member for Peninsula that White persons were prohibited from watching Basil D’Oliveira, the Coloured cricketer, play a little cricket on the Green Point common. I wonder if the Prime Minister knows—and I should like him to check on it, because this is my information—that the Western Province Cricket Board decided to invite D’Oliveira and a White man who had coached him as a boy, a man who had coached him and put him straight on cricket, a man whom D’Oliveira always said and admitted was the man who made him into the beginnings of the cricketer that he is to-day, to dinner. Naturally, being law-abiding citizens, as all Coloured people are, they applied to the Minister of Community Development for a permit to invite Mr. Tom Reddick to have dinner with Basil D’Oliveira and the Coloured community. He obtained the permit, but my information is— and I should like to check this—that there was a condition on the permit that he must not partake of the dinner. I asked the gentleman concerned this afternoon, and I had it confirmed again. If that is true, I think that the hon. the Prime Minister might look into it, because, Sir, it is not what we say on this side of the House that gives us the bad image outside, but it is what the Government does.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Karoo, who has just sat down, is, as far as I know, an enrolled member of the United Party, and as such he may be accepted as a speaker for the United Party. Now, he made a certain statement here to-day and I should like to know whether the United Party, the official Opposition, whole-heartedly endorse that statement. He appealed to the hon. the Prime Minister to abandon the policy of separate development. I want to make the statement that that should be seen in the light of the only other alternative; we either have a policy of separate development or we have a policy of integrated development, integrated development becoming more and more integrated. That is what we have had and what has progressively been developing in the direction of separate development. However, the hon. member for Karoo made a certain request and was enthusiastically supported by certain leftist front-benchers of the United Party, something which shows that they are really in favour of a policy of integrated development I should now like to learn from the United Party whether they endorse that statement. It is absolutely useless to say, as the hon. member for Yeoville has just said, that integrated development is the practice at present, because, Sir, we must face up to one thing: Either we have a policy which is developing in one direction or, as he has said, we have a policy which is moving in the direction of more and more integrated development. I should like to know which statement the United Party endorse, because that is basic to the entire approach to all the problems of South Africa.

The hon. member for Karoo referred cuttingly to the small businesses at present being conducted by the Coloureds. He should realize, however, that the positive, economic policy of development for the Coloureds has only been applied positively for a number of years. For many years the Coloureds have been a political football in the South African community. Previous governments have not taken a single step to uplift the Coloureds economically. No attempt has ever been made to encourage them to improve their education. It is this Government that has now taken the first steps to do something positive for uplifting the Coloureds as a community. Although we have not yet progressed far on that road, we are making progress and we are moving in the direction of positive development.

The hon. member for Karoo also said that that policy could not possibly be implemented. In other words, he was really endorsing his statement that, because separate development was impossible to implement, we should really give up and say that we accepted gradual or accelerated integration. And that a speaker who officially is a member of the United Party and spoke for the United Party in this House!

Speakers on the other side—also the hon. member for Wynberg—made certain statements. The hon. member for Wynberg, for instance, said that the National Party was violating the principles of democracy in that the National Party had 126 representatives in this House while it only drew 58 per cent of the total number of votes in the last election. She alleged that the United Party—or the Opposition, because she included all and sundry in the ranks of the Opposition and added the Progressive Party, the Van der Merwe jokes and the like to the ranks of the Opposition—drew 42 per cent of the votes and came to the conclusion that it was unfair that the National Party had 126 representatives as against the meagre 40 of the Opposition, including the Progressive Party member.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us be quite sure about one thing. It is indeed true that, considered on the basis of the total number of votes, the Opposition drew approximately 42 per cent of the votes. However, the Opposition should not for a single moment labour under the delusion that the United Party enjoys the positive support of 42 per cent of the electorate, because one thing is as plain as a pike-staff, namely that at least 90 per cent of the electorate who voted for the United Party or other anti-Government parties does not support the policy and actions and principles of the United Party. I ascertained that on the basis of an intensive home canvassing campaign conducted by me. That was a special point of inquiry when I visited more than 2,500 voters in their homes. Many of them, the majority of these voters, were persons who did not vote for the National Party because it was people like them I visited. It is a fact that those persons voted for the United Party because, seen in the light of the divided history of South Africa, they could not see their way clear to vote for the National Party even though they believed that the policy of the National Party was the right one. This is one basic fact which the United Party might as well get into its head, namely that it definitely does not have the support of 42 per cent of the electorate.

A motion of no-confidence has been moved in the Government. I simply want to quote a few comparative figures illustrating the present position in Natal. Natal is the province which has for the most part voted against the National Party Government since 1910. Now, one thing is very certain, and that is that the referendum in 1960 was basically not so much about the principle whether the electorate was in favour of or against a republican form of government, but was basically fought on a political basis and consequently I say that the figures of the referendum may more or less be accepted as the basis of the political division at that time, i.e. in 1960.

In Natal we had the position in 1960 that the anti-republicans of Natal drew 79 per cent of the total number of votes in Natal as against a meagre 21 per cent which the republicans drew. In March of last year we once again had an election in every constituency, including the constituency of Umlazi, where no voting did in fact take place. However, on the basis of data it is possible to make a reasonable estimate. If I now make a very conservative estimate that the hon. member for Umlazi would perhaps have gained the seat, although it is to be doubted… [Interjections.] Very well, let me make a conservative estimate in favour of the Opposition by saying that it possibly could have happened. If we then analyse the total number of votes cast in Natal the National Party drew 42 per cent of the total number of votes in Natal as against only 21 per cent 5½ years earlier. Consequently, the United Party only drew a meagre 58 per cent.

The hon. member for South Coast will also be out one of these days.

In the Durban complex, the heart-land of the United Party, the total increase in the number of votes of the National Party is 102 per cent in 5½ years. And now we have to hear that the Opposition has no confidence in this Government! It is quite true: the Opposition has no confidence in this Government. But what is also true, is that the electorate of South Africa does have full confidence in this Government and they have proved that in one election after another.

Ask the Prime Minister about the meeting he had at Margate when he came down to wish me good-bye. But I am back.

The hon. member for South Coast now wants to boast about the meeting addressed by the Prime Minister in Margate. But he must please remember one thing, namely that the Prime Minister had an audience of more than 400 in the hon. member’s stronghold, in Margate, and the hon. member for South Coast could only succeed in drawing a meagre 60 persons to his meeting.

But they nevertheless all voted for him.

Yes, perhaps they did vote for him because they felt sorry for that old horse.

The hon. member for Wynberg also said that this Government had very few answers to the problems of this country. I readily want to accept that this Government has quite a number of problems which have not been solved. Those, however, should be seen as against the whole. Let us just compare South Africa’s problems with the problems of other countries in the world. I do not want to speak about the countries in Africa because there is simply no comparison. But let us examine the problems of various countries in the West, in Europe. Britain’s problems are surely much greater than those of South Africa. They have no stability in that country. They are now begging in an attempt to become a member of the European Common Market and Britain is approaching De Gaulle hat in hand with the request that he should please not veto its application. However, there are other countries in Europe which are equally unstable. I am thinking about countries where there is a constant change of government, countries such as Greece, Holland, Italy. I am thinking about countries such as Germany where there is also instability and where it was necessary to form a strong government by means of a coalition of two opposing parties. But there is also a measure of instability even in the mighty U.S.A. There they at present have problems which South Africa fortunately does not have. They have much worse racial problems in the U.S.A, than we have ever had in South Africa. They have had worse racial riots in the U.S.A, than we have had in the case of Sharpeville.

We also have problems. But they are problems of prosperity. I accept that it is not easy to solve those problems. However, we are making progress in our attempts to solve them. In any case, Sir, I prefer problems of prosperity to problems of stagnation. Those are problems which the United Party predicted from one election to another, namely that South Africa will stagnate, South Africa will go bankrupt, people will leave South Africa to such an extent that ships will be unable to cope, the banks will close down. Those are the predictions of the United Party. Those predictions never came true. Now we have problems of productivity, of over—prosperity and again they are criticizing. It is surely very easy to criticize all the time no matter what happens. It is always possible to find things to criticize. However, the one thing which is difficult to do is to have a positive policy and to adhere to it. This Government has a positive policy and adheres to it. It is making progress. As a matter of fact, since the thirties the National Party has never retrogressed. It became stronger with every election whereas the United Party became smaller with every election and that in spite of their motto of “Together we grow”. They should really have said, “Together we grow smaller, and smaller and smaller”.

The United Party may come along with criticism of this, that and the other thing. It is easy to find odd points which can be criticized, but they will never make any impression on the electorate unless they come along with a positive policy to which they adhere and say, “This is my policy and I shall not change it”. However, at the moment their approach is “This is my policy, but if you do not like it I shall change it before the next election”. And that is exactly what they have been doing. Now they are struggling to find a positive policy in respect of the Coloureds. On the one hand it is said that their positive policy in respect of the Coloureds is to place them back on the Common Voters’ Roll. However, there is another faction in the United Party who is strongly in favour of retaining the Coloureds on a separate Voters’ Roll and to have the Coloureds represented in this House.

The United Party is struggling to adopt a clear standpoint in that respect. They are struggling over every contentious standpoint there is as regards policy which will ever be of any value to the United Party.

No wonder your voters bring all their problems to me.

It is not at all necessary for the hon. member for Durban (Point) to boast. During the by-election in Umhlatuzana he came up against me in direct opposition and there his party suffered a resounding defeat.

The hon. member for Houghton, like the hon. members for Hillbrow and Parktown, said that there could only be greater productivity where there was full absorbtion of the non—Whites in the economic community of South Africa. However, one thing is also very certain, namely that productivity and progress go hand-in-hand with a stable, strong and progressive government. There can never be stability in this country as long as there is uncertainty and tension and as long as no decision can be taken about which policy should be implemented in connection with the workers. If the U.P.’s approach should ever be implemented, namely that the non—Whites should be absorbed in a common, integrated economic stream of South Africa, I predict that we here in South Africa shall have unrest which will overshadow the unrest of 1922 in the mines on the Rand, because that would result in greater uncertainty and tension. Those are precisely the problems which at present exist in countries in the north of Africa. That is the reason why Whites in the copper mines of Zambia want to leave and no longer wish to work there. That is the reason why there is tension in the copper mines of the Congo. We simply cannot allow such a policy to take root at all in South Africa. I am aware of the fact that certain persons, speakers of the United Party, people speaking on behalf of the United Party, as well as speakers of the Progressive Party, people speaking on behalf of the Progressive Party, all feel that it may be in their favour if they want to effect economic integration.

However, we cannot allow the entire basis of South Africa’s political future to be undermined. Our entire existence is dependent on whether we move positively in the direction of separate development, of separate freedoms. Even if we have not at this stage reached the ultimate goal, we have definitely made considerable progress. We have laid the foundation of our policy and we are moving more and more in that direction, in the right direction. But, Mr. Speaker, the United Party does not want to choose any direction. It simply proceeds, without direction and without a policy. On those grounds it is never going to make any progress. But because we on this side do have a definite, clear-cut policy and are moving in that direction, the electorate of South Africa has full confidence in the Government and in the Cabinet of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I did not really think that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana made any contribution to this debate. In the first place the hon. member deliberately misheard what the hon. member for Karoo said, or, quite possibly, misrepresented what the hon. member for Karoo said.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that the hon. member deliberately misheard him.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw those words. What I then say is that the hon. member misheard hopelessly because, Sir, he said that the hon. member for Karoo had allegedly stated that what we wanted was that the Government should abandon entirely its policy of separate development. What the hon. member for Karoo said was that too much emphasis was being placed on separateness and too little emphasis on the development aspect of their policy.

He said, “Abandon the policy of separate development”.

He mentioned the example of a Coloured community and a Bantu community next to each other. But who are the people who have the liquor licences? Neither the Coloureds nor the Bantu, but the White people, the White owner of an hotel auite a few miles away. In other words the Government speaks about separate development but when the Coloureds and the Bantu ask for an opportunity to be of service to their own people then that opportunity is not granted to them. That was the argument of the hon. member for Karoo. In other words, the hon. member was either not listening well or he wanted to give this interpretation to those words of the hon. member.

He said, “Abandon the policy of separate development”.

Precisely. He thereupon said that the Government could just as well abandon its policy because instead of discussing and applying apartheid they were moving in another direction altogether.

The hon. member also said that this was now the first opportunity they had had of giving attention to the positive aspect, particularly in respect of the economic development of the Coloureds. But the hon. member forgets that Coloured areas in South Africa, such as Korsten in Port Elizabeth. Athlone and Bokmakierie here in Cape Town, as well as other well—known Coloured communities in Coloured areas had been in existence for the past 18 years, and even longer. Why is it only now that it is essential, for the Government to give attention to the economic development of those areas?

The hon. member pecked here and there. Inter alia he said that 90 per cent of the supporters of the United Party did not positively support—as he put it—the policy of the United Party. But what about the supporters of his party? If they have the support for their policy of separate freedoms why are they not putting it into practice? If they have 100 per cent support from their people in respect of their policy, which they say receives approval at every election, then they should carry into effect. The Government should then have the courage of its convictions to do so.

Mr. Speaker, because it is my intention to steer the debate in a direction where great incompetence and inefficiency is being revealed, namely in the field of agriculture, and because I want to deal with this aspect to-morrow I am now moving the adjournment of the debate.